Reply to Middle school math pathways changing?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Middle school math pathways changing?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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" )[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/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