Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know which of the two Odessa Shannon or Eastern uses? Thanks in advance.

Illustrative Math is the curriculum for all the middle schools, from Math 6 to Algebra 1.

Does anyone know which of the two Odessa Shannon or Eastern uses? Thanks in advance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the title says....

Because it's a garbage curriculum.

Actually Eureka math is highly regarded all across the country so...you're probably just one of the angry parents who hates it because it wasn't how you learned.

DP. I like the curriculum for students on or above grade level. For struggling students, it is not an effective program for catching kids up and getting them to grade level. It moves way too fast with not enough time for practice. For the school I work at where 85% of students score below the 20th percentile on MAP, it is a disaster. So it is not the curriculum that I dislike, but it has to match the kids which it does not in a lot of county schools. MAP scores are actually decreasing due to having less time with the basics.

I don't know much about Illustrative Math but I hope it is a better fit for the kids I am sending to middle school next year!

Are you just talking about middle school? ES math seems to move so slow already, I don’t know how you could slow it down any further. It’s already so repetitive for weeks/months on end.

That’s your opinion and possibly true for your child. For my students, it’s way too rigorous. There’s not enough time for the basics. When the great majority of 5th graders don’t conceptually understand 8/2, simplifying fractions, division, decimal division etc… are way above their head. Then throw in denominators/ divisors of 83, 54, 79 and the like and watch the tears flow.

Perhaps this means MCPS should be doing tracking? Clearly the pacing is too slow for some but too fast for others. It seems like the pacing is in part designed to enable students to take advanced classes in high school, but not everyone is going to be doing that.

The slowest "on-grade-level" pace targets Alg 1 in 9th, Geometry in 10th, and 2-year Algebra 2 in 11th+12th. These aren't so advanced, but they are minimum of "college-prep", which is too much for ~half of students, and perhaps non-STEM majors also.

One can argue that these courses get into the useless weeds (who really needs to solve a quadratic equation if they aren't doing STEM in college?), so that instead of letting students "fail upward" through these classes, they could get a more applied/concrete math track with more real-world versions of these classes, perhaps Quantitative Literacy and Financial Mathematics (which exist but are limited-access), and something more real-world than the current version of Geometry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the title says....

Because it's a garbage curriculum.

Actually Eureka math is highly regarded all across the country so...you're probably just one of the angry parents who hates it because it wasn't how you learned.

DP. I like the curriculum for students on or above grade level. For struggling students, it is not an effective program for catching kids up and getting them to grade level. It moves way too fast with not enough time for practice. For the school I work at where 85% of students score below the 20th percentile on MAP, it is a disaster. So it is not the curriculum that I dislike, but it has to match the kids which it does not in a lot of county schools. MAP scores are actually decreasing due to having less time with the basics.

I don't know much about Illustrative Math but I hope it is a better fit for the kids I am sending to middle school next year!

Are you just talking about middle school? ES math seems to move so slow already, I don’t know how you could slow it down any further. It’s already so repetitive for weeks/months on end.

That’s your opinion and possibly true for your child. For my students, it’s way too rigorous. There’s not enough time for the basics. When the great majority of 5th graders don’t conceptually understand 8/2, simplifying fractions, division, decimal division etc… are way above their head.

Common Core Grade Level standard for Grade 3 includes:

> Represent and solve problems involving multiplication and division.

Common Core Grade Level standard for Grade 5 includes:

> Perform operations with multi-digit whole numbers and with
decimals to hundredths.
> Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add and subtract fractions.
>Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and
division to multiply and divide fractions.

https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Math_Standards1.pdf


Students in 5th grade who don't understand "8/2" need intensive support (extra review / tutoring) to catch up, or some sort of alternate accommodation. If it's the "great majority of 5th graders", there has been a systemic failure (maybe Covid / Virtual "Learning".

That's not a problem with the curriculum, that's students who are not ready to learn, due so personal, family, or social reasons.

Just as we have compacted Math 5/6 for students who go faster, some students might need extended math spread out over more years, if their "ready to learn" blockers cannot be resolved.

Anonymous wrote: Then throw in denominators/ divisors of 83, 54, 79 and the like and watch the tears flow.

This is not in the 5th grade curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the title says....

Because it's a garbage curriculum.

Actually Eureka math is highly regarded all across the country so...you're probably just one of the angry parents who hates it because it wasn't how you learned.

DP. I like the curriculum for students on or above grade level. For struggling students, it is not an effective program for catching kids up and getting them to grade level. It moves way too fast with not enough time for practice. For the school I work at where 85% of students score below the 20th percentile on MAP, it is a disaster. So it is not the curriculum that I dislike, but it has to match the kids which it does not in a lot of county schools. MAP scores are actually decreasing due to having less time with the basics.

I don't know much about Illustrative Math but I hope it is a better fit for the kids I am sending to middle school next year!

Are you just talking about middle school? ES math seems to move so slow already, I don’t know how you could slow it down any further. It’s already so repetitive for weeks/months on end.

That’s your opinion and possibly true for your child. For my students, it’s way too rigorous. There’s not enough time for the basics. When the great majority of 5th graders don’t conceptually understand 8/2, simplifying fractions, division, decimal division etc… are way above their head. Then throw in denominators/ divisors of 83, 54, 79 and the like and watch the tears flow.

Perhaps this means MCPS should be doing tracking? Clearly the pacing is too slow for some but too fast for others. It seems like the pacing is in part designed to enable students to take advanced classes in high school, but not everyone is going to be doing that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the title says....

Because it's a garbage curriculum.

Actually Eureka math is highly regarded all across the country so...you're probably just one of the angry parents who hates it because it wasn't how you learned.

DP. I like the curriculum for students on or above grade level. For struggling students, it is not an effective program for catching kids up and getting them to grade level. It moves way too fast with not enough time for practice. For the school I work at where 85% of students score below the 20th percentile on MAP, it is a disaster. So it is not the curriculum that I dislike, but it has to match the kids which it does not in a lot of county schools. MAP scores are actually decreasing due to having less time with the basics.

I don't know much about Illustrative Math but I hope it is a better fit for the kids I am sending to middle school next year!

Are you just talking about middle school? ES math seems to move so slow already, I don’t know how you could slow it down any further. It’s already so repetitive for weeks/months on end.

That’s your opinion and possibly true for your child. For my students, it’s way too rigorous. There’s not enough time for the basics. When the great majority of 5th graders don’t conceptually understand 8/2, simplifying fractions, division, decimal division etc… are way above their head. Then throw in denominators/ divisors of 83, 54, 79 and the like and watch the tears flow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the title says....

Because it's a garbage curriculum.

Actually Eureka math is highly regarded all across the country so...you're probably just one of the angry parents who hates it because it wasn't how you learned.

DP. I like the curriculum for students on or above grade level. For struggling students, it is not an effective program for catching kids up and getting them to grade level. It moves way too fast with not enough time for practice. For the school I work at where 85% of students score below the 20th percentile on MAP, it is a disaster. So it is not the curriculum that I dislike, but it has to match the kids which it does not in a lot of county schools. MAP scores are actually decreasing due to having less time with the basics.

I don't know much about Illustrative Math but I hope it is a better fit for the kids I am sending to middle school next year!

Are you just talking about middle school? ES math seems to move so slow already, I don’t know how you could slow it down any further. It’s already so repetitive for weeks/months on end.

Seems like MCPS just switches every year or two to create more confusion.

It's funny in the slide deck, IM for middle is called "top rated", but Eureka for ES says "strong rating".

Illustrative Math didn’t release a K-5 version until after MCPS switched the curriculum, which explains why Eureka was selected for ES. Perhaps when Eureka is up for reevaluation they will decide switch to Illustrative mathematics for a more consistent experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's good to switch because if kids can't handle a minor change between two nearly identical curricula, it shows that they are missing something deeper that needs to be addressed.

How identical? Until the higher level courses, math tends to circle around and around, revisiting concepts and building year after year in a structured way. When one curriculum follows pathway A->B->C->D and the other goes 1->2->3->4, sometimes A->B->3->4 causes problems if 3=/=C. And all the other permutations.

They are both Common Core aligned.

Math isn't that fragile. The cycling/spiraling works because everything makes more sense in context of everything else. It's harder the first time you see a concept, and easier the 2nd time.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's good to switch because if kids can't handle a minor change between two nearly identical curricula, it shows that they are missing something deeper that needs to be addressed.

How identical? Until the higher level courses, math tends to circle around and around, revisiting concepts and building year after year in a structured way. When one curriculum follows pathway A->B->C->D and the other goes 1->2->3->4, sometimes A->B->3->4 causes problems if 3=/=C. And all the other permutations.

I think it's good to switch because if kids can't handle a minor change between two nearly identical curricula, it shows that they are missing something deeper that needs to be addressed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's there meaningful difference between Illustrative and Eureka?

HUGE difference. I’ve taught both and they are night and day.

Can you say more? What is the difference, and which one do you prefer?

I think that was a junk comment.

I do think it would be better for them to choose one and use it all the way through. Not clear to me why they would use two different curricula.

Here's what MCPS presented:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/integrated/BOE%20Presentation%20New%20Curricula_01%2004%2019_updated.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's there meaningful difference between Illustrative and Eureka?

HUGE difference. I’ve taught both and they are night and day.

Can you say more? What is the difference, and which one do you prefer?

I think that was a junk comment.

I do think it would be better for them to choose one and use it all the way through. Not clear to me why they would use two different curricula.