Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus w/Trig or Stats
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or Trigonometry
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus or PreCal w/ Trig
11th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

—————-

7th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
8th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
9th: PreCalculus or PreCalculus w/Trig
10th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or MVC
12: Advance Stats or Data Analysis or DE math

Now I’m personally for a 3yr integrated math, but if that’s not allowed the above still makes sure kids of all stripes get a good foundation and have on ramps/off ramps

They are not going to have kids go straight from Integrated Math 2 to precalc. Students already struggle with that with the traditional three-year sequence. They will need to create a new course to prepare kids for precalc.

Kids are struggling because they are not getting good foundation. Not to mention that somewhere along the way we combined Alg2 with Trig when they use to be separate classes.

Pre-Cal is basically in-depth Alg2 with some Trig and some prep for Calculus. Most of Geometry isn't actually need to successfully learn Alg1 or Alg2. Instead you can apply Alg1/Alg2 in Geometry, and then apply all in Trig.

They need to stop trying to short-change the needed Algebra time and incorporate the Trig into Pre-Cal (at the beginning or integrated) or as a separate class.

Well, they are certainly not going to add more to precalc when students are already struggling. So they will have to put anything else before that class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus w/Trig or Stats
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or Trigonometry
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus or PreCal w/ Trig
11th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

—————-

7th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
8th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
9th: PreCalculus or PreCalculus w/Trig
10th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or MVC
12: Advance Stats or Data Analysis or DE math

Now I’m personally for a 3yr integrated math, but if that’s not allowed the above still makes sure kids of all stripes get a good foundation and have on ramps/off ramps

They are not going to have kids go straight from Integrated Math 2 to precalc. Students already struggle with that with the traditional three-year sequence. They will need to create a new course to prepare kids for precalc.

Kids are struggling because they are not getting good foundation. Not to mention that somewhere along the way we combined Alg2 with Trig when they use to be separate classes.

Pre-Cal is basically in-depth Alg2 with some Trig and some prep for Calculus. Most of Geometry isn't actually need to successfully learn Alg1 or Alg2. Instead you can apply Alg1/Alg2 in Geometry, and then apply all in Trig.

They need to stop trying to short-change the needed Algebra time and incorporate the Trig into Pre-Cal (at the beginning or integrated) or as a separate class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus w/Trig or Stats
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or Trigonometry
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus or PreCal w/ Trig
11th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

—————-

7th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
8th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
9th: PreCalculus or PreCalculus w/Trig
10th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or MVC
12: Advance Stats or Data Analysis or DE math

Now I’m personally for a 3yr integrated math, but if that’s not allowed the above still makes sure kids of all stripes get a good foundation and have on ramps/off ramps

They are not going to have kids go straight from Integrated Math 2 to precalc. Students already struggle with that with the traditional three-year sequence. They will need to create a new course to prepare kids for precalc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus w/Trig or Stats
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or Trigonometry
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus or PreCal w/ Trig
11th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

—————-

7th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
8th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
9th: PreCalculus or PreCalculus w/Trig
10th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or MVC
12: Advance Stats or Data Analysis or DE math

Now I’m personally for a 3yr integrated math, but if that’s not allowed the above still makes sure kids of all stripes get a good foundation and have on ramps/off ramps

This doesn’t sound like a good plan to combine three years of math into two.

Anonymous wrote:8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus w/Trig or Stats
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or Trigonometry
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus or PreCal w/ Trig
11th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

—————-

7th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
8th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
9th: PreCalculus or PreCalculus w/Trig
10th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or MVC
12: Advance Stats or Data Analysis or DE math

Now I’m personally for a 3yr integrated math, but if that’s not allowed the above still makes sure kids of all stripes get a good foundation and have on ramps/off ramps

Anonymous wrote:8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus w/Trig or Stats
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or Trigonometry
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

8th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
9th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
10th: PreCalculus or PreCal w/ Trig
11th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
12: MVC or Calculus or AP Stats

—————-

7th: Integrated Math 1 (MSDE-required)
8th: Integrated Math 2 (MSDE-required)
9th: PreCalculus or PreCalculus w/Trig
10th: Trig or AP Stats or Calculus
11th: Calculus or AP Stats or MVC
12: Advance Stats or Data Analysis or DE math

Now I’m personally for a 3yr integrated math, but if that’s not allowed the above still makes sure kids of all stripes get a good foundation and have on ramps/off ramps

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

This is why the outcome of the Program Analysis needs to include MVC as a standard offering. Acceleration by 2 years heading into Algebra is and has been available across the county. Even before any shift to a 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence, a STEM-oriented "Calc path" at all high schools should be available as:

7th Algebra 1 (in MS)
8th Geometry (in MS)
9th Algebra 2
10th PreCalculus
11th AP Calculus BC
12th Multivariable Calculus

It doesn't meet need to force, unnecessarily, AB before BC for those capable when the latter encompasses the former or to fail to offer MVC immediately after BC to ensure conceptual/learning continuity (e.g., suggesting a student take Stats, instead). Some high schools clearly understand this and offer MVC. It isn't equitable if some do and others don't.

Of course, if they guarantee admission to the regional STEM magnet for any on that path in 7th/8th who might want it, they can reserve the teaching of MVC just to those magnets.

Well, they're going to have to figure something out because the state is requiring that all proficient math students be offered Algebra 1 no later than 8th grade, and since it will be a 2 year sequence they will finish that in 9th grade. So 3 years of post-IA math classes will be the standard for a large fraction of kids.

Isn’t that what the Data Analytics, Statistics, etc piece is about? That seems like there will be business/CS classes that will be allowed for math credit. I’ve always thought they should allowed Econ to count as either a Math or SS course.

Econ is not allowed for graduation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

This is why the outcome of the Program Analysis needs to include MVC as a standard offering. Acceleration by 2 years heading into Algebra is and has been available across the county. Even before any shift to a 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence, a STEM-oriented "Calc path" at all high schools should be available as:

7th Algebra 1 (in MS)
8th Geometry (in MS)
9th Algebra 2
10th PreCalculus
11th AP Calculus BC
12th Multivariable Calculus

It doesn't meet need to force, unnecessarily, AB before BC for those capable when the latter encompasses the former or to fail to offer MVC immediately after BC to ensure conceptual/learning continuity (e.g., suggesting a student take Stats, instead). Some high schools clearly understand this and offer MVC. It isn't equitable if some do and others don't.

Of course, if they guarantee admission to the regional STEM magnet for any on that path in 7th/8th who might want it, they can reserve the teaching of MVC just to those magnets.

Well, they're going to have to figure something out because the state is requiring that all proficient math students be offered Algebra 1 no later than 8th grade, and since it will be a 2 year sequence they will finish that in 9th grade. So 3 years of post-IA math classes will be the standard for a large fraction of kids.

Where did the state say that kids need to be in A1 by 8th?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

This is why the outcome of the Program Analysis needs to include MVC as a standard offering. Acceleration by 2 years heading into Algebra is and has been available across the county. Even before any shift to a 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence, a STEM-oriented "Calc path" at all high schools should be available as:

7th Algebra 1 (in MS)
8th Geometry (in MS)
9th Algebra 2
10th PreCalculus
11th AP Calculus BC
12th Multivariable Calculus

It doesn't meet need to force, unnecessarily, AB before BC for those capable when the latter encompasses the former or to fail to offer MVC immediately after BC to ensure conceptual/learning continuity (e.g., suggesting a student take Stats, instead). Some high schools clearly understand this and offer MVC. It isn't equitable if some do and others don't.

Of course, if they guarantee admission to the regional STEM magnet for any on that path in 7th/8th who might want it, they can reserve the teaching of MVC just to those magnets.

Well, they're going to have to figure something out because the state is requiring that all proficient math students be offered Algebra 1 no later than 8th grade, and since it will be a 2 year sequence they will finish that in 9th grade. So 3 years of post-IA math classes will be the standard for a large fraction of kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They should not write own curricula..so help us all. New name same old problems will continue

Improve math instruction. Each math class should have an assistant who can help 1:1 or small group. Families should not be expected to get a tutor.

Pre Alg
Alg 1
Math 2
Math 3
Pre-calc if going that route, Stats or other if not
Precalc 2, Stats 2
Calc 1
Advanced 2
Advanced 3

Math 2? Math 3? All of Maryland is going to be required to take the 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence.

Precalc 2? Stats 2? For what purpose?

Which "Calc 1"?

At what grade are you suggesting this sequence begin? Going all the way back from "Advanced 3" in 12th, it looks like you have PreAlgebra in 4th.

With 160k students each taking a Math class, there would be a need for something in excess of a thousand roving assistants. At $50k each, that'd be $50M. How much would cohorting cost, instead?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

This is why the outcome of the Program Analysis needs to include MVC as a standard offering. Acceleration by 2 years heading into Algebra is and has been available across the county. Even before any shift to a 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence, a STEM-oriented "Calc path" at all high schools should be available as:

7th Algebra 1 (in MS)
8th Geometry (in MS)
9th Algebra 2
10th PreCalculus
11th AP Calculus BC
12th Multivariable Calculus

It doesn't meet need to force, unnecessarily, AB before BC for those capable when the latter encompasses the former or to fail to offer MVC immediately after BC to ensure conceptual/learning continuity (e.g., suggesting a student take Stats, instead). Some high schools clearly understand this and offer MVC. It isn't equitable if some do and others don't.

Of course, if they guarantee admission to the regional STEM magnet for any on that path in 7th/8th who might want it, they can reserve the teaching of MVC just to those magnets.

Well, they're going to have to figure something out because the state is requiring that all proficient math students be offered Algebra 1 no later than 8th grade, and since it will be a 2 year sequence they will finish that in 9th grade. So 3 years of post-IA math classes will be the standard for a large fraction of kids.

Isn’t that what the Data Analytics, Statistics, etc piece is about? That seems like there will be business/CS classes that will be allowed for math credit. I’ve always thought they should allowed Econ to count as either a Math or SS course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

This is why the outcome of the Program Analysis needs to include MVC as a standard offering. Acceleration by 2 years heading into Algebra is and has been available across the county. Even before any shift to a 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence, a STEM-oriented "Calc path" at all high schools should be available as:

7th Algebra 1 (in MS)
8th Geometry (in MS)
9th Algebra 2
10th PreCalculus
11th AP Calculus BC
12th Multivariable Calculus

It doesn't meet need to force, unnecessarily, AB before BC for those capable when the latter encompasses the former or to fail to offer MVC immediately after BC to ensure conceptual/learning continuity (e.g., suggesting a student take Stats, instead). Some high schools clearly understand this and offer MVC. It isn't equitable if some do and others don't.

Of course, if they guarantee admission to the regional STEM magnet for any on that path in 7th/8th who might want it, they can reserve the teaching of MVC just to those magnets.

Well, they're going to have to figure something out because the state is requiring that all proficient math students be offered Algebra 1 no later than 8th grade, and since it will be a 2 year sequence they will finish that in 9th grade. So 3 years of post-IA math classes will be the standard for a large fraction of kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They should not write own curricula..so help us all. New name same old problems will continue

Improve math instruction. Each math class should have an assistant who can help 1:1 or small group. Families should not be expected to get a tutor.

Pre Alg
Alg 1
Math 2
Math 3
Pre-calc if going that route, Stats or other if not
Precalc 2, Stats 2
Calc 1
Advanced 2
Advanced 3