Anonymous
05/09/2026 23:04
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So admittedly I am far removed from my own high school experience and my kids are still in ES, but the MS/HS math pathways surprised me a bit- do kids no longer take geometry and trig?
Pre-calc in 9th also seems a bit crazy to me (again this is coming from someone who graduated in the 90s where "accelerated" meant pre-calc in 11th and AP Calc in 12th). But I don't understand what some of these students are meant to take in 12th if they've already had two years of calculus by then.
When I went to a W school in the 90s, the accelerated path was 11th graders took Calculus AB then took BC in 12th grader. When I glanced at the slides yesterday, it looks like that path is still there.
Anything above that, students went to Montgomery College for the math courses back then.
MC has a lot of rules for doing advanced classes and told me no for my child. They wanted her to start back to Calc 1, saying that the Calc in MCPS may not be good enough. No way. They were really nasty about it.
There is a Math placement test, so perhaps your child did not perform well on that exam???
No there isn’t. I asked.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 23:02
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In 5 years they are going cite the absolute failure of 10th grade Calc AB after skipping honors geometry and algebra content, and then cancel the whole thing.
What exactly is "honors geometry" and "algebra" content? You mean Honors Algebra 2? I don't think there's any differentiation before then. Just trying to understand (I'm pro-tracking and my kids actually tended to complain that the compacted track was still too easy - would prefer enrichment to acceleration, but that doesn't exist before Honors Algebra 2.)
Integrated Math 1 and 2 is a stripped down version of Alg 1, Alg 2 and Geometry, removing content to save time (3 year -> 2 year) , not accelerating
That's the knock supposedly against compacted math, that it skips over material, but that's literally what they're changing to later on. And I would argue skipping/rushing over algebra and geometry is more detrimental than going through elementary math quickly.
The state-mandated move from Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 to Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 is very different from the compacting that makes up Math 4/5 & 5/6, AMP6+ & 7+ and PreAlgebra. Those accelerated classes don't really skip concepts of the grade-level classes they accelerate. In contrast, IA is not meant to cover all the concepts that A1/Geo/A2 cover -- it cuts out a lot, like Trig, and this is why it can be delivered in two years without putting kids on a particularly accelerated pace.
The idea MSDE has with IA is that some of the current HS Math (like that Trig) is unnecessary to the (state-defined/industry-desired) career needs of many students. Of course, that presumption may not be true, but there we have it. Only one of the four delineated post-Integrated Algebra pathways envisions needing the content that would lead to Calc, and MCPS is assuming it can fit all of that into an already-difficult PreCalc, since they are not planning to introduce a bridge course on the Calc pathway.
Of course, the spectre of an even-more-daunting path to Calc will tend to dissuade some of those who currently expect to access Calc on their way to college. Or it might see more students, after struggling with that, willing to take Calc AB first instead of going directly to Calc BC. From MCPS's perspective, that might be a good thing
It is so telling of their interests that, whether presenting the regions/programs/"advanced classes at all schools" model over the past year or presenting the HS pathways with this new approach to elementary acceleration/enrichment, they maintain an unwillingness to specify the courses they would need to ensure are available (for all, not just at more fortunate schools) after AP Calc BC. Except AP Stats, of course
Anonymous
05/09/2026 22:21
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous
05/09/2026 21:15
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Does compacted math 4/5 and 5/6 actually skip content? I thought it included it all but faster?
CM covers the content by merging some elements that are covered in each grade's standard curriculum (the spiral nature of elementary curriculum, especially, sees the same concepts touched on again and again, but in greater depth/with more complexity) and by rearranging the elements of the three years in a way that facilitates both those merges and a faster pace. Concepts aren't really skipped, though more repetitive content may be.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 20:44
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
If it makes you feel better, MCPS isn't proposing forcing AB before BC. They just don't know what AB and BC are so they slapped something down on the page with wrong class names.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 16:40
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:A lot of folks don't seem to understand the difference between AP Calc AB and AP Calc BC. There isn't just overlap of the "B" portion -- the naming convention is to blame for that misunderstanding. From the College Board, which runs the AP program:
"How AP Calculus AB and AP Calculus BC are similar
The two courses cover content and skills that are introduced in a first-semester calculus course at the college level. All topics in the eight units of AP Calculus AB are included in AP Calculus BC.
These are the topics taught in both courses:
Limits and continuity (Unit 1)
Differentiation: Definition and fundamental properties (Unit 2)
Differentiation: Composite, implicit, and inverse functions (Unit 3)
Contextual applications of differentiation (Unit 4)
Analytical applications of differentiation (Unit 5)
Integration and accumulation of change (Unit 6)
Differential equations (Unit 7)
Applications of integration (Unit 8)
Because both courses and exams cover many of the same topics, the prerequisites needed for both courses and exams are comparable. Recommended mathematics courses to take before either AP Calculus AB or AP Calculus BC include those in which you study algebra, geometry, trigonometry, analytic geometry, and elementary functions.
How AP Calculus AB and AP Calculus BC are different
AP Calculus AB focuses on topics that are taught in the college-equivalent first-semester calculus class. AP Calculus BC focuses on topics covered in both first- and second-semester calculus classes.
All topics in the eight units of AP Calculus AB are also included in AP Calculus BC. However, AP Calculus BC contains two additional units (Units 9 and 10), plus some extra topics in Units 6─8.
These topics are only taught in AP Calculus BC:
Additional techniques of integration (Unit 6)
Euler's method and logistic models with differential equations (Unit 7)
Arc length and distance traveled along a smooth curve (Unit 8)
Parametric equations, polar coordinates, and vector-valued functions (Unit 9)
Infinite sequences and series (Unit 10)"
No MCPS school should not be telling students successfully having completed the PreCalc prerequisite that they need to take Calc AB (as a Junior or prior) before Calc BC. They might suggest to students that they might take that path if they wanted to take it easy (i.e., of their own volition). Or Calc AB followed by AP Stats if they were more interested in Statistics and had no plan to pursue the second semester college Calc content within Calc BC.
For similar reasons, they could suggest Calc AB alone for a rising Senior. Or AP Stats alone for the same.
But they absolutely, positively should not be holding Math-interested students back by encouraging (much less requiring) Calc AB before Calc BC -- that is totally unnecessary and artificially limiting.
It does not suprise me at all that MCPS put this in the slides. The AP/IB coordinator does not know the difference between AB and BC, and she doesn't understand that AP Precalculus is less challenging than Honors Precalclulus. This is the leadership we have in central office.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 15:20
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
A lot of folks don't seem to understand the difference between AP Calc AB and AP Calc BC. There isn't just overlap of the "B" portion -- the naming convention is to blame for that misunderstanding. From the College Board, which runs the AP program:
"How AP Calculus AB and AP Calculus BC are similar
The two courses cover content and skills that are introduced in a first-semester calculus course at the college level. All topics in the eight units of AP Calculus AB are included in AP Calculus BC.
These are the topics taught in both courses:
Limits and continuity (Unit 1)
Differentiation: Definition and fundamental properties (Unit 2)
Differentiation: Composite, implicit, and inverse functions (Unit 3)
Contextual applications of differentiation (Unit 4)
Analytical applications of differentiation (Unit 5)
Integration and accumulation of change (Unit 6)
Differential equations (Unit 7)
Applications of integration (Unit 8)
Because both courses and exams cover many of the same topics, the prerequisites needed for both courses and exams are comparable. Recommended mathematics courses to take before either AP Calculus AB or AP Calculus BC include those in which you study algebra, geometry, trigonometry, analytic geometry, and elementary functions.
How AP Calculus AB and AP Calculus BC are different
AP Calculus AB focuses on topics that are taught in the college-equivalent first-semester calculus class. AP Calculus BC focuses on topics covered in both first- and second-semester calculus classes.
All topics in the eight units of AP Calculus AB are also included in AP Calculus BC. However, AP Calculus BC contains two additional units (Units 9 and 10), plus some extra topics in Units 6─8.
These topics are only taught in AP Calculus BC:
Additional techniques of integration (Unit 6)
Euler's method and logistic models with differential equations (Unit 7)
Arc length and distance traveled along a smooth curve (Unit 8)
Parametric equations, polar coordinates, and vector-valued functions (Unit 9)
Infinite sequences and series (Unit 10)"
No MCPS school should not be telling students successfully having completed the PreCalc prerequisite that they need to take Calc AB (as a Junior or prior) before Calc BC. They might suggest to students that they might take that path if they wanted to take it easy (i.e., of their own volition). Or Calc AB followed by AP Stats if they were more interested in Statistics and had no plan to pursue the second semester college Calc content within Calc BC.
For similar reasons, they could suggest Calc AB alone for a rising Senior. Or AP Stats alone for the same.
But they absolutely, positively should not be holding Math-interested students back by encouraging (much less requiring) Calc AB before Calc BC -- that is totally unnecessary and artificially limiting.
"How AP Calculus AB and AP Calculus BC are similar
The two courses cover content and skills that are introduced in a first-semester calculus course at the college level. All topics in the eight units of AP Calculus AB are included in AP Calculus BC.
These are the topics taught in both courses:
Limits and continuity (Unit 1)
Differentiation: Definition and fundamental properties (Unit 2)
Differentiation: Composite, implicit, and inverse functions (Unit 3)
Contextual applications of differentiation (Unit 4)
Analytical applications of differentiation (Unit 5)
Integration and accumulation of change (Unit 6)
Differential equations (Unit 7)
Applications of integration (Unit 8)
Because both courses and exams cover many of the same topics, the prerequisites needed for both courses and exams are comparable. Recommended mathematics courses to take before either AP Calculus AB or AP Calculus BC include those in which you study algebra, geometry, trigonometry, analytic geometry, and elementary functions.
How AP Calculus AB and AP Calculus BC are different
AP Calculus AB focuses on topics that are taught in the college-equivalent first-semester calculus class. AP Calculus BC focuses on topics covered in both first- and second-semester calculus classes.
All topics in the eight units of AP Calculus AB are also included in AP Calculus BC. However, AP Calculus BC contains two additional units (Units 9 and 10), plus some extra topics in Units 6─8.
These topics are only taught in AP Calculus BC:
Additional techniques of integration (Unit 6)
Euler's method and logistic models with differential equations (Unit 7)
Arc length and distance traveled along a smooth curve (Unit 8)
Parametric equations, polar coordinates, and vector-valued functions (Unit 9)
Infinite sequences and series (Unit 10)"
No MCPS school should not be telling students successfully having completed the PreCalc prerequisite that they need to take Calc AB (as a Junior or prior) before Calc BC. They might suggest to students that they might take that path if they wanted to take it easy (i.e., of their own volition). Or Calc AB followed by AP Stats if they were more interested in Statistics and had no plan to pursue the second semester college Calc content within Calc BC.
For similar reasons, they could suggest Calc AB alone for a rising Senior. Or AP Stats alone for the same.
But they absolutely, positively should not be holding Math-interested students back by encouraging (much less requiring) Calc AB before Calc BC -- that is totally unnecessary and artificially limiting.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 14:54
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pp mentions that the REAL issue is that this model has kids doing Pre-Calculus in 9th grade, but then Calculus A/B and B/C in succession.What is wrong here? I am not familiar with the math progression here. I am a foreigner. The issue is too difficult or should not break caclcus in A to C, or miss the curriculum of geometry or statistics? Does that mean parents should supplement on their own like IXL, RSM, or AOPS outside of school in some years? I am from Asia, so I am confused what all these mean.
I'm that PP, and here's my issue with that progression.
Current system
Right now, your standard "bright" kid who took compacted math in 4th grade will end up in Honors Pre-Calculus in 10th grade. That's a real crucible year for a lot of kids, and it's not uncommon for kids to take the "off-ramp" in 10th and drop down to On-Level Pre-Calculus.
Whether they did Honors or On-Level, the kids who finished Pre-Calculus then choose between Calculus AB and Calculus BC. This is another "off-ramp" of sorts because kids who did okay in Honors Pre-Calculus but are not interested in STEM will often take Calculus AB their junior year. The kids who want a STEM career or for whom math comes a bit easier take BC immediately after Pre-Calculus.
It's pretty uncommon to take AB and then BC because it means repeating the entire B section. A kid who is good at math isn't going to want or need that repeated material.
Proposed new system
The proposed new system seems "off" in two ways.
First, Pre-Calculus is moved to 9th grade for the vast majority of kids. Now, we know that under the current system even kids who were "compacted" struggle mightily in Pre-Calculus, and MCPS wants to move it a year earlier AND put more kids into that class?
But then they screw it up a different way, by projecting those kids out to taking Calculus AB in 10th and BC in 11th.
That's a stupid progression and I suspect they know it. It forces "bright-but-not math-oriented" kids into Calculus a year earlier than the current progression, and it ALSO screws over kids ready for BC directly after Pre-Calculus.
What they are trying to cover up is that they don't have enough math available for kids to take in HS if they take Pre-Calculus in 9th. That's why I said parents need to keep their eye on the ball here. They are stretching Calculus into two years so that you don't notice that a math-oriented kid will run out of math classes in 11th grade.
Also no advanced math student needs to take calc AB and then BC. They should look at the SMCS pathways for very advanced learners.
I do agree with the current broken state of acceleration. Way too many kids pushed ahead and the wealthy ones propped up with tutors.
I'm this PP and I agree, BUT....MCPS did this to themselves.
I have a kid who probably should have been on the regular track, and has been "propped up" (successfully!) by tutors ever since Honors Pre-Calculus. However, we didn't really have a choice. At the time, MCPS put more than half of the kids in my child's (Title 1) school into compacted math. That meant that the on-level math progression was basically all kids who were far behind grade level for whatever reason. So they created a too-fast track and put every single English speaking middle class kid onto that track and then wished them luck moving forward.
agree, MCPS swings wildly one way, then wildly the other way.
They first put too many kids in CM. Now they want to take it away completely.
They took away SROs completely (even though all HS Principals asked them not to), then decided to bring in CEOs because, gosh darn it, who knew problem kids wouldn't stop their bad behavior, then now after several gun incidents, there's talk again of bringing back SROs.
They are constantly trying the best new thing on our kids and treating them like guinea pigs. I feel like it's a way to justify the existence of some central office staff.
DP.
They wouldn't be swinging one way and another as much if
1) the Maryland State Department of Education didn't keep handing down new requirements that they had to follow with about as much meaningful engagement with the local school systems needing to implement them (say, to ensure they don't purchase a curriculum for a multi-year-year period that will not meet a new MSDE requirement planned, but not made widely known, going into effect in year 2 of the purchase agreement) as MCPS tends to give to to the community when it makes its own decisions, and
2) the County not only met the funding needs as proposed, but offered amounts commensurate with ensuring adequate delivery of education to individuals across the entire system such that needs were met equivalently no matter where a student went to school (so that MCPS wasn't constantly trying to address the inequities resulting from current funding/dleivery paradigms with the "next thing"), and
3) MCPS decided to collaborate proactively with MSDE in the first instance and faithfully dedicated county funding to the ends described in the second.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 14:46
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pp mentions that the REAL issue is that this model has kids doing Pre-Calculus in 9th grade, but then Calculus A/B and B/C in succession.What is wrong here? I am not familiar with the math progression here. I am a foreigner. The issue is too difficult or should not break caclcus in A to C, or miss the curriculum of geometry or statistics? Does that mean parents should supplement on their own like IXL, RSM, or AOPS outside of school in some years? I am from Asia, so I am confused what all these mean.
I'm that PP, and here's my issue with that progression.
Current system
Right now, your standard "bright" kid who took compacted math in 4th grade will end up in Honors Pre-Calculus in 10th grade. That's a real crucible year for a lot of kids, and it's not uncommon for kids to take the "off-ramp" in 10th and drop down to On-Level Pre-Calculus.
Whether they did Honors or On-Level, the kids who finished Pre-Calculus then choose between Calculus AB and Calculus BC. This is another "off-ramp" of sorts because kids who did okay in Honors Pre-Calculus but are not interested in STEM will often take Calculus AB their junior year. The kids who want a STEM career or for whom math comes a bit easier take BC immediately after Pre-Calculus.
It's pretty uncommon to take AB and then BC because it means repeating the entire B section. A kid who is good at math isn't going to want or need that repeated material.
Proposed new system
The proposed new system seems "off" in two ways.
First, Pre-Calculus is moved to 9th grade for the vast majority of kids. Now, we know that under the current system even kids who were "compacted" struggle mightily in Pre-Calculus, and MCPS wants to move it a year earlier AND put more kids into that class?
But then they screw it up a different way, by projecting those kids out to taking Calculus AB in 10th and BC in 11th.
That's a stupid progression and I suspect they know it. It forces "bright-but-not math-oriented" kids into Calculus a year earlier than the current progression, and it ALSO screws over kids ready for BC directly after Pre-Calculus.
What they are trying to cover up is that they don't have enough math available for kids to take in HS if they take Pre-Calculus in 9th. That's why I said parents need to keep their eye on the ball here. They are stretching Calculus into two years so that you don't notice that a math-oriented kid will run out of math classes in 11th grade.
Also no advanced math student needs to take calc AB and then BC. They should look at the SMCS pathways for very advanced learners.
I do agree with the current broken state of acceleration. Way too many kids pushed ahead and the wealthy ones propped up with tutors.
I'm this PP and I agree, BUT....MCPS did this to themselves.
I have a kid who probably should have been on the regular track, and has been "propped up" (successfully!) by tutors ever since Honors Pre-Calculus. However, we didn't really have a choice. At the time, MCPS put more than half of the kids in my child's (Title 1) school into compacted math. That meant that the on-level math progression was basically all kids who were far behind grade level for whatever reason. So they created a too-fast track and put every single English speaking middle class kid onto that track and then wished them luck moving forward.
agree, MCPS swings wildly one way, then wildly the other way.
They first put too many kids in CM. Now they want to take it away completely.
They took away SROs completely (even though all HS Principals asked them not to), then decided to bring in CEOs because, gosh darn it, who knew problem kids wouldn't stop their bad behavior, then now after several gun incidents, there's talk again of bringing back SROs.
They are constantly trying the best new thing on our kids and treating them like guinea pigs. I feel like it's a way to justify the existence of some central office staff.
I actually think it's that none of them expect to be in the job long enough for their actions to have consequences, so they are looking for quick wins.
Where I grew up, teachers/administrators expected to be in their specific jobs for a decade+ which meant that they were held accountable if their experiments didn't work.
In MCPS, these folks come in and take a big swing. "Oh, I put 50% more kids on the path to Algebra by 8th grade."
Then they move to the next thing and by the time those kids crash out in 10th grade, they are long gone.
That is sociopathic
Anonymous
05/09/2026 14:37
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pp mentions that the REAL issue is that this model has kids doing Pre-Calculus in 9th grade, but then Calculus A/B and B/C in succession.What is wrong here? I am not familiar with the math progression here. I am a foreigner. The issue is too difficult or should not break caclcus in A to C, or miss the curriculum of geometry or statistics? Does that mean parents should supplement on their own like IXL, RSM, or AOPS outside of school in some years? I am from Asia, so I am confused what all these mean.
I'm that PP, and here's my issue with that progression.
Current system
Right now, your standard "bright" kid who took compacted math in 4th grade will end up in Honors Pre-Calculus in 10th grade. That's a real crucible year for a lot of kids, and it's not uncommon for kids to take the "off-ramp" in 10th and drop down to On-Level Pre-Calculus.
Whether they did Honors or On-Level, the kids who finished Pre-Calculus then choose between Calculus AB and Calculus BC. This is another "off-ramp" of sorts because kids who did okay in Honors Pre-Calculus but are not interested in STEM will often take Calculus AB their junior year. The kids who want a STEM career or for whom math comes a bit easier take BC immediately after Pre-Calculus.
It's pretty uncommon to take AB and then BC because it means repeating the entire B section. A kid who is good at math isn't going to want or need that repeated material.
Proposed new system
The proposed new system seems "off" in two ways.
First, Pre-Calculus is moved to 9th grade for the vast majority of kids. Now, we know that under the current system even kids who were "compacted" struggle mightily in Pre-Calculus, and MCPS wants to move it a year earlier AND put more kids into that class?
But then they screw it up a different way, by projecting those kids out to taking Calculus AB in 10th and BC in 11th.
That's a stupid progression and I suspect they know it. It forces "bright-but-not math-oriented" kids into Calculus a year earlier than the current progression, and it ALSO screws over kids ready for BC directly after Pre-Calculus.
What they are trying to cover up is that they don't have enough math available for kids to take in HS if they take Pre-Calculus in 9th. That's why I said parents need to keep their eye on the ball here. They are stretching Calculus into two years so that you don't notice that a math-oriented kid will run out of math classes in 11th grade.
Also no advanced math student needs to take calc AB and then BC. They should look at the SMCS pathways for very advanced learners.
I do agree with the current broken state of acceleration. Way too many kids pushed ahead and the wealthy ones propped up with tutors.
I'm this PP and I agree, BUT....MCPS did this to themselves.
I have a kid who probably should have been on the regular track, and has been "propped up" (successfully!) by tutors ever since Honors Pre-Calculus. However, we didn't really have a choice. At the time, MCPS put more than half of the kids in my child's (Title 1) school into compacted math. That meant that the on-level math progression was basically all kids who were far behind grade level for whatever reason. So they created a too-fast track and put every single English speaking middle class kid onto that track and then wished them luck moving forward.
agree, MCPS swings wildly one way, then wildly the other way.
They first put too many kids in CM. Now they want to take it away completely.
They took away SROs completely (even though all HS Principals asked them not to), then decided to bring in CEOs because, gosh darn it, who knew problem kids wouldn't stop their bad behavior, then now after several gun incidents, there's talk again of bringing back SROs.
They are constantly trying the best new thing on our kids and treating them like guinea pigs. I feel like it's a way to justify the existence of some central office staff.
I actually think it's that none of them expect to be in the job long enough for their actions to have consequences, so they are looking for quick wins.
Where I grew up, teachers/administrators expected to be in their specific jobs for a decade+ which meant that they were held accountable if their experiments didn't work.
In MCPS, these folks come in and take a big swing. "Oh, I put 50% more kids on the path to Algebra by 8th grade."
Then they move to the next thing and by the time those kids crash out in 10th grade, they are long gone.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 14:06
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pp mentions that the REAL issue is that this model has kids doing Pre-Calculus in 9th grade, but then Calculus A/B and B/C in succession.What is wrong here? I am not familiar with the math progression here. I am a foreigner. The issue is too difficult or should not break caclcus in A to C, or miss the curriculum of geometry or statistics? Does that mean parents should supplement on their own like IXL, RSM, or AOPS outside of school in some years? I am from Asia, so I am confused what all these mean.
I'm that PP, and here's my issue with that progression.
Current system
Right now, your standard "bright" kid who took compacted math in 4th grade will end up in Honors Pre-Calculus in 10th grade. That's a real crucible year for a lot of kids, and it's not uncommon for kids to take the "off-ramp" in 10th and drop down to On-Level Pre-Calculus.
Whether they did Honors or On-Level, the kids who finished Pre-Calculus then choose between Calculus AB and Calculus BC. This is another "off-ramp" of sorts because kids who did okay in Honors Pre-Calculus but are not interested in STEM will often take Calculus AB their junior year. The kids who want a STEM career or for whom math comes a bit easier take BC immediately after Pre-Calculus.
It's pretty uncommon to take AB and then BC because it means repeating the entire B section. A kid who is good at math isn't going to want or need that repeated material.
Proposed new system
The proposed new system seems "off" in two ways.
First, Pre-Calculus is moved to 9th grade for the vast majority of kids. Now, we know that under the current system even kids who were "compacted" struggle mightily in Pre-Calculus, and MCPS wants to move it a year earlier AND put more kids into that class?
But then they screw it up a different way, by projecting those kids out to taking Calculus AB in 10th and BC in 11th.
That's a stupid progression and I suspect they know it. It forces "bright-but-not math-oriented" kids into Calculus a year earlier than the current progression, and it ALSO screws over kids ready for BC directly after Pre-Calculus.
What they are trying to cover up is that they don't have enough math available for kids to take in HS if they take Pre-Calculus in 9th. That's why I said parents need to keep their eye on the ball here. They are stretching Calculus into two years so that you don't notice that a math-oriented kid will run out of math classes in 11th grade.
Also no advanced math student needs to take calc AB and then BC. They should look at the SMCS pathways for very advanced learners.
I do agree with the current broken state of acceleration. Way too many kids pushed ahead and the wealthy ones propped up with tutors.
I'm this PP and I agree, BUT....MCPS did this to themselves.
I have a kid who probably should have been on the regular track, and has been "propped up" (successfully!) by tutors ever since Honors Pre-Calculus. However, we didn't really have a choice. At the time, MCPS put more than half of the kids in my child's (Title 1) school into compacted math. That meant that the on-level math progression was basically all kids who were far behind grade level for whatever reason. So they created a too-fast track and put every single English speaking middle class kid onto that track and then wished them luck moving forward.
agree, MCPS swings wildly one way, then wildly the other way.
They first put too many kids in CM. Now they want to take it away completely.
They took away SROs completely (even though all HS Principals asked them not to), then decided to bring in CEOs because, gosh darn it, who knew problem kids wouldn't stop their bad behavior, then now after several gun incidents, there's talk again of bringing back SROs.
They are constantly trying the best new thing on our kids and treating them like guinea pigs. I feel like it's a way to justify the existence of some central office staff.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 14:00
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pp mentions that the REAL issue is that this model has kids doing Pre-Calculus in 9th grade, but then Calculus A/B and B/C in succession.What is wrong here? I am not familiar with the math progression here. I am a foreigner. The issue is too difficult or should not break caclcus in A to C, or miss the curriculum of geometry or statistics? Does that mean parents should supplement on their own like IXL, RSM, or AOPS outside of school in some years? I am from Asia, so I am confused what all these mean.
I'm that PP, and here's my issue with that progression.
Current system
Right now, your standard "bright" kid who took compacted math in 4th grade will end up in Honors Pre-Calculus in 10th grade. That's a real crucible year for a lot of kids, and it's not uncommon for kids to take the "off-ramp" in 10th and drop down to On-Level Pre-Calculus.
Whether they did Honors or On-Level, the kids who finished Pre-Calculus then choose between Calculus AB and Calculus BC. This is another "off-ramp" of sorts because kids who did okay in Honors Pre-Calculus but are not interested in STEM will often take Calculus AB their junior year. The kids who want a STEM career or for whom math comes a bit easier take BC immediately after Pre-Calculus.
It's pretty uncommon to take AB and then BC because it means repeating the entire B section. A kid who is good at math isn't going to want or need that repeated material.
Proposed new system
The proposed new system seems "off" in two ways.
First, Pre-Calculus is moved to 9th grade for the vast majority of kids. Now, we know that under the current system even kids who were "compacted" struggle mightily in Pre-Calculus, and MCPS wants to move it a year earlier AND put more kids into that class?
But then they screw it up a different way, by projecting those kids out to taking Calculus AB in 10th and BC in 11th.
That's a stupid progression and I suspect they know it. It forces "bright-but-not math-oriented" kids into Calculus a year earlier than the current progression, and it ALSO screws over kids ready for BC directly after Pre-Calculus.
What they are trying to cover up is that they don't have enough math available for kids to take in HS if they take Pre-Calculus in 9th. That's why I said parents need to keep their eye on the ball here. They are stretching Calculus into two years so that you don't notice that a math-oriented kid will run out of math classes in 11th grade.
Also no advanced math student needs to take calc AB and then BC. They should look at the SMCS pathways for very advanced learners.
I do agree with the current broken state of acceleration. Way too many kids pushed ahead and the wealthy ones propped up with tutors.
I'm this PP and I agree, BUT....MCPS did this to themselves.
I have a kid who probably should have been on the regular track, and has been "propped up" (successfully!) by tutors ever since Honors Pre-Calculus. However, we didn't really have a choice. At the time, MCPS put more than half of the kids in my child's (Title 1) school into compacted math. That meant that the on-level math progression was basically all kids who were far behind grade level for whatever reason. So they created a too-fast track and put every single English speaking middle class kid onto that track and then wished them luck moving forward.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 13:38
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So admittedly I am far removed from my own high school experience and my kids are still in ES, but the MS/HS math pathways surprised me a bit- do kids no longer take geometry and trig?
Pre-calc in 9th also seems a bit crazy to me (again this is coming from someone who graduated in the 90s where "accelerated" meant pre-calc in 11th and AP Calc in 12th). But I don't understand what some of these students are meant to take in 12th if they've already had two years of calculus by then.
When I went to a W school in the 90s, the accelerated path was 11th graders took Calculus AB then took BC in 12th grader. When I glanced at the slides yesterday, it looks like that path is still there.
Anything above that, students went to Montgomery College for the math courses back then.
MC has a lot of rules for doing advanced classes and told me no for my child. They wanted her to start back to Calc 1, saying that the Calc in MCPS may not be good enough. No way. They were really nasty about it.
This was back then in the 90s and really less then five students per year that I knew about that went that route. Like honestly sometimes maybe one or two students. And those students were like top tier. Like getting 1600 on their SATs without taking a prep course, having high prestigous jobs now, etc. Also I forgot to mention that I think AP Stat was an option as well back then.
But you'll see that a lot of schools aren't accepting AP scores for credits anymore. They really got cheapened when schools found out that was a factor in high school ratings and tried to get as many students as possible to take the exams. Like some schools won't give credit for AP scores anymore. At the most they'll let students take an advanced level of the course instead. ie instead of giving them credit for Math 101 and going to the next math course of Math 201, they'll place them in Math 105 and put them on track to take Math 205, the next year.
Which makes it even more sad when looking at the low college ready proficiency rates that some schools at MCPS has for their AP or IB scores.
I took APs in the 80s, and my kids have taken them recently. I don't think what you're saying is true. Many colleges (fancy private ones) never gave credit for APs. I got zero credit for all my fives. Big schools still give lots of credit for 4s/5s -- my niece went into Berkeley as a sophomore with her credits.
I also don't think the APs have gotten easier, comparing what i took to what my kids take. It's true that a lot more kids take them. I think it's also true that kids are going in more prepared. We didn't have things like Heimler's Videos on youtube to prepare us -- if you had a good teacher, you were prepared and could get that 5, and if you had a not great teacher, you basically weren't prepared and would probably get a 3. Now, every kid can be prepared if they want to put in the extra time, because there are good teachers posting their lessons online for free and sample tests posted online etc. So there's a lot more opportunity to actually learn the content. So I don't have a problem with that.
I do have a problem with the dumbing down of English curricula in supposedly honors classes -- that's where I think kids are really being cheated with today's system.
DP. Combine these notions and supplement with the notions that:
1) a cohort of similarly abled students large enough to make a full class facilitates provisioning (staffing, budgeting, etc.) for a school
2) such a cohort, along with that greater manageability and resulting budgetary flexibility for an individual school (under current MCPS budgeting paradigms), tends to draw more highly competent teachers
3) with current MCPS identification practices, which are disproportionately influenced by resource-requiring early outside enrichment, and with relatively high principal autonomy facilitating differential response to local family pressure (also highly correlated with family resource levels) for exceptions to allow cohort building/advancement, such large cohorts appear at local schools in wealthier areas in greatly disproportionate levels
We arrive at the realization that allusions to freely available outside resources for Calculus study as a salve for teaching quality issues are something of a platitude that distracts from attention to systemic inequity.
It's a shame that MCPS's new approach has not been presented with reasonably deep explanation as to how it would deliver excellence with equity.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 12:52
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pp mentions that the REAL issue is that this model has kids doing Pre-Calculus in 9th grade, but then Calculus A/B and B/C in succession.What is wrong here? I am not familiar with the math progression here. I am a foreigner. The issue is too difficult or should not break caclcus in A to C, or miss the curriculum of geometry or statistics? Does that mean parents should supplement on their own like IXL, RSM, or AOPS outside of school in some years? I am from Asia, so I am confused what all these mean.
I'm that PP, and here's my issue with that progression.
Current system
Right now, your standard "bright" kid who took compacted math in 4th grade will end up in Honors Pre-Calculus in 10th grade. That's a real crucible year for a lot of kids, and it's not uncommon for kids to take the "off-ramp" in 10th and drop down to On-Level Pre-Calculus.
Whether they did Honors or On-Level, the kids who finished Pre-Calculus then choose between Calculus AB and Calculus BC. This is another "off-ramp" of sorts because kids who did okay in Honors Pre-Calculus but are not interested in STEM will often take Calculus AB their junior year. The kids who want a STEM career or for whom math comes a bit easier take BC immediately after Pre-Calculus.
It's pretty uncommon to take AB and then BC because it means repeating the entire B section. A kid who is good at math isn't going to want or need that repeated material.
Proposed new system
The proposed new system seems "off" in two ways.
First, Pre-Calculus is moved to 9th grade for the vast majority of kids. Now, we know that under the current system even kids who were "compacted" struggle mightily in Pre-Calculus, and MCPS wants to move it a year earlier AND put more kids into that class?
But then they screw it up a different way, by projecting those kids out to taking Calculus AB in 10th and BC in 11th.
That's a stupid progression and I suspect they know it. It forces "bright-but-not math-oriented" kids into Calculus a year earlier than the current progression, and it ALSO screws over kids ready for BC directly after Pre-Calculus.
What they are trying to cover up is that they don't have enough math available for kids to take in HS if they take Pre-Calculus in 9th. That's why I said parents need to keep their eye on the ball here. They are stretching Calculus into two years so that you don't notice that a math-oriented kid will run out of math classes in 11th grade.
Also no advanced math student needs to take calc AB and then BC. They should look at the SMCS pathways for very advanced learners.
I do agree with the current broken state of acceleration. Way too many kids pushed ahead and the wealthy ones propped up with tutors.
Anonymous
05/09/2026 09:46
Subject: MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So admittedly I am far removed from my own high school experience and my kids are still in ES, but the MS/HS math pathways surprised me a bit- do kids no longer take geometry and trig?
Pre-calc in 9th also seems a bit crazy to me (again this is coming from someone who graduated in the 90s where "accelerated" meant pre-calc in 11th and AP Calc in 12th). But I don't understand what some of these students are meant to take in 12th if they've already had two years of calculus by then.
When I went to a W school in the 90s, the accelerated path was 11th graders took Calculus AB then took BC in 12th grader. When I glanced at the slides yesterday, it looks like that path is still there.
Anything above that, students went to Montgomery College for the math courses back then.
MC has a lot of rules for doing advanced classes and told me no for my child. They wanted her to start back to Calc 1, saying that the Calc in MCPS may not be good enough. No way. They were really nasty about it.
There is a Math placement test, so perhaps your child did not perform well on that exam???