Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does AIM=AMP 7+ ?

AIM compacts 7th and 8th grade standards.

7+ is the 2nd half of 7th and 8th.

So for 7+ you are not getting a half-year of 7th. 7+ is supposed to be for 7th graders who completed 6+ in 6th (which is all of 6th and the first half of 7th).

See the post inmediately prior. Each option, AIM or AMP7+, with their different curricular origin, ends up missing some things on the way to Algebra.

Agree. But our school (which offers AIM) says that they rework algebra 1 to cover the missing topics.

This is what a number of schools have chosen to do. I personally think they should just stop the madness and use Illustrated Mathematics from 6th through Alg2. Then create two Alg tracks:
-3 yr Integrated Algebra
- Compacted Integrated Algebra

Acceleration from ES could then look like:
Compacted Continuation
6th- AMP 7/8 : All of 7th /half of 8th
7th- AMP8+ : half of 8th/ Half Alg 1
8th- Alg1+ : half Alg 1 /half Alg 2
9th- Alg2+: Half Alg2/ half Alg3
10th- Alg3+ half Alg 3 / Applications
OR Accelerated:
6th- AMP 7/8+ : All of 7th and 8th
7th- Alg 1
8th- Alg2
9th- Alg3
OR:

They would get to the same place and students would have a better foundation with no missed content. Students take the Algebra MCAP after Alg3. And because I don’t trust them to get the integration correct, they should form a committee to help them craft the pacing guide (1 excellent teacher from Pre-Alg through Pre-Cal plus an Engineer)(7-8 committee members)

Would be interesting, and maybe better, but the only things that the purchased curricula (Eureka & Illustrative Math) come with is 6+ & 7+. AIM is a holdover from the proprietary C2.0, which no longer met standards (among other problems) and 4/5 & 5/6, while following the CM paradigm of C2.0, had to be reworked to blend Eureka elementary and Illustrative Math middle. That, itself, was no small feat. The compaction isn't just linear, going 1.5 times as fast, it moves modules around so that some of the overlapping spiral from each grade is handled at once and towards the higher level, instead of twice.

To do what you suggest would require development of another entirely proprietary curriculum. That would take a long time and a lot of resources that they just don't have. I'm not sure the entire central Math group has 7-8 employees, much less 7-8 with free time to form a separately mandated committee. They'd also run into trouble with the unflexible state standard for a credit (full year) of Algebra and a credit of Geometry, requiring at least a waiver and, more likely, a whole series of justifications/detailed alignments/etc.

Maybe with a generous US Department of Education grant aimed at curricular innovations they could pull together resources for something like that to be done, but MCPS' experience with C2.0 means they probably wouldn't even try for such.

Still, an interesting thought experiment.

My kid did 4/5 and 5/6 and never did any Illustrative Math. The entire curriculum was based on Eureka, including all of 6th grade. Which schools are doing Illustrative Math in 5/6?

Which year did they take 5/6? I think there was a stop-gap year where they may have used all Eureka (or even continued CM from C2.0 in some schools?) while they worked on the cross-curricular compaction. Last year we definitely saw a combination of Eureka and Illustrative Math in 5/6.

Last year. We were told MCPS made a decision to use Eureka for consistency for both students and teachers, so it didn't sound like a stop-gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does AIM=AMP 7+ ?

AIM compacts 7th and 8th grade standards.

7+ is the 2nd half of 7th and 8th.

So for 7+ you are not getting a half-year of 7th. 7+ is supposed to be for 7th graders who completed 6+ in 6th (which is all of 6th and the first half of 7th).

See the post inmediately prior. Each option, AIM or AMP7+, with their different curricular origin, ends up missing some things on the way to Algebra.

Agree. But our school (which offers AIM) says that they rework algebra 1 to cover the missing topics.

This is what a number of schools have chosen to do. I personally think they should just stop the madness and use Illustrated Mathematics from 6th through Alg2. Then create two Alg tracks:
-3 yr Integrated Algebra
- Compacted Integrated Algebra

Acceleration from ES could then look like:
Compacted Continuation
6th- AMP 7/8 : All of 7th /half of 8th
7th- AMP8+ : half of 8th/ Half Alg 1
8th- Alg1+ : half Alg 1 /half Alg 2
9th- Alg2+: Half Alg2/ half Alg3
10th- Alg3+ half Alg 3 / Applications
OR Accelerated:
6th- AMP 7/8+ : All of 7th and 8th
7th- Alg 1
8th- Alg2
9th- Alg3
OR:

They would get to the same place and students would have a better foundation with no missed content. Students take the Algebra MCAP after Alg3. And because I don’t trust them to get the integration correct, they should form a committee to help them craft the pacing guide (1 excellent teacher from Pre-Alg through Pre-Cal plus an Engineer)(7-8 committee members)

Would be interesting, and maybe better, but the only things that the purchased curricula (Eureka & Illustrative Math) come with is 6+ & 7+. AIM is a holdover from the proprietary C2.0, which no longer met standards (among other problems) and 4/5 & 5/6, while following the CM paradigm of C2.0, had to be reworked to blend Eureka elementary and Illustrative Math middle. That, itself, was no small feat. The compaction isn't just linear, going 1.5 times as fast, it moves modules around so that some of the overlapping spiral from each grade is handled at once and towards the higher level, instead of twice.

To do what you suggest would require development of another entirely proprietary curriculum. That would take a long time and a lot of resources that they just don't have. I'm not sure the entire central Math group has 7-8 employees, much less 7-8 with free time to form a separately mandated committee. They'd also run into trouble with the unflexible state standard for a credit (full year) of Algebra and a credit of Geometry, requiring at least a waiver and, more likely, a whole series of justifications/detailed alignments/etc.

Maybe with a generous US Department of Education grant aimed at curricular innovations they could pull together resources for something like that to be done, but MCPS' experience with C2.0 means they probably wouldn't even try for such.

Still, an interesting thought experiment.

My kid did 4/5 and 5/6 and never did any Illustrative Math. The entire curriculum was based on Eureka, including all of 6th grade. Which schools are doing Illustrative Math in 5/6?

Which year did they take 5/6? I think there was a stop-gap year where they may have used all Eureka (or even continued CM from C2.0 in some schools?) while they worked on the cross-curricular compaction. Last year we definitely saw a combination of Eureka and Illustrative Math in 5/6.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, if your kid is getting Bs in AIM, I would seriously consider dropping to 7+ next year to repeat prealgebra content with the Illustrative Mathematics curriculum. They need a really strong foundation to do well in algebra and beyond.

PP here - yes, that is what I was thinking about. Any ideas about what is the best way to learn (efficiently, without hand-reviewing every lesson) what concepts are a) being taught in AIM and in 7+; and b) most important for success at future levels? I'd be interested in providing some at-home support (which I can do myself), but with triage. DC is a completely neutral student of mathematics - wants to do well in school generally and has a strong urge towards compliance, but has absolutely no curiosity about anything mathematical or scientific.

Maybe this makes DC an outlier on DCUM. I feel like all I ever hear about is kids who want more math, more math, more math. Is there anyone out there who feels like this is just way more than necessary, even at the non-accelerated levels?

Your MS Math lead should be able to point out some of those things, and can reach back to MXPS central if they need.

There are a lot of different kinds of kids in MCPS. There are some who struggle with the base curriculum, and there are many factors that might contribute, there. There are those who really, really want to stretch. There are those for whom the base isn't enough, even with enrichment, but who could use a little support when it gets to accelerated classes. There are those who are great at Math early, but struggle later, and those who are late bloomers, getting much stronger and surpassing some who had earlier acceleration.

MCPS is good to try to meet the needs of all of these and more. They don't always hit the target, whether that is related to identification of student ability, ensuring adequate teaching capacity across levels or other challenges.

With those misses come criticisms, some more reasonable than others. Some more addressable, too. Many, I think, are engendered by certain MCPS communications deficiencies.

With many on DCUM among those more highly involved in their children's education, with some of the related opportunity coming from advanced coursework and with much of that either in short supply or otherwise gate-kept, the weight of commentary tends to be on the "more Math" side. But you are right in feeling that there is too much of that, at least there would be from the perspective of student need if there was less missing the target seen. Or, put another way, that "more Math" energy may be being applied too much in some places but not enough in others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does AIM=AMP 7+ ?

AIM compacts 7th and 8th grade standards.

7+ is the 2nd half of 7th and 8th.

So for 7+ you are not getting a half-year of 7th. 7+ is supposed to be for 7th graders who completed 6+ in 6th (which is all of 6th and the first half of 7th).

See the post inmediately prior. Each option, AIM or AMP7+, with their different curricular origin, ends up missing some things on the way to Algebra.

Agree. But our school (which offers AIM) says that they rework algebra 1 to cover the missing topics.

This is what a number of schools have chosen to do. I personally think they should just stop the madness and use Illustrated Mathematics from 6th through Alg2. Then create two Alg tracks:
-3 yr Integrated Algebra
- Compacted Integrated Algebra

Acceleration from ES could then look like:
Compacted Continuation
6th- AMP 7/8 : All of 7th /half of 8th
7th- AMP8+ : half of 8th/ Half Alg 1
8th- Alg1+ : half Alg 1 /half Alg 2
9th- Alg2+: Half Alg2/ half Alg3
10th- Alg3+ half Alg 3 / Applications
OR Accelerated:
6th- AMP 7/8+ : All of 7th and 8th
7th- Alg 1
8th- Alg2
9th- Alg3
OR:

They would get to the same place and students would have a better foundation with no missed content. Students take the Algebra MCAP after Alg3. And because I don’t trust them to get the integration correct, they should form a committee to help them craft the pacing guide (1 excellent teacher from Pre-Alg through Pre-Cal plus an Engineer)(7-8 committee members)

Would be interesting, and maybe better, but the only things that the purchased curricula (Eureka & Illustrative Math) come with is 6+ & 7+. AIM is a holdover from the proprietary C2.0, which no longer met standards (among other problems) and 4/5 & 5/6, while following the CM paradigm of C2.0, had to be reworked to blend Eureka elementary and Illustrative Math middle. That, itself, was no small feat. The compaction isn't just linear, going 1.5 times as fast, it moves modules around so that some of the overlapping spiral from each grade is handled at once and towards the higher level, instead of twice.

To do what you suggest would require development of another entirely proprietary curriculum. That would take a long time and a lot of resources that they just don't have. I'm not sure the entire central Math group has 7-8 employees, much less 7-8 with free time to form a separately mandated committee. They'd also run into trouble with the unflexible state standard for a credit (full year) of Algebra and a credit of Geometry, requiring at least a waiver and, more likely, a whole series of justifications/detailed alignments/etc.

Maybe with a generous US Department of Education grant aimed at curricular innovations they could pull together resources for something like that to be done, but MCPS' experience with C2.0 means they probably wouldn't even try for such.

Still, an interesting thought experiment.

My kid did 4/5 and 5/6 and never did any Illustrative Math. The entire curriculum was based on Eureka, including all of 6th grade. Which schools are doing Illustrative Math in 5/6?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does AIM=AMP 7+ ?

AIM compacts 7th and 8th grade standards.

7+ is the 2nd half of 7th and 8th.

So for 7+ you are not getting a half-year of 7th. 7+ is supposed to be for 7th graders who completed 6+ in 6th (which is all of 6th and the first half of 7th).

See the post inmediately prior. Each option, AIM or AMP7+, with their different curricular origin, ends up missing some things on the way to Algebra.

Agree. But our school (which offers AIM) says that they rework algebra 1 to cover the missing topics.

This is what a number of schools have chosen to do. I personally think they should just stop the madness and use Illustrated Mathematics from 6th through Alg2. Then create two Alg tracks:
-3 yr Integrated Algebra
- Compacted Integrated Algebra

Acceleration from ES could then look like:
Compacted Continuation
6th- AMP 7/8 : All of 7th /half of 8th
7th- AMP8+ : half of 8th/ Half Alg 1
8th- Alg1+ : half Alg 1 /half Alg 2
9th- Alg2+: Half Alg2/ half Alg3
10th- Alg3+ half Alg 3 / Applications
OR Accelerated:
6th- AMP 7/8+ : All of 7th and 8th
7th- Alg 1
8th- Alg2
9th- Alg3
OR:

They would get to the same place and students would have a better foundation with no missed content. Students take the Algebra MCAP after Alg3. And because I don’t trust them to get the integration correct, they should form a committee to help them craft the pacing guide (1 excellent teacher from Pre-Alg through Pre-Cal plus an Engineer)(7-8 committee members)

Would be interesting, and maybe better, but the only things that the purchased curricula (Eureka & Illustrative Math) come with is 6+ & 7+. AIM is a holdover from the proprietary C2.0, which no longer met standards (among other problems) and 4/5 & 5/6, while following the CM paradigm of C2.0, had to be reworked to blend Eureka elementary and Illustrative Math middle. That, itself, was no small feat. The compaction isn't just linear, going 1.5 times as fast, it moves modules around so that some of the overlapping spiral from each grade is handled at once and towards the higher level, instead of twice.

To do what you suggest would require development of another entirely proprietary curriculum. That would take a long time and a lot of resources that they just don't have. I'm not sure the entire central Math group has 7-8 employees, much less 7-8 with free time to form a separately mandated committee. They'd also run into trouble with the unflexible state standard for a credit (full year) of Algebra and a credit of Geometry, requiring at least a waiver and, more likely, a whole series of justifications/detailed alignments/etc.

Maybe with a generous US Department of Education grant aimed at curricular innovations they could pull together resources for something like that to be done, but MCPS' experience with C2.0 means they probably wouldn't even try for such.

Still, an interesting thought experiment.

I wish they would change up how they do the compaction and start compaction in grade 3 but move slower. So kids do grades 3, 4, 5, 6, and half of 7th in ES. Then they do the rest of 7+ in 6th grade, and then start with Algebra in 7th. Then you wouldn't have the problem of missing half of 7th to do 7+ in 6th, or the problem of missing part of 8th in AIM.

My 6th grader is in AIM and we're pulling him down to AMP 7 next year so he'll be on the same track as his HS sibling. Sibling took honors geometry as a 9th grader and watched many of his friend struggle in honors algebra 2 It's not worth the stress unless your kid is really into math or interested in engineering, computer science, etc., which isn't the case for either of my kids. They'll still take calculus as seniors, which was the advanced track when I was in high school in the 1990s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does AIM=AMP 7+ ?

AIM compacts 7th and 8th grade standards.

7+ is the 2nd half of 7th and 8th.

So for 7+ you are not getting a half-year of 7th. 7+ is supposed to be for 7th graders who completed 6+ in 6th (which is all of 6th and the first half of 7th).

See the post inmediately prior. Each option, AIM or AMP7+, with their different curricular origin, ends up missing some things on the way to Algebra.

There is a huge amount of overlap from year to year through Algebra 2. You can jump from Math 6 to algebra and not miss anything. Of course there will be more novel material in Alg and Geom that case. If the amount of novel material in any particular class will be a problem for you, it if you need every specific subtopic to be individually addressed, becat you can't apply concepts from class to related applications in the homework and tests, then accelerate less.

Agree that that's possible, but only for a very, very, very few would it make sense. Kids way out on the curve who naturally make those conceptual connections within the suject area, adapt readily to unfamiliar terminology, etc.

If someone is thinking of going that way by supporting with outside enrichment, they're basically just substituting hours in tutoring for those in whichever class (AIM or AMP 7+) their kid normally would be taking to get the (oft repeated) exposure that would afford familiarity/mastery of foundational concepts. They wouldn't really going straight from 6th to Algebra I, other than from a school perspective (and that would be if they had a supportive/unoppositional administration).

Separate from such a large jump, the AIM and AMP7+ (from Math 5/6) gaps to Algebra I, while different, are each reasonably manageable for a much broader population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does AIM=AMP 7+ ?

AIM compacts 7th and 8th grade standards.

7+ is the 2nd half of 7th and 8th.

So for 7+ you are not getting a half-year of 7th. 7+ is supposed to be for 7th graders who completed 6+ in 6th (which is all of 6th and the first half of 7th).

See the post inmediately prior. Each option, AIM or AMP7+, with their different curricular origin, ends up missing some things on the way to Algebra.

There is a huge amount of overlap from year to year through Algebra 2. You can jump from Math 6 to algebra and not miss anything. Of course there will be more novel material in Alg and Geom that case. If the amount of novel material in any particular class will be a problem for you, it if you need every specific subtopic to be individually addressed, becat you can't apply concepts from class to related applications in the homework and tests, then accelerate less.

Anonymous wrote:MY DC did compacted and is now in AIM in grade 6. Earning solid Bs that sometimes just fall short of A. Neither interested nor curious. It looks like they are cued up for algebra next year in grade 7, then.

My question for those with older DCs: Is algebra actually easier than all of this not-algebra material?

My reason: I've been contemplating pulling DC off this accelerated math train and dropping them down as a 7th grader into something else easier (?). But I actually worry that the something else would be _harder_ than algebra. If algebra is still taught as the plug-and-chug exercise that it was when I was a kid, DC could handle that way better than whatever they're doing at this moment. But if the approach to algebra is more like the math right now, then I'm really not sure what would be appropriate.

Thoughts?

Bs shouldn't be considered terrible. AIM is the fastest paced thing before HS. Reviewing HW before quizzes/tests might help if that hasn't been done.

Lack of interest is another thing. Algebra would be at an easier pace, but would be a HS credit course and would come with the state exam at the end. That might better wait until 8th (still a year ahead of the national base curricular expectation). The PP's suggestion of 7+ next year may be good. Or just Math 8, though that might be too slow, especially given the repetition of content.

If considering moving from AIM to something else during this year, do that quickly, and think about 6+ now and then 7+ next. The repetition might be offset a bit by the pace, and the cohort might be more compatible.

Anonymous wrote:PP, if your kid is getting Bs in AIM, I would seriously consider dropping to 7+ next year to repeat prealgebra content with the Illustrative Mathematics curriculum. They need a really strong foundation to do well in algebra and beyond.

PP here - yes, that is what I was thinking about. Any ideas about what is the best way to learn (efficiently, without hand-reviewing every lesson) what concepts are a) being taught in AIM and in 7+; and b) most important for success at future levels? I'd be interested in providing some at-home support (which I can do myself), but with triage. DC is a completely neutral student of mathematics - wants to do well in school generally and has a strong urge towards compliance, but has absolutely no curiosity about anything mathematical or scientific.

Maybe this makes DC an outlier on DCUM. I feel like all I ever hear about is kids who want more math, more math, more math. Is there anyone out there who feels like this is just way more than necessary, even at the non-accelerated levels?

PP, if your kid is getting Bs in AIM, I would seriously consider dropping to 7+ next year to repeat prealgebra content with the Illustrative Mathematics curriculum. They need a really strong foundation to do well in algebra and beyond.

MY DC did compacted and is now in AIM in grade 6. Earning solid Bs that sometimes just fall short of A. Neither interested nor curious. It looks like they are cued up for algebra next year in grade 7, then.

My question for those with older DCs: Is algebra actually easier than all of this not-algebra material?

My reason: I've been contemplating pulling DC off this accelerated math train and dropping them down as a 7th grader into something else easier (?). But I actually worry that the something else would be _harder_ than algebra. If algebra is still taught as the plug-and-chug exercise that it was when I was a kid, DC could handle that way better than whatever they're doing at this moment. But if the approach to algebra is more like the math right now, then I'm really not sure what would be appropriate.

Thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does AIM=AMP 7+ ?

AIM compacts 7th and 8th grade standards.

7+ is the 2nd half of 7th and 8th.

So for 7+ you are not getting a half-year of 7th. 7+ is supposed to be for 7th graders who completed 6+ in 6th (which is all of 6th and the first half of 7th).

See the post inmediately prior. Each option, AIM or AMP7+, with their different curricular origin, ends up missing some things on the way to Algebra.

Agree. But our school (which offers AIM) says that they rework algebra 1 to cover the missing topics.

This is what a number of schools have chosen to do. I personally think they should just stop the madness and use Illustrated Mathematics from 6th through Alg2. Then create two Alg tracks:
-3 yr Integrated Algebra
- Compacted Integrated Algebra

Acceleration from ES could then look like:
Compacted Continuation
6th- AMP 7/8 : All of 7th /half of 8th
7th- AMP8+ : half of 8th/ Half Alg 1
8th- Alg1+ : half Alg 1 /half Alg 2
9th- Alg2+: Half Alg2/ half Alg3
10th- Alg3+ half Alg 3 / Applications
OR Accelerated:
6th- AMP 7/8+ : All of 7th and 8th
7th- Alg 1
8th- Alg2
9th- Alg3
OR:

They would get to the same place and students would have a better foundation with no missed content. Students take the Algebra MCAP after Alg3. And because I don’t trust them to get the integration correct, they should form a committee to help them craft the pacing guide (1 excellent teacher from Pre-Alg through Pre-Cal plus an Engineer)(7-8 committee members)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does AIM=AMP 7+ ?

AIM compacts 7th and 8th grade standards.

7+ is the 2nd half of 7th and 8th.

So for 7+ you are not getting a half-year of 7th. 7+ is supposed to be for 7th graders who completed 6+ in 6th (which is all of 6th and the first half of 7th).

See the post inmediately prior. Each option, AIM or AMP7+, with their different curricular origin, ends up missing some things on the way to Algebra.

Agree. But our school (which offers AIM) says that they rework algebra 1 to cover the missing topics.