Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums Middle School Common Core Math

If by "integrated" you mean un-tracked, with all 9th graders taking "9th grade math" and the same for higher grades, I agree.

so this seems like willful descent into chaos

No, no, no. It's a willful descent into mediocrity. It only looks like chaos because you're fighting the idea.

Seriously, about your question? I think that you have to look at older material and college textbooks once you're past algebra I now. Up to then, the material in use for pre-algebra and algebra I seem reasonable, but the primary math courses like "EveryDay Math" are abominations.

We've seen some of the Common Core 'Course Three' materials this year as the rollout starts. So Pearson's course sequence used to be... Course 1, Course 2, Pre-algebra, Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II...

Now, apparently, "Course 3" is-- I guess?-- envisioned to take the place of Pre-algebra, which would be great... but...

that book quite honestly, er-- sucketh MIGHTILY.

I have no idea if "Algebra I" is also to undergo revision next biennium as well. But Course 3 is so bad that even my DD can see how pedagogically flawed it is as she works with students in that sequence (through geometry).

It is quite possible that that course is being used as "pre-pre-algebra" for kids who need the reinforcement, but it's a horrific mishmash of concepts without any narrative or theoretical ties from one set of concepts to the next, and it seems to borrow from ALL of the other courses. Exposure without learning, basically.

Since my ds is planning to skip 6th grade, I'd love an invite and I'll appreciate any info I can get about the 6th grade CCC. Thank you!

You guys are scaring me. All of my kids are strong math kids. Hoping that the district doesn't make the kids in the gifted program follow Common Core lock step. We had to fight to accelerate with Investigations but it eventually happened. Now they are chucking Investigations for whatever curriculum they will adopt for Common Core. Hate to do this all again . . .

Integrated as in, not splitting algebra from geometry from calculus? I've ended up buying some of the books by Bostock and Chandler, having used earlier editions when I was at school myself; they don't seem to have been bettered. The ones we have are

A core course for A level

Further Pure Mathematics

Mechanics and Probability
(almost all mechanics, in fact - don't look to this series for stats coverage).

There's a Further Mechanics book which I probably should have bought when I had the chance as it looks as though it may be out of print now, oh well, that's what second hand booksellers are for.

This series is aimed at A level, i.e. the last two years of school in the UK. Most complaints on Amazon are about them being too hard, so they may be just what some here are looking for :-) [ETA Interesting exception - someone from NSW, Australia, saying that the Further Pure book is too easy and they have far better books there. Wonder which?] They are not flawless - I remember there are a couple of odd bits I've resorted to crossing out because of weird errors - but they're pretty good.

Could you explain what "integrated" means in this context?

I vaguely recall seeing something about the Algebra I, Geometry, Albegra II sequence being reconstituted into a 3 year sequence with both subjects in each year. Is that what you mean by "integrated"?

It's not necessarily a bad idea, but I can easily see schools making a dog's breakfast of the transition.

I don't see anything in the Common Core Math standards that say how the High School topics are to be covered by year, though I didn't look too hard.
http://www.corestandards.org/Math

I thought the idea of the Common Core standards was to have national (USA) standards instead of a mish mash of state and local standards. I don't see how it could be an excuse for watering down gifted programming.

Which is pretty much a perfect term to describe that Course 3 textbook I was referring to earlier. It's ugly.

What is "Course 3"?

Well, it's one of Pearson Education's products to deal with The Coming Storm-- er, Common Core.

So this is evidently what they envision being adopted in lieu of pre-algebra? Algebra? Geometry? Kind of some of all of that?

It's a hot mess, from what I can tell.

Basically, the approach isn't "integrated" the way that any sensible person would imagine that approach to work... more like "blended" with a heavy dose of our old friend "spiraling pedagogy" thrown into the mix.

In other words, the intent seems to be to frighten er-- enlighten... the students with snippets of a LOT of math that they aren't yet prepared to actually tackle themselves.

But no worry-- we'll come back to all of that later, so I guess... just.. survive the skirmish and move on?

If an integrated math course covers a variety of topics from algebra, geometry, and probability, it will be more difficult for students to say they studied a particular topic independently (through EPGY or ALEKS for example) and should be allowed to skip ahead in school math.