In calculus, integration means taking a step backwards by undoing differentiation. Integration now describes our new math curriculum, and therefore should lessen unneeded acceleration and differentiation  – but that is not what happened.

The math department has adopted new math pathways. In the years to come, instead of the typical path of Algebra 1 to Geometry to Algebra 2, students will take Integrated Math 1, 2 and 3. There will be more room for student acceleration, not only with the currently offered jump in sixth grade, but also with an honors math analysis class, which combines math analysis with Calculus A.

The purpose of the new integrated math plan is to align with the new Common Core standards and to create a more thorough and less fragmented math curriculum, which is a noble goal – if done correctly. The integrated title refers to the continuous progression of geometry, algebra and statistics concepts that would build off one another. When students begin high school math with separate years of Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2, many students forget algebraic concepts while taking geometry and geometric concepts while taking algebra.

Although the math teachers support the new pathways for their potential some teachers do not think that the textbook material they have been given reflects that potential. Math teacher Doyle O’Regan finds that the instructional materials are not what the teachers wish them to be and he is not sure if the new textbooks are the most logically organized.

The math department wanted an opportunity to design the curriculum. Although the path of designing a curriculum is long and difficult, we should have given teachers this freedom to create a pathway that more effectively connects mathematical themes and ideas.

Before we change a curriculum this drastically, no matter the idea, we should ensure that we have the optimal plan, especially if the change is not necessary.

In this case, there was no need for a complete curriculum overhaul, but rather for slight changes to realign with the Common Core math practice standards, which are concepts that include “reason abstractly and quantitatively” and “attend to precision,” according to Common Core State Standards Initiative. There are many districts across the state, including the high-performing Palo Alto Unified School District, realigning with slight changes.

Moreover, with the new pathways, a student can complete Calculus BC their junior year. While some students may benefit from added challenge and complexity, the system will be abused. The drive for acceleration will exist for as long as college applications do, and as will be students taking on material that they are not ready for.

While I cannot suggest a remedy, I can point out that there is a conflict between increased thoroughness and increased acceleration, which leads me to question the point of changing the pathways if they intend to cover math in more depth.

As they do in calculus, integration and differentiation oppose one another. If the purpose of integration is to give students more time and structure to learn concepts, increased acceleration takes that away.

Reevaluating the way we teach our students is necessary, but it is only half the battle. When we implement overreaching changes, we need to make sure that these changes are beneficial. We should rethink adding paths for acceleration. If instructional materials are not thoughtful and intelligent, the teachers should be allowed to evaluate themselves.

Piedmont is already a community that performs excellently on standardized tests, whatever the standard, and students are well prepared for our next steps. But that is not because of new standards. It is because of excellent teaching and a community that cares.