Illustrative Mathematics in NYC Schools: A 2026 Parent’s Guide (PS 87, PS 199, MS 54 & Beyond)

Illustrative Mathematics is now NYC’s dominant math curriculum — and it’s expanding in September 2026

Illustrative Mathematics (IM Math, sometimes called “IM K–12 Math”) is now the most widely adopted math curriculum in New York City public schools — and the city’s NYC Solves initiative is expanding it further in September 2026. If your child attends PS 87, PS 199, PS 452, MS 54, or any other UWS public school using IM Math, the lessons will look very different from how you were taught. Here is what to expect, why it works, and how to help.

IM Math is a K–12 problem-based curriculum developed by the nonprofit Illustrative Mathematics. It is currently used in more than 30 U.S. states and was adopted in New York City starting in 2022. Under the NYC Solves expansion announced in May 2026, additional districts in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens will begin using IM Math in September 2026. The central design choice in IM Math is this: students grapple with a problem before being taught the procedure. That single inversion explains almost everything that feels unfamiliar about your child’s homework.

Illustrative Mathematics was founded in 2011 as a nonprofit whose original purpose was to illustrate what the new Common Core math standards actually looked like in practice — hence the name. Over the following decade, the organization built out a full K–12 curriculum grounded in that same principle: mathematical understanding requires students to encounter problems in context, reason through them, and build procedures from that reasoning rather than receive procedures first and apply them later.

The curriculum is now one of the most rigorously researched in the country. It is used by school districts in California, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, and more than two dozen other states. In New York City, the Department of Education endorsed it as a Tier 1 curriculum following adoption by District 2 and several Bronx districts — and the NYC Solves announcement from May 21, 2026 signals that the city is doubling down, not reconsidering. More details on the district-by-district rollout are in our companion post on the NYC Solves 2026 expansion.

It is worth understanding what IM Math is not. It is not “Common Core math” — Common Core is a set of standards, and IM Math is a curriculum that meets those standards. It is not a “new new math” fad; the research base behind problem-based learning in mathematics goes back to the 1980s and the curriculum itself has been through multiple iterations and independent evaluations. And it is not designed to avoid algorithms. Students in IM Math do learn standard algorithms — they just learn them later, after they have built the conceptual scaffolding that makes the algorithm meaningful rather than mysterious.

The 4 things IM Math does differently

Parents who look at their child’s IM Math homework and feel confused are not wrong to feel that way. The homework genuinely does not look like the math most of us learned. Here is why, broken down into the four structural choices that make IM Math different from the traditional approach — and why each one matters.

Problem-based learning instead of “I do, we do, you do”

The traditional math lesson follows a predictable three-part sequence: the teacher models a procedure (I do), the class practices it together (we do), and students work independently (you do). This is sometimes called explicit instruction, and it has real advantages for procedural fluency. What it does not do well is build conceptual understanding — students learn how to execute a procedure without understanding why it works.

IM Math flips the order. Students encounter a problem — often a real-world scenario — before the relevant procedure has been taught. They are expected to use what they already know to make some progress, even if they cannot fully solve it yet. The teacher then uses that work as the raw material for a class discussion that surfaces the mathematical structure, and only then formalizes the concept or procedure. The result is that students “own” the idea in a way that memorized procedures rarely produce.

Mathematical discussion as the core

In a traditional math classroom, a student demonstrates understanding by producing a correct answer. In an IM Math classroom, a correct answer is the starting point, not the finish line. Students are expected to explain their reasoning, compare their approach to a classmate’s different approach, and evaluate which approaches are more efficient or more generalizable. This is not soft or optional — mathematical communication is built into the lesson structure as a required step, not an enrichment add-on.

For students who are used to “getting it right and being done,” this can be genuinely uncomfortable at first. Families sometimes worry that their child is being asked to over-explain obvious things. What is actually happening is that the curriculum is building the reasoning habits that distinguish students who can transfer mathematical knowledge to new problems from students who can only execute familiar procedures.

Multiple representations for every concept

IM Math requires students to work with every concept in at least four ways: visually (diagrams, tape diagrams, number lines, graphs), verbally (in words, in class discussion), algebraically (equations and expressions), and contextually (embedded in a real-world situation). This is not redundancy — each representation illuminates a different aspect of the same idea, and fluency across representations is exactly what standardized tests and higher mathematics require.

When you see your child drawing a tape diagram to solve a ratio problem that you would solve with a proportion equation, they are not doing it “the wrong way.” They are building visual fluency with the same concept. The equation comes later, and when it does, it rests on a foundation the diagram helped construct.

Spiraled review

Traditional math textbooks are organized by topic: chapter 4 is fractions, chapter 5 is decimals, chapter 6 is percents. Students learn a topic, test on it, and largely move on. IM Math is organized so that concepts return throughout the year in new contexts and at greater depth. A ratio concept introduced in unit 2 reappears in unit 5 in a proportional reasoning context, then again in unit 8 in a data analysis context. This spaced repetition is not accidental — it reflects research on how long-term retention works. It is also why IM Math homework sometimes looks scattered to parents: a problem in October may revisit something from September in a way that does not feel like “review.”

Dimension	Traditional Math Instruction	Illustrative Mathematics
Lesson structure	Teacher models → guided practice → independent practice	Launch (problem first) → student activity → class synthesis
Homework	10–30 similar computation problems; right/wrong answer	2–4 problems requiring explanation, multiple representations, and reasoning
Assessment	Chapter tests on recently taught procedures; final exam	Cool-downs (daily exit tickets), unit assessments, and cumulative mid-unit checks
What success looks like	Correct answers produced efficiently	Correct answers with explained reasoning; ability to approach unfamiliar problems
Algorithm instruction	Introduced early as the primary method	Introduced after conceptual understanding is built, as a formalization
Curriculum organization	Chapter-by-topic; each topic completed before moving on	Spiraled; concepts return in new contexts throughout the year

What a typical IM Math classroom day actually looks like at a NYC middle school

I want to describe a lesson I observed at an Upper West Side middle school — one of the schools in District 3 that adopted IM Math before the NYC Solves expansion. The 6th-grade class was midway through a unit on ratios and rates. Here is how the 45 minutes unfolded.

Warm-up (5–7 minutes): The teacher put a single image on the board — a recipe card showing that 3 cups of flour make 24 cookies — and asked: “What do you notice? What do you wonder?” Students wrote their observations on whiteboards. Some noticed the ratio of flour to cookies. One student wondered whether you could make 36 cookies. Another wondered what would happen with 1.5 cups. The teacher noted these without resolving them. The purpose is not to answer the warm-up question yet — it is to activate prior knowledge and generate curiosity.

Launch (3–5 minutes): The teacher introduced the day’s activity: a scenario where a baker needs to scale a recipe. Students received a printed problem and were told to work with a partner. Crucially, the teacher did not show them how to solve it first.

Activity (15–18 minutes): Students worked in pairs. Some drew tables, some drew diagrams, one pair immediately wrote a proportion. The teacher circulated — but did not correct or redirect. She asked questions: “How did you decide to set it up that way?” “What would happen if the number of servings doubled?” She was watching for two or three approaches she wanted to surface in the synthesis.

Synthesis (10–12 minutes): Three pairs shared their approaches. The pair that used a ratio table explained their method. The pair that used a tape diagram drew theirs on the board. The teacher asked the class: “Are these the same idea? How do you know?” This is the mathematical discussion moment — and it is where the concepts become explicit. The teacher named the approaches, connected them, and formalized the vocabulary: “What Maria and James did is called a ratio table. Notice how it preserves the relationship between the quantities.”

Cool-down (3–5 minutes): Students solved one problem independently and submitted it before leaving. The teacher used these to check for understanding and plan the next day’s lesson. No grade was given on the cool-down — it was diagnostic.

What this lesson did not include: a teacher demonstration at the start, a list of 20 identical computation problems, or any instruction of the form “this is how you set up a proportion.” What it did include: a lot of student talk, multiple representations, and a synthesis that built from student work rather than teacher explanation. This is the structure parents need to understand in order to make sense of the homework their child brings home.

The NYC evidence: why IM Math is being expanded

Parents deserve to know that the expansion of IM Math in NYC is not happening on faith. There is a specific body of evidence behind it — including two Bronx district case studies that are genuinely striking and a Columbia University analysis of why the gains were sustained.

The Columbia University Center for Public Research and Leadership (CPRL) study of these districts found something important: the proficiency gains were not simply the result of a curriculum swap. Districts that changed textbooks without sustained professional development and instructional coaching saw much smaller gains. What made Districts 7 and 11 different was a combination of IM Math’s coherent curriculum structure and an investment in teacher development that helped educators actually implement the problem-based design as intended. A curriculum is only as good as its implementation, and the Columbia research makes clear that the human infrastructure matters as much as the materials. This is why the NYC Solves initiative includes coaching and training budgets, not just new textbooks.

For UWS families, the District 3 trajectory since 2022 adoption has been positive, with gains concentrated at middle school grades where IM Math’s problem-based approach has the most traction on the abstract reasoning skills that 6th–8th grade mathematics requires. You can read more about the city-wide rollout in our NYC Solves expansion guide.

The honest parent concerns

The most important thing I can do in this section is not dismiss these concerns. Every single one of them is legitimate. IM Math asks more of students and parents than traditional math instruction — and there are real tradeoffs worth naming honestly.

“There’s less calculation practice”

This one is partially true. IM Math assigns fewer repetitive calculation drills than traditional curricula. The philosophy is that fluency builds from understanding, not from repetition of procedures that aren’t yet conceptually grounded. In practice, most students do develop procedural fluency through IM Math — but some students, especially those who need more repetitions to internalize a procedure, do not get enough practice from classroom instruction alone. If your child is slower than their peers on computation and it is affecting their confidence or accuracy on timed assessments, that is a real gap — one a tutor can address with supplemental procedural practice that does not undermine the conceptual work.

“Homework doesn’t look like math I recognize”

It really doesn’t — and that is disorienting. When your child’s homework says “Explain why Han’s approach works and whether it would work for a different starting number,” it looks more like a reading comprehension question than the math you did in 6th grade. The disorientation is compounded when you cannot immediately help, which can feel like a failure when it is actually a design feature: the homework is meant to reflect the problem-based thinking the class worked on, not to produce more of the same procedural practice. The best thing you can do with unfamiliar homework is ask your child to walk you through their thinking — which is, conveniently, exactly the kind of mathematical talk the curriculum is building.

“My child has to explain every answer — even when they got it right”

Yes, and this is intentional. In IM Math, “getting it right” means being able to explain why it is right, not just arriving at the correct number. This can feel like moving goalposts, especially for students who are procedurally fluent but haven’t developed the vocabulary to describe their reasoning. The honest answer is: explanation is a mathematical skill, and it is tested on state assessments, the SHSAT, and ultimately in high school and college math. Building that skill in 6th grade is harder than it looks and worth the friction. Our 6th-grade math parent guide and 7th-grade math parent guide go deeper on what the explanation requirements look like at each level.

“What about kids who are ahead?”

IM Math is explicitly designed with extension tasks for students who move faster than the class. A student who finishes the main activity early is not supposed to be given more of the same problem — they are supposed to be given a harder version that pushes the same concept further. In practice, how well this works depends on the teacher and the class composition. Students who are significantly ahead of grade level — those who are already thinking about algebra in 5th grade, for instance — may find that even the extension tasks are not stretching enough. If your child is in this position, enrichment outside the classroom is worth considering. See our guide to the best gifted math programs on the UWS.

How to actually help your child at home with IM Math

This is the section most parents need most. You want to help, but every time you try, you either can’t follow the problem or you do it differently than the teacher and confuse your child. Here is what actually works.

Ask “how did you get there?” instead of “what’s the answer?”

The single most useful thing you can do with IM Math homework is ask your child to explain their reasoning out loud. This is not because you need to understand it — it is because the act of explaining is itself a mathematical practice that the curriculum is trying to build. When your child explains a ratio table to you, they are consolidating their own understanding in exactly the way the curriculum intends. You do not have to understand the explanation to be useful; you just have to listen and ask follow-up questions: “Why did you multiply by 3 there?” “Could you have done it a different way?”

Use the vocabulary the curriculum uses

IM Math uses specific language — unit rate, tape diagram, equivalent ratios, mathematical practice, representation — and uses it consistently across grade levels. When parents say “cross-multiply” at home and the teacher says “scale the ratio,” students get confused about whether these are the same or different things. Try to use your child’s vocabulary when discussing their homework, even if it feels unfamiliar. Ask them: “What does the teacher call this?” and use that word.

Do not reteach with the algorithm you remember

This is the most important piece of advice in this entire article. When your child is struggling with a ratio problem and you show them how to set up a proportion equation and cross-multiply, you are not helping — even if the method works and even if your child gets the right answer on that night’s homework. You are introducing a shortcut that short-circuits the conceptual reasoning the curriculum is trying to build. The next day, your child will use your method in class, it will not match what the class is doing, and the teacher will not be able to build on it. More importantly, the conceptual understanding that the problem-based approach would have built — the understanding that makes future math easier — does not get built. The algorithm is coming. Let the curriculum deliver it in sequence.

Use the official family materials

Illustrative Mathematics provides free family-facing resources that explain each unit in parent-friendly language, including the key concepts, vocabulary, and example problems. The IM Math family materials at accessim.org are the best starting point. The free open-source version at Open Up Resources also has parent guides by grade level. These are not simplifications — they are written to help parents understand the curriculum structure without requiring a teaching degree.

The Illustrative Mathematics NYC resource hub also has materials specific to NYC’s implementation, including information about what is being taught in each district.

When to call a tutor

There are two signals that a tutor makes sense. The first is sustained confusion: if your child has been stuck on a concept for more than two weeks and classroom instruction has not resolved it, the gap is real and likely to compound. The second is test performance: if your child’s state test scores or in-class assessments are not reflecting their understanding as you see it at home, something is not translating and a diagnostic is worth doing. Our free 60-minute evaluation at 226 W 79th St includes a 30-minute IM-aligned diagnostic that maps exactly where your child is within the IM sequence — not just “at grade level” or “below grade level,” but which specific concepts and representations need more work. The written diagnostic comes back within 48 hours.

If your child is thinking about the SHSAT or competitive private school admissions, see our SHSAT math 12-month roadmap and our ISEE math prep guide for how IM Math preparation intersects with test-specific preparation.

Which UWS schools currently use IM Math (or are about to)

Here is what is confirmed and what is pending as of summer 2026, with the caveat that the September 2026 expansion is still being finalized school by school.

District 3 public elementary and middle schools

Currently using IM Math: Several District 3 schools adopted IM Math in 2022–2023 and have been running it for multiple years. MS 54 (Booker T. Washington) on the Upper West Side has been among the more visible middle school implementations in the district. Anecdotal reports from parents at PS 87 (William Sherman), PS 199 (Jesse Isador Straus), and PS 452 (Upper West Side) indicate IM Math adoption at various grade levels, though the uniformity of implementation varies by building and by grade team.

What changes in September 2026: The NYC Solves expansion standardizes the IM Math curriculum across all grades in participating District 3 schools, paired with additional teacher coaching. This means families who have seen inconsistent IM Math implementation — one teacher using it, another using a legacy curriculum — should expect greater coherence starting in the fall. A full confirmed list of District 3 schools will be published by the DOE post-September 2026.

Students at West End Secondary School and Mott Hall II are also expected to be in full IM Math implementation by fall 2026. For a broader look at the expansion timeline and what it means for each borough, see our guide to the NYC Solves curriculum expansion.

The NYC Solves expansion beyond District 3

The May 21, 2026 NYC Solves announcement extends IM Math adoption to additional districts in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens for September 2026. The specific districts included in the expansion cohort are listed in the announcement; the Bronx districts that piloted IM Math and showed the largest proficiency gains (Districts 7 and 11) serve as the proof-of-concept for this broader rollout. Families in those districts who have not yet encountered IM Math should expect it in September.

Progressive independent schools

A number of progressive independent schools in New York City — those with explicit commitments to inquiry-based or project-based pedagogy — have adopted instructional approaches that overlap significantly with IM Math’s problem-based design, even if they do not use the IM curriculum by name. Schools in this category sometimes use Open Up Resources (the free IM-aligned curriculum) or have developed their own problem-based materials. This is not the case at most of the city’s major private schools: Trinity, Collegiate, Brearley, Spence, Dalton, Riverdale Country, Columbia Prep, Calhoun, and Ethical Culture Fieldston all operate under independent school governance and choose their own math curricula. As of summer 2026, none have publicly announced a formal IM Math adoption.

How SOMATH supports kids in IM Math classrooms at our UWS location

We want to be specific about what IM Math-aligned tutoring means at SOMATH, because it is different from what most families expect when they call a tutoring center.

We do not reteach with the old algorithm. When a 6th grader comes to us struggling with ratios, we do not open with “here is how you set up a proportion and cross-multiply.” We start by understanding where they are in the IM sequence, what their classroom has already established, and where the understanding is breaking down. Then we work within the IM approach — using the same representations (ratio tables, tape diagrams, double number lines), the same vocabulary, and the same problem-based structure — to close the gap. The student returns to class on the same page as their teacher, not on a different page with a different method.

We also offer what we call an IM-aligned diagnostic — a 30-minute structured assessment that maps a student’s current understanding against the IM K–12 scope and sequence. This is more specific than a generic “below grade level” assessment: it tells us whether a student has the visual representation fluency, the verbal reasoning, and the algebraic fluency for their current unit, and which of those three is the weak link. That diagnostic is part of our free evaluation.

For students who are on track in IM Math but are also preparing for competitive assessments — the SHSAT, ISEE, or eventually the SAT — we provide a bridge layer. IM Math builds excellent conceptual foundations; the tests require procedural fluency and speed that IM classroom instruction does not fully develop. Our enrichment tracks are designed to build both, sequenced so that the conceptual work comes first and the procedural fluency layer is added on top of it rather than instead of it. You can read about the broader distinction between enrichment and tutoring and when to start math enrichment in our dedicated guides.

For families whose children are significantly ahead and need challenge beyond IM Math’s classroom extension tasks, we offer accelerated problem-solving tracks that use AMC-style problems and advanced topics to build the mathematical sophistication that selective school entrance exams and competitive math programs reward. See our guide to gifted math programs on the Upper West Side for how that fits into the broader landscape.

A note on the blog post “What Painting Rocks Can Teach Us About Math Identity” from the Illustrative Mathematics blog: it is worth reading as a parent because it articulates the curriculum’s deeper goal — not just proficiency scores, but students who see themselves as mathematical thinkers. That shift in math identity, the IM team argues, is part of what the Bronx district data is measuring. We share that view at SOMATH. The students who do best in our programs are not just competent; they are curious. IM Math, done well, builds that curiosity. We try to sustain and extend it.

Frequently asked questions

Is Illustrative Mathematics the same as Common Core?

No — and this is one of the most common confusions. Common Core is a set of learning standards: it describes what students should know at each grade level. Illustrative Mathematics is a curriculum: the actual lessons, problems, and instructional sequence used to teach those standards. Many different curricula are designed to meet Common Core standards. IM Math is one of the best-aligned, but “Common Core math” is not a curriculum — it is a policy framework. When parents say their child’s homework “looks like Common Core,” they usually mean it looks like IM Math.

Why does my child’s homework look so different from how I learned math?

Because the instructional design is genuinely different. Traditional math instruction showed students a procedure, then asked them to practice it. IM Math gives students a problem before showing the procedure and asks them to figure out how to approach it. The homework reflects that reversal: it asks for reasoning, diagrams, and explanation rather than computation alone. This is not a mistake in curriculum design — it reflects decades of research on how mathematical understanding develops. See our guide to 5th grade math and 8th grade math for grade-specific examples of what IM Math looks like at different levels.

Does IM Math prepare kids for the SHSAT, ISEE, and SAT?

IM Math builds the conceptual reasoning that underlies all three tests. However, the SHSAT, ISEE, and SAT also require procedural fluency, time pressure management, and test-specific formats that IM Math’s classroom instruction does not directly develop. Students with strong IM Math foundations often have excellent conceptual grounding but need supplemental work on procedure speed and test strategy. Our SHSAT 12-month math roadmap and ISEE prep guide cover exactly how to bridge that gap.

Should I reteach my child with the algorithm I know?

No — and this is the most important answer in this FAQ. When your child is in the middle of building conceptual understanding through IM Math’s approach, introducing a shortcut algorithm too early short-circuits the reasoning the curriculum is building. It also creates confusion: the student now has two methods that look different and does not know which one to use in class. If your child is struggling, contact the teacher first, then consider a tutor who extends — rather than contradicts — the IM approach.

Is IM Math good for gifted students?

IM Math is designed with a high ceiling: extension tasks push students who finish quickly to reason more deeply, not just do more of the same. For students who are significantly ahead — already thinking algebraically in 4th or 5th grade — the extension tasks may not be enough. Those students benefit from enrichment outside the classroom that challenges them at the level of competitive mathematics, while keeping the IM approach as their classroom foundation. See our guide to gifted math programs on the Upper West Side and our discussion of enrichment vs. tutoring.

What is the Open Up Resources version of IM Math?

Open Up Resources (OUR) is a nonprofit that publishes the IM K–12 Math curriculum as a free, open-source version. It is the same core curriculum — the same problem sequences, lesson structures, and learning goals — made freely available to any school or family. Many NYC schools use the OUR version because it costs nothing to access. The family materials and practice problems available at accessim.org/families are free to any parent.

Does SOMATH tutor in alignment with IM Math?

Yes. At 226 W 79th St on the Upper West Side, our tutors are trained in IM Math’s instructional approach. We use the same representations, vocabulary, and problem-based structure the curriculum uses — we do not reteach with the traditional algorithm-first method. Our IM-aligned diagnostic identifies exactly where a student is within the IM scope and sequence, and our sessions extend the classroom approach rather than contradict it. Rate: $60/hour; four-month packages $1,440–$1,920. Free 60-min evaluation with written diagnostic within 48 hours.

Will NYC private schools like Trinity, Brearley, Collegiate, and Columbia Prep adopt IM Math?

Not officially, and not soon. Independent schools choose their own curricula without DOE mandates, and most established private schools have their own mathematics sequences. Some progressive independent schools use problem-based approaches that overlap with IM Math’s philosophy, but a formal adoption of IM K–12 at Trinity, Brearley, Collegiate, Spence, or Columbia Prep has not been announced. The NYC Solves expansion applies to public schools only.

Related reading