My colleagues and I are re-writing our Algebra 2 course over the summer. At the moment we’re going with Michael’s excellent suggestion of “predictions” as the main idea, with functions (using a relationship metaphor) as the main tool (see last year’s discussion about all this). Our evolving google doc is available for anyone who wants to follow along. If you have any input, please chime in. I’ll add to this post as our ideas shape up.
7/16/12: We’ve updated the course standards and grading policy. Next step: design examples & criteria for each standard on what will be accepted as demonstrating proficiency.
Work in Pencil 
[…] So in the Algebra II planning I’m doing for next year with colleagues, we’ve come up with a chart of 26 skills by 5-7 function families […]
Are your students going to discover the models via experiments, or are you going to give them the function models?
What are your thoughts on rational functions? What sort of stuff will you predict with that? (There are applications in optics and circuits. What else?)
I’m also curious: where do inverses fit into your prediction story? That’s a part of the narrative that I’ve struggled with.
This is very focused. I like the plan so far, and I’m keeping a close eye on your work for when I redraft my curriculum in a few weeks.
Also, what are you using for sources of problems? Exexter, Park Math, CME, PCMI, JIBLM… are you sitting on anything else?
@Michael – No idea. We’re at the “what’s the overall point of the course and what are the big-picture criteria for getting an A, B, C, D” stage. Then we’ll break it down into units and problems. Two years ago I used CPM; last year I didn’t teach it but my colleagues used CPM supplemented with Glencoe drills and a few CME things. We were hoping to move to CME this year but that seems unlikely. We’ve also discussed opening with some parts of the Shell Centre’s Language of Functions and Graphs. But watch this space – by end of August we should have populated our year.