While this is true, I would like to point out a good portion of schools do allow students to continue to more advanced math if they elect to.

I went to high school in California, I was able to take all the way up to what was called Calculus BC, which covered up to learning integration techniques. This was in a bay area high school that was underfunded, and the majority of our senior class didn't graduate.

But the vast majority of students stop at Algebra 2, and struggle through it.

That means nothing. I have met plenty of people that did calculus in high school and got pushed back into remedial classes in college. Exposure to a concept does not mean proficiency in it.

I'd have taken exposure over nothing. I had to teach myself - as an adult - calculus, linear algebra, probability (outside of the ever-so-brief introduction in school) and trigonometry. I personally don't think I did a very good job as my own teacher either. 3Blue1Brown was a lifesaver and every now and again I try to brush up on the topics - not for my benefit at all but for my child's benefit in the future.

I think schooling absolutely failed me in almost every regard once I made it past the 4th grade. Half of what I learned isn't even true anymore or were partial truths/mostly lies to make it easier for a 5th/6th grader to grok and they'll be told "the truth" at some point later in high school or college only to never be told the truth or not have the opportunity to attend college where you finally would have been told the truth.

Exposure to something is the first step in learning about something.

> Half of what I learned isn't even true anymore or were partial truths/mostly lies

This is true of most levels of education. What you learn in elementary turns out to be bullshit because of what you learn in high school which turns out to be bullshit because of what you learn in undergrad which turns out to be bullshit because of graduate school which turns out to be bullshit because of the work of an army of scientists.

Yes, but often times the army of scientists had already done their work. Even in the late 90's a lot of what I was learning was already known to be false but the updates hadn't yet hit by textbooks published in 1982. The teachers even sometimes already knew it to be wrong but had to teach it anyway because it was still considered part of the state curriculum. But the more common and larger issue was the partial truths/mostly lies - even if some of the lies are arguably justified to make learning easier for some kids. The better teachers wouldn't lie but would simply say "You'll be taught about that later in a higher grade".

> Math in US high schools ends at what most countries would consider a middle school level.

I agree that the nationwide baseline is abysmally, or even tragically, low. This is clearly problematic in and of itself. However, there isn’t a standard curriculum for US high schools as this varies widely by state and town/district/school.

My wife grew up in China, went to a good high school, but is only proficient in math up to the algebra 2 level (maybe?) considering she took the liberal arts track. If you aren't working up to STEM, I'm sure you don't take calculus in many countries.

The question in my mind is, how useful is calculus in most people's lives?

Not very useful, since most people don't work in technical professions. But if you want to pursue further technical studies, then that's a different ballgame.

To me, the question isn't whether Calculus will be useful to somebody who intends to study nursing, but rather whether the doorways to other venues will be made that much narrower, or closed altogether. Under Equitable Math, all children must be at the same level, whether they wish to pursue nursing or engineering.

Children and their families ought to have a choice, including the choice to march forward toward their individual academic ambition and ability.

> Under Equitable Math, all children must be at the same level,

That's not true; the proposed Framework model shifts from a focus on breadth differentiation to a focus on depth differentiation.

You could just as well argue that the existing approach tries to force all students to be “at the same level”, since it neglects the differentiation opportunity that the proposed framework focuses on. That would, also, be wrong, but no more wrong than your characterization.

You are mistaken. Under the Equitable Math proposal, all children are to be in the same technical class regardless of their ability. Children will not be allowed to take Algebra in middle school, and children will not be allowed to take Calculus until specifically the senior year. Differentiation may only occur at the senior year of high school.

The Common Core does not neglect differentiation opportunity, and neither does it dictate or detail that children must be in one class over another; that is left up to each state. Under the Common Core as implemented in California, children may take Algebra with an Algebra teacher based on their individual ability. The entire Common Core specification for math can be read in one day.

The Common Core does dictate learning targets to be met for any particular official class, whether that is Algebra I/II or Geometry. The Common Core also emphasizes deep learning over rote memorization, but it critically does not require that all students must be at the same level. This is the central point of contention, and not whether the Common Core ought go even deeper.

As a detail, note that Californian classrooms may have around 40 children in a math class, and that penalties for classroom sizes end in middle school. These are the conditions under which math teachers must address individual variability.

Equitable Math would be a SOLID win for private schools and after-school math programs such as RSM.

"Under Equitable Math, all children must be at the same level, whether they wish to pursue nursing or engineering."

Should we be striving for equitable or equality?

"Children and their families ought to have a choice, including the choice to march forward toward their individual academic ambition and ability"

This doesn't sound equitable.

Do nurses actually use calculus?