From your PDF:

> Administrators should examine programs and policies and how white supremacy impacts student outcomes (e.g., tracking, course selection, intervention rosters).

> White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when... Students are tracked

I interpreted this to mean that tracking is (like course selection) a student outcome that can be impacted by "white supremacy culture", not that tracking is, inherently and unavoidably, a sign of white supremacy. If there's burglars around, unlocked doors are usually correlated with burglary; that doesn't mean you can't leave your doors unlocked, but you're going to want to be careful about it. Similarly, if you live in a society with pervasive racism (read: most societies), it's possible to track students in a way that doesn't reinforce those racist trends, but probably only if you're careful about it.

I think I probably agree with you that "white supremacy culture" is, as a term, perhaps more aggressive than it needs to be. Not being deeply embedded in this debate, I'd assume it's going to turn off more people who hear it, think "I'm not a klansman, so this isn't something I need to address" than it will engage people who think racism is bad but haven't considered how their own (probably unexamined) practices are leading to outcomes they don't want.

Somehow we’re supposed to believe that there’s no white supremacy, that mathematics simply lives in a platonic ideal world where it doesn’t matter that so few African America mathematics phds are awarded each year, for instance.

You are confusing racism in the world e.g. our education system, which exists and is quite impactful, with racism in mathematics, which is not at all a well defined concept.

If you told me that math education professionals were a fundamental cornerstone of an oppressive culture, I would sign on immediately. But you have to be aware that it is exactly that cadre of professionals that are offering up the recommended changes.

What does this have to do with the actual changes being made?

A central pillar of Equitable Math is that all children must always be at the same level up until their last year. This is what is in contention, and not whether the Common Core needs more revision in terms of depth or rearrangement of subjects.

Under the Common Core, children in middle school who are ready for Algebra may opt for Algebra, and children who benefit from a delay may opt for a delay — but this is viewed by Equitable Math as sustaining White Supremacy in math education.

> all children must always be at the same level up until their last year

But that's not what's happening, so, again, what does that have to do with the actual changes being made?

It’s the goal.

...of some people but not the recommendations?

Equitable Math is not "some people". It's the original branding for the program under contention in this forum.

Are the Equitable Math folks the entirety of the stakeholders involved? Will "all children be at the same level up until their last year"?

If no to both, it does seem an awful lot like invoking the motivations of some of the people involved as a boogeyman rather than making an argument about the final recommendations themselves.

Under current proposals, which have yet to be finalized, there are zero specifications for alternative tracks in math, including zero specification for Algebra in middle school. You seem to think that Equitable Math is an entirely separate proposal, and thus the authors of Equitable Math are just "some people". They are program architects. And the stakeholders? Why, all of California of course, including textbook publishers making decisions for 8th grade Algebra textbooks.

For schools under the Equitable Math proposals, the goal will be that for any given grade level, all children will be at the same level up until their last year. The explicitly stated reasoning by the program authors is that alternative tracks in math are a form of disparity which promotes White Supremacy. Will this in fact be the final final proposal? That is what is under debate right now.

Not all proponents of Jim Crow laws were hate filled but enough were that one can ascribe to the legislators of the Deep South that supported those laws as being hate filled. What you are being told are the intended consequences of the people writing the proposals and are now asking about the totality of the beliefs of the stakeholders. You are welcome to believe whatever you want about the motivations of the people writing the proposals as I am. But please don’t confuse their intentions with the intentions of all stakeholders. No one is doing this.

So you are mad at the imaginary goal that you made up. Got it.

Same agenda from two different organizations. Effectively implementing the reforms will lead to a system where advanced math courses are taken by students in k-12 whose parents have money.