Edit: in the new version it has been changed to "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated"

I mean, I would hope this is true.

I'm not "naturally" gifted at mathematics, but like reading, writing, and other things, I can learn them in school and got quite good at them.

Public education is like mass transit. Not everyone gets their own Lamborghini. Most have to take the bus. Its goal should be providing the best general education it can for all people and making as many people as possible productive.

If you looked at society 500 years ago you could assume that only certain people were smart enough to read and write.

Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced to only read 1st grade books anyway because that's what their age is? I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

It'd be one thing to make a resource allocation argument but that's not even what this is. This curriculum is clearly a philosophical statement and personally I don't get it.

Certainly some people are better at things than others - but so what? I know plenty of people that excelled in math in grade school and struggled in high school, also many more that excelled in high school and struggled in college. Some, like myself, struggled in grade school and excelled in high school. The difference was motivation.

> Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced to only read 1st grade books anyway because that's what their age is? I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

And how many brilliant kids moved just a bit too fast and lost interest? The thing is you only view things one way. You forget that a fast ramp-up in difficulty can turn away many students who could've turned out to be brilliant scientists and engineers.

> It'd be one thing to make a resource allocation argument but that's not even what this is. This curriculum is clearly a philosophical statement and personally I don't get it.

I don't agree that it is a philosophical statement, having read it, it seems pretty straightforward. The alarmism about the woke mob is overstated.

The people that wrote said publicly available draft are still involved with this plan, and have not personally nor explicitly backed down from the statement. It's a good sign that some moderation has been introduced to the text, but it seems clear to me there are still some pretty extreme beliefs amongst those leading this thing.

Whether the "woke alarmism" is over the top or not, I don't think it should be controversial to say that a philosophical statement is at the root of this plan. I wouldn't be surprised if the Equitable Math folks would agree with that assessment even.

I also don't think that criticism of a specific model of leveled courses should be used to dismiss all leveled courses. You talk about kids that are rushed ahead or that perform differently at different points in their math "career" - which could certainly be problematic if levels are rigid throughout the educational timeline and leave little choice to students.

Yes sometimes it is implemented that way. But it is not impossible nor even particularly impractical to implement a more flexible levels system that would mitigate those concerns. There are schools that have done this well, California school system was not one of them. This proposal is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

> I also don't think that criticism of a specific model of leveled courses should be used to dismiss all leveled courses. You talk about kids that are rushed ahead or that perform differently at different points in their math "career" - which could certainly be problematic if levels are rigid throughout the educational timeline and leave little choice to students.

But arguing for a gifted track IS rigid - it basically says "you must decide now if you're good at math, or not." That is deeply flawed. You can't add flexibility - you need algebra and geometry to do calculus. If you decide or become motivated too late (even if naturally gifted!), you have no recourse, as the "gifted track" starts before you can even know. The current system and system you advocate for could be removing huge numbers of potential STEM graduates from the mix.

> Yes sometimes it is implemented that way. But it is not impossible nor even particularly impractical to implement a more flexible levels system that would mitigate those concerns. There are schools that have done this well, California school system was not one of them. This proposal is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Not really - as is said in the framework, most foreign nations that outperform the US have a standard curriculum. So the problem isn't flexibility.

"The framework builds on the strategies used in a number of high-achieving jurisdictions (e.g., Estonia, Finland, Japan, and Korea) that pursue an integrated curriculum—connecting the domains of mathematics with one another as students collaborate in using data to solve real-world problems. These countries pursue a common curriculum in elementary and middle school, supporting more students in reaching higher level mathematics. The framework illustrates how this integrated approach with many different kinds of supports can be used to expand the number of students excelling in mathematics and heading for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers."

Schools spend a lot of time reviewing things over the course of the academic year, including things from prior years - I disagree that it is not possible for students to move tracks with a well thought out curriculum plan. But regardless the proposed curriculum eliminates material that would be covered in upper track courses, and explicitly states it does not aim to have students prepared to take calculus during high school. This is like putting all students on the lower track, which is a hell of a solution to the problem of students getting stuck on the lower track.

Japan's model is much more like putting every student in the high track, it is not comparable to what is being proposed here. Japanese high schoolers are able to take intro analysis in 11th grade, here is a translated textbook that would be extremely rare to see a US 11th grader cover the same material (even with standard tracks you'd be lucky to cover it all in 12th): https://bookstore.ams.org/mawrld-11

Putting everyone together in the high track has its own obvious issues. ~70% of students go to "cram school" after school in Japan to be able to handle the curriculum: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-japan...

I'm not familiar with math education in those other countries mentioned, but I imagine it is more similar to Japan than the US. Hilariously there have been some recent pushes in Japan to be more like the US education system as far as flexibility is concerned, in order to take some of the pressure off of students.

It seems like any other guided/misguided attempt to improve the school system that has already taken feedback into account.

This entire HN thread is filled with "back in my days" and "wokism" but no one actually is disputing the content of the framework itself with actual evidence.

When I was in school in the U.K. we did the first and second things, including eg multiplying matrices, eigenstuff, diagonalising them, inverting small matrices, some determinant/cross product stuff, and we maybe did the thing where you solve a first order linear ODE system by converting to matrix exponentiation, though I don’t quite remember. I think we just called it vectors and matrices.

There was some useful stuff there. The problem is that it was at a course so close to the leaves of the ‘x allowed to depend on material from y’ tree that we didn’t get to apply that much (related example: we had to waste a bunch of time on silly equations in physics because they couldn’t depend on us knowing about the y’ = kx ODE)

At university we did some courses in vectors and matrices / vector calculus that went down the practical route towards physics things and useful tools, and we had a course called ‘linear algebra’ that covered the abstract algebra side of things, where everything was lemmas/theorems/proofs beginning with e.g. suppose e1, e2, …, en is a basis for a vector space V over F, …. However it is certainly possible that the US terminology (linear algebra for everything) was more common outside of the courses I took.

It wasn't until I'd dropped out of college and taught myself math, because of the interviews in this industry, that I learned to enjoy math again. My point is that you're really fucking with the social firmware of kids when you do that. Also, reading between the lines of my life, not being in that upper level math class clearly had no impact on the latter parts of my life.

I'm trying to figure out how this relates. It sounds like you had a bad experience with tracking, and there is a fundamental issue with tracking where some amount of people will have bad experiences, but ultimately you were able to achieve your potential anyway, so why make the experience bad with tracking if people will eventually get to the right level over time - is that a fair interpretation of your comment?

Edit:

To make what I'm saying a bit more clear: There's a ton of people in these threads assuming that not everybody is born with math skills (or variants of that attitude). That is exactly what these teachers thought and how different my life would've been had I agreed.

It sounds like that was implemented very poorly in your case. You yourself said "I was immediately bored in our lower maths class". I don't see how the solution to this is to make everyone take the lower math class. Certainly there is some middle ground between the California plan and what you experienced.

It’s hard to see that as undermining tracking as a concept, since the problem is actually the absence of oversight and termination of bad teachers. No one teacher should have the power to doom a student, but a school needs to be able to recognize and cultivate talent.

It sounds like the implementation of levels was especially bad in the OP's case though, so I agree it isn't really a good anecdote to argue against leveling entirely like California is doing. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else

I'm glad for it. I would never want to bring anyone else down to meet me at my level on any metric.

I don’t want everyone to be the same, but unbridled disparity seems equally as bad to me… especially considering how arbitrary it can be.

People going hungry, especially children, is a travesty.

What is your solution to it? We already have food stamps, welfare, fully subsidized healthcare, child tax credits, social security disability, free school breakfasts and lunches, Section 8 Housing, SNAP, WIC, CHIP, Medicaid, churches, charities, social security death benefit and so much more. People are still hungry.

Should we do more? The lesson of Africa says we shouldn’t. Decades of food aid to Africa did little more than make the continent dependent on food aid and drive all the farmers out of business because they couldn’t compete against free.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14iht-food...

And I haven’t even brought up lthat there simply aren’t enough billionaires to tax to make even a tiny difference in any of this. Even if you took literally their entire net worth, converted it to cash (which is literally impossible) and spent it on the poor it wouldn’t make any difference.

THe child tax credit cut child hunger by 26%. We let it end. Giving people food isn't an especially hard problem in the US, yet we're not able to do it.

https://www.thebalance.com/new-child-tax-credit-cut-hunger-s....

Doling that out in smaller increments and making the purpose specific (child credit, instead of tax refund) seems like a good nudge into better spending habits... especially when the amount is known ahead of time.

For many people that get the child tax credit, a bonus is exactly what it is.

The word you should have put in quotes is “refund”. My sister, for example, used to pay about $1,500 in tax throughout the year yet get a $7,500 “refund”.

Isn’t that something? Pay x and get 5x as a “refund”.

Firstly, evidentially, people do care about disparity: increasing disparity seems to adversely affect people physiologically, independently from wealth. That is, having someone else be significantly richer than you, independently of your own health, seems to create stress effects in a population. By the metrics of national health and well-being, it seems like wealth disparity is a bad thing in its own right.

Secondly, the problem with billionaires is not that they simply have so much money, it's that one's ability to influence society, including making and breaking the rules of society, is intrinsically tied to money. For example, consider the recent news about Bezos buying a new boat, and having to take down and rebuild a bridge to get it to sea. On the one hand, it doesn't really matter to me how much he spends on that boat - it's his money, and he can use it as he likes. However, the people of Rotterdam were promised that the bridge would remain put, yet Bezos' money (presumably via the shipyard that organised this) was enough to override the democratic process, presumably alongside adding a significant inconvenience to the people living there.

Or consider the recent trend of billionaires buying media companies. On the one hand, it's kind of irrelevant how they want to invest their money, but on the other hand, these media companies afford significant impact on the views and perspectives seen by society. If we really want to claim that we live in a democracy, it seems dangerous to also accept that one person can, essentially on a whim, buy one of the largest social media platforms with only vague hints as to what he plans to do with it. That sort of power is absolutely not something that you (I assume) or I personally can wield, yet it could well have a significant impact in shaping public opinion.

As long as money can be roughly equated to power, then wealth disparity will remain a very important thing to be concerned about.