That logic isn’t used in any other discipline:

“We only cover bad art — we don’t focus on students who go on to be professional artists.”

“We only focus on bad English — we don’t focus on students who go on to be professional writers.”

“We only focus on bad history - we don’t focus on students who go on to study history or social science.”

Each of those has an AP and IB track, competitions to find elites, etc — just as mathematics should for high performers.

If as an educator, you only teach to the lowest common denominator, then you’re failing the children you’re supposed to educate.

To me, your post reads as if you’re bragging about failing at your job.

Students do learn art in K-12, but they could be considered as "bad art" by professional artists...

No — you should fact check that.

Middle and high schools start auditioning and training students into “advanced” art, preparing them to go onto competitions and onto serious careers in programs differentiated from the casual art classes.

Learning calculus won’t be enough as a professional in STEM either — but AP Calculus is the equivalent of audition-only advanced art classes. (Which exist all over.)

Do most public schools really have the capacity to train students for serious art careers? At least in dance and music, at the highest levels everything is purely student driven (school dance and music is typically not super competitive for the serious artist) and presumably visual art is as well. Unless you go to an arts high school, but there aren't that many of those

I went to two high schools, one very poor and one moderately wealthy.

Both had audition programs in art for “advanced” classes (both music and drawing), where students were matched with more serious training and where their bands went to competitions and drawings were entered in regional shows.

I think you’re confusing “good, on track for professional” with “absolute top tier” — many students from regular schools go on to, eg, be animators at a studio or choir directors.

The same split exists in math:

- advanced classes you have to place into exist at most schools, eg AP calculus

- but to be the “absolute top tier”, you’re talking about STEM schools and private mentoring programs

You need the first for engineers, scientists, etc — even if they’re not going to be Terry Tao.

That's fine, but it's the reason we have tracks. Future STEM workers can go into the advanced track and everyone else can go into their own track.

Germany separates people into vocational school and something closer to what we'd consider high school in the US by 9-10th grade. If you embrace the idea that some people are simply less suited for intensive math - whether it be because of work ethic, inherited IQ, lack of interest, etc. - and give them a path towards jobs that better fit their skillset, I think you'd see a lot less people drowning in college debt because they got a degree in sociology when they got weeded out of Calculus 101.

Totally agree. That's why there is a CTE (career and technical education) movement in the US now. Perkins V is the strong push in this regard. https://cte.ed.gov/legislation/perkins-v

So then let's have a few separate paths instead of only one curriculum. I believe that there is a lot of value to a basic algebra + personal finance + probability math track that helps a future plumber understand everything they need for their career.

Depriving college-bound students of calculus, though, is a bad move. A lot of philosophy also involves calculus-related arguments (ie if we cut up space in really small pieces, what do we get?), so it has applications outside the STEM fields.