The central point of contention is not whether the Common Core, which already emphasizes depth over rote learning, ought go even deeper. The contention is also not over whether we ought have more combinatorics or Linear Algebra in the curriculum, and nor whether schools ought be able to pursue CS or Statistics programs — they are already free to do so, although schools across the entire nation have largely failed to persuade universities as to the reliability of their programs, and thus they rarely count for credits earned or requirements met.
Instead, the central question is whether all students ought be in the same class up until the senior year, regardless of their individual ambitions or abilities in math.
For context, Californian math classrooms may have ratios of 1 teacher to 40 students, and classroom sizes are not penalized past middle school. This is the context under which teachers must somehow address cohort variability, the same context under which we might somehow expect an Algebra teacher have units planned for those who are ready for Geometry. This is not a realistic assumption of teacher competency.
Equitable Math would be a huge win for private schools and after-school programs such as RSM.
Instead, the central question is whether all students ought be in the same class up until the senior year, regardless of their individual ambitions or abilities in math.
For context, Californian math classrooms may have ratios of 1 teacher to 40 students, and classroom sizes are not penalized past middle school. This is the context under which teachers must somehow address cohort variability, the same context under which we might somehow expect an Algebra teacher have units planned for those who are ready for Geometry. This is not a realistic assumption of teacher competency.
Equitable Math would be a huge win for private schools and after-school programs such as RSM.