Have you ever seen Terence Tao signing up for a manufactured outrage? Alan Kay? If you're the type to read technical papers you'll recognize a bunch more names on the list of signers. Furthermore the language in the post was calm and measured.
> I find it interesting with many of these criticisms that subject matter experts on maths, sciences, etc think that they are also subject matter experts on the pedagogy of maths, science, etc especially at a high school level.
The people you mentioned are my idols, same as the authors and hosts of this blog post. But there is a world of difference between being a great scientist and being a great K12 teacher.
> The signatories include ... educators with decades of experience teaching students at all levels ... people vested in mathematical high-school education, such as ...
Obviously this is just my personal anecdote, but I do claim I have been very invested in exactly this type of education and have seen how well-meaning crazy-smart professors are failing to teach K12 students (in their once-a-year charity event) while patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
What do you think of the claim that the policy will increase inequality of preparation because better-off parents will bypass public education more? It sounds like you might have more light to shed on that.
But to actually answer your question. Better-off parents already bypass public education, even if not completely. If this new program works (not a given), the problem will not be exacerbated, rather more students will be prepared to reach for these "gifted programs" (which in many cases, even if expensive, usually have good fee-waivers as this gives them more credibility).
[1] Obviously just a personal opinion. But in the interactions I have had in this context I feel I have seen a lot of inflated but unsubstantiated sense of competence.
(I wouldn't bet on it, personally, and I don't think the infusion of wokeness is mainly about helping more people to understand math better. Hopefully I'm too cynical. The Common Core math stuff seems like progress, for instance.)
It is cited in the open letter's supporting document. It would take some very serious effort to read through these resources and try to disentangle the biases of the authors, but I guess this meltdown would not have happened if reading social/ed science papers was easy.
Very good point. K12 teachers know a lot, but they may not know much about the path to becoming a world-renowned scientist. The signers of this letter know that path from their own experience and the experience of their colleagues. They may not be educators but they have intimate understanding of the education process of bright children.
A central pillar of Equitable Math is that all children of any given grade ought to be in the same math class, and that there ought not be any standard specification for, say, taking Algebra "early" in middle school. The explicitly stated reasoning by the program authors is that this disparity sustains White Supremacy in math.
A child who is ready for Algebra would be best served by opting into a classroom where a teacher has been polishing a year-long discourse on Algebra, as opposed to creating an ad-hoc gifted program. A return to gifted programs would be a return to administrative opacity.
Or Scott Aaronson. Scott Aaronson is about as social-justice-y as you get. When even he thinks the equity types have gone too far, it's really time to step back and see if you're making sense, even to yourself.
There's a bigger argument here, but I'm just addressing this one unmerited accusation in this thread.
He and some of his collaborators were among the earliest in applying Piaget and Bruner's learning models to programming education, mainly for learners under age 15.