Exactly. And then compare the language used in the Open Letter with the claims they are making. One easy example which seriously undermines the Letter's credibility:
Letter Claims: "Distracts from actual mathematics by having teachers develop students’ “sociopolitical consciousness.”"
Referenced Section in Proposal: "Ms. Ross teaches fifth grade at the Jackie Robinson Academy. She has been focusing on developing her students’ sociopolitical consciousness through language arts and wants to bring mathematics into their thinking"
The letter uses an anti-pattern of redefining something and arguing against the definition, rather than doing the hard work of discussing the actual something. Bringing mathematics into a subject where it can be applied is not 'distracting from actual mathematics'. Whether or not the sociopolitcal consciousness element of the curriculum is appropriate for fifth grade is a red-herring as that's not what's being proposed.
Letter Claims: "Distracts from actual mathematics by having teachers develop students’ “sociopolitical consciousness.”"
Referenced Section in Proposal: "Ms. Ross teaches fifth grade at the Jackie Robinson Academy. She has been focusing on developing her students’ sociopolitical consciousness through language arts and wants to bring mathematics into their thinking"
The letter uses an anti-pattern of redefining something and arguing against the definition, rather than doing the hard work of discussing the actual something. Bringing mathematics into a subject where it can be applied is not 'distracting from actual mathematics'. Whether or not the sociopolitcal consciousness element of the curriculum is appropriate for fifth grade is a red-herring as that's not what's being proposed.