The manufactured outrage over the California math recommendations keep getting posted on HN. Read the actual text of the plans here [1]. The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations. They are not banning gifted & talented programs or advanced students taking accelerated courses. They are not taking algebra out of the curriculum, although they are cutting geometry a bit, which doesn't make as much sense today as it did 100 years ago when far more people grew up to be farmers or ranchers. They are adding more statistics and probability, which I think are crucial in today's society.
What they are fundamentally doing is breaking up the classic U.S. staged path where you learn algebra for a year, then geometry for a year, then back to algebra / pre-calc for a year, then maybe take statistics or calculus as an elective, etc. Instead, all branches of math will be taught in an integrated approach focused around applied problems.
This is how a lot of European math courses are taught. In fact, I think HN would appreciate the shift from focusing on pure numbers and classic formulas to more applied uses of math, including algorithms, probability, data collected and analyzed in charts, etc. Students also forget a lot of algebra when they do a year of geometry by itself, then have to go back to algebra / pre-calc.
It also does mean that in the transition, it will be harder for students to "test out" of the classic algebra I/II, geometry, pre-calc sequence, because it will just be "year X integrated math." But the framework does not forbid gifted and talented programs or anything like that. There will just be a few awkward years while the curriculum shifts.
Now, there are some on the left who advocated for the elimination of gifted and talented programs altogether, for equity reasons. They did not get what they wanted in the new California framework. That hasn't stopped a lot of people from looking at what California is doing and imagining it is actually some kind of Harrison Bergeron dystopia, when that is absolutely not the case.
[1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
[2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp
What they are fundamentally doing is breaking up the classic U.S. staged path where you learn algebra for a year, then geometry for a year, then back to algebra / pre-calc for a year, then maybe take statistics or calculus as an elective, etc. Instead, all branches of math will be taught in an integrated approach focused around applied problems.
This is how a lot of European math courses are taught. In fact, I think HN would appreciate the shift from focusing on pure numbers and classic formulas to more applied uses of math, including algorithms, probability, data collected and analyzed in charts, etc. Students also forget a lot of algebra when they do a year of geometry by itself, then have to go back to algebra / pre-calc.
It also does mean that in the transition, it will be harder for students to "test out" of the classic algebra I/II, geometry, pre-calc sequence, because it will just be "year X integrated math." But the framework does not forbid gifted and talented programs or anything like that. There will just be a few awkward years while the curriculum shifts.
Now, there are some on the left who advocated for the elimination of gifted and talented programs altogether, for equity reasons. They did not get what they wanted in the new California framework. That hasn't stopped a lot of people from looking at what California is doing and imagining it is actually some kind of Harrison Bergeron dystopia, when that is absolutely not the case.
[1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
[2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp