I had originally assumed the criticisms were exaggerated, but the more I read about the new curriculum the less comfortable I am.
It seems every defense is built around hedges like this one:
> 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
Which suggests to me that they really are trying to walk back the complexity of the education, perhaps as part of a goal to force the variance of educational progress into a narrower range within classes.
The language is so vague that it's hard to understand exactly what they're trying to do, which I think is their point. If they wanted to emphasize advanced education topics it would have been front and center in the plan. Instead, it seems like a footnote that we're supposed to assume will get taken care of in some future iteration of this integrative math program.
It seems every defense is built around hedges like this one:
> 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
Which suggests to me that they really are trying to walk back the complexity of the education, perhaps as part of a goal to force the variance of educational progress into a narrower range within classes.
The language is so vague that it's hard to understand exactly what they're trying to do, which I think is their point. If they wanted to emphasize advanced education topics it would have been front and center in the plan. Instead, it seems like a footnote that we're supposed to assume will get taken care of in some future iteration of this integrative math program.