Hacker News Reader

Comment by threatofrain | Hacker News Reader

A central pillar of Equitable Math is that all children must always be at the same level up until their last year. This is what is in contention, and not whether the Common Core needs more revision in terms of depth or rearrangement of subjects.

Under the Common Core, children in middle school who are ready for Algebra may opt for Algebra, and children who benefit from a delay may opt for a delay — but this is viewed by Equitable Math as sustaining White Supremacy in math education.

View on HN

> all children must always be at the same level up until their last year

But that's not what's happening, so, again, what does that have to do with the actual changes being made?

It’s the goal.

...of some people but not the recommendations?

Equitable Math is not "some people". It's the original branding for the program under contention in this forum.

Are the Equitable Math folks the entirety of the stakeholders involved? Will "all children be at the same level up until their last year"?

If no to both, it does seem an awful lot like invoking the motivations of some of the people involved as a boogeyman rather than making an argument about the final recommendations themselves.

Under current proposals, which have yet to be finalized, there are zero specifications for alternative tracks in math, including zero specification for Algebra in middle school. You seem to think that Equitable Math is an entirely separate proposal, and thus the authors of Equitable Math are just "some people". They are program architects. And the stakeholders? Why, all of California of course, including textbook publishers making decisions for 8th grade Algebra textbooks.

For schools under the Equitable Math proposals, the goal will be that for any given grade level, all children will be at the same level up until their last year. The explicitly stated reasoning by the program authors is that alternative tracks in math are a form of disparity which promotes White Supremacy. Will this in fact be the final final proposal? That is what is under debate right now.

Not all proponents of Jim Crow laws were hate filled but enough were that one can ascribe to the legislators of the Deep South that supported those laws as being hate filled. What you are being told are the intended consequences of the people writing the proposals and are now asking about the totality of the beliefs of the stakeholders. You are welcome to believe whatever you want about the motivations of the people writing the proposals as I am. But please don’t confuse their intentions with the intentions of all stakeholders. No one is doing this.

So you are mad at the imaginary goal that you made up. Got it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com