Saw an example of this in Hacker News today. California and Cambridge, MA removed algebra from their middle school math curriculum for a stated reason of equity. Here’s the Boston Globe challenging the equity argument with another equity argument:
Udengaard is one of dozens of parents who recently have publicly voiced frustration with a years-old decision made by Cambridge to remove advanced math classesin grades six to eight. [...]
“The students who are able to jump into a higher level math class are students from better-resourced backgrounds,” said Jacob Barandes, another district parent and a Harvard physicist. “They’re shortchanging a significant number of students, overwhelmingly students from less-resourced backgrounds, which is deeply inequitable.”
In contrast the blogger Noahpinion points out the direct effect, but then also ties it to equity. Later he (unfairly) accuses the proponents of removing math of hereditarian, un-progressive views on education.
When you ban or discourage the teaching of a subject like algebra in junior high schools, what you are doing is withdrawing state resources from public education. There is a thing you could be teaching kids how to do, but instead you are refusing to teach it. In what way is refusing to use state resources to teach children an important skill “progressive”? How would this further the goal of equity?
Why does Noahpinion mention equity even after bringing up the direct effect? I think it’s because equity is a frame that everyone (in the debate among progressives) cares about, so your argument is guaranteed to at least land. Some people care more about equity than the direct effect of teaching advanced students more math. This is basically explanation 3 (domains of respectability), but it’s less about status and more about being universally important vs maybe not important to the opponents of your argument.
Saw an example of this in Hacker News today. California and Cambridge, MA removed algebra from their middle school math curriculum for a stated reason of equity. Here’s the Boston Globe challenging the equity argument with another equity argument:
In contrast the blogger Noahpinion points out the direct effect, but then also ties it to equity. Later he (unfairly) accuses the proponents of removing math of hereditarian, un-progressive views on education.
Why does Noahpinion mention equity even after bringing up the direct effect? I think it’s because equity is a frame that everyone (in the debate among progressives) cares about, so your argument is guaranteed to at least land. Some people care more about equity than the direct effect of teaching advanced students more math. This is basically explanation 3 (domains of respectability), but it’s less about status and more about being universally important vs maybe not important to the opponents of your argument.