Unfortunately, this is likely just the first ripples of another wave of ed reform in math across large swathes of the USA, not just one state, since these policy positions emerge from the major organizations in K-12 math education.
For context, I should note that there have been alternating rounds of ability grouping and detracking occurring at semi-regular periods over several decades, and while I think this is a bad idea, and likely harmful to the most disadvantaged children subject to it while it holds sway, I also suspect that it will end up as a passing fad, just like it has all the previous times.
What is more unfortunate is that the response to deeply-imbedded societal inequities is to lower the ceiling on the highest-performing, rather than pouring additional supports into bringing the least-resourced students up early on. After all, disadvantaged high-potential learners won't be exposed to any higher-quality instruction or more advanced opportunities by this proposed system, which would make it difficult for them to reach the higher-performing levels that this is supposed to facilitate.
Even the position papers acknowledge that the real problem with tracking/laning/ability grouping is how it is executed, and the overlay of bias and inflexibility that often enters into the selection process and the education of those placed in lower lanes.
students might be placed into these tracks based on questionable methods using grades and placement exams, perceived ability through teacher recommendation, or non-academic expectations adults have for the students
-- NCSM Position Paper 19
