If anyone wants to read the draft themselves:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/"Chapter 1: Introduction" is where some of the things from the initial post are mentioned, although the quoted NYT article doesn't reflect the language as accurately as reading it would.
On giftedness:
Fixed notions about student ability, such as ideas of “giftedness,” have led to considerable inequities in mathematics education. Particularly damaging is the idea of the “math brain”—that people are born with a brain that is suited (or not) for math. Technologies that have emerged in the last few decades have allowed researchers to understand the mind and brain and completely challenged this idea. With current technology, scientists can study learning in mathematics through brain activity; they can look at growth and degeneration and see the impact of different emotional conditions on brain activity. This work has shown—resoundingly—that all people possess the capacity to learn mathematics to very high levels. Multiple studies have shown the incredible capacity of brains to grow and change within a short period of time (Huber et al, 2018; Luculano et al, 2015; Abiola & Dhindsa, 2011; Maguire, Woollett, & Spiers, 2006; Woollett & Maguire, 2011). Learning allows brains to form, strengthen, or connect brain pathways in a process of almost constant change and adaptation (Doidge, 2007; Boaler, 2019a). An important goal of this framework is to replace ideas of innate mathematics “talent” and “giftedness” with the recognition that every student is on a growth pathway. There is no cutoff determining when one child is “gifted” and another is not.
On Calculus:
Even for the highest-achieving students, pressures to use mathematics courses as social capital for advancement can often undercut efforts to promote learning with understanding. This often results in what some deem a “rush to calculus,” which has not helped students. Bressoud (2017) studied the mathematics pathways of students moving from calculus to college. He found that out of the 800,000 students who take calculus in high school, roughly 250,000 or 31.25 percent of students move ‘backwards’ and take precalculus, college algebra, or remedial mathematics. Roughly 150,000 students take other courses such as Business Calculus, Statistics, or no mathematics course at all. Another 250,000, retake Calculus 1 and of these students about 60 percent of them earn an A or B and 40 percent earn a C or lower. Only 150,000 or 19 percent of students go on to Calculus II. This signals that the approach that is so prevalent in schools––of rushing students to calculus, without depth of understanding––is not helping their long term mathematics preparation.
This has led the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) to issue the following joint statement:
Although calculus can play an important role in secondary school, the ultimate goal of the K–12 mathematics curriculum should not be to get students into and through a course in calculus by twelfth grade but to have established the mathematical foundation that will enable students to pursue whatever course of study interests them when they get to college. The college curriculum should offer students an experience that is new and engaging, broadening their understanding of the world of mathematics while strengthening their mastery of tools that they will need if they choose to pursue a mathematically intensive discipline. (
http://launchings.blogspot.com/2012/04/maanctm-joint-position-on-calculus.html)
I recommend that people take the time to read the framework to help put the linked article in the proper context.
