I know some of your questions are rhetorical, but early math education prioritizes vocabulary, like “remainder”. HN is full of people exposed to higher symbolic

I know some of your questions are rhetorical, but early math education prioritizes vocabulary, like “remainder”. HN is full of people exposed to higher symbolic math. EquitableMath and the work of Dr. Gutierrez are not pointed at undergrad subjects, but most of HN has learned their greatest math insights at that level. How do we talk about enabling disadvantaged kids to reach matrix methods? One way not to do it is allow a correct solution (with work shown) to be less important than the teacher’s reception of that student’s absorption of the language of feelings around privilege. I expect multiple proofs of Pythagoras to be the early lesson that multiple proofs exist for the same theorem. I think you’re mistaken, but I’m not a math teacher. Renaming the Pythagorean theorem to ABC is fine with me. It’s not the memorization or process of deploying the quadratic formula, but the problem-solving steps shown in your work. Deriving it from first principles will get partial credit, even if (in theory) calculations fail because the pupil is only familiar with a non-Arab-Indian number system. You assert that math teaches false constructs, but this is not because teachers “internalize the sequences”. Word problems are simplifications. Physics teachers simplify mechanics to demonstrate Newtonian laws, yet this doesn’t demonstrate quantum effects. Is that “highly detrimental”? Also, you’re wrong about matriculating from matrix methods to third-semester (multivariate) calculus. But, it is my opinion that matrix methods serve potential programmers better than calculus. I’m sure you agree that, whether it’s a gatekeeper or not, multiple great, free resources exist nowadays for kids of any background to learn matrices, independent of whether they matriculate to calculus.