> The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations. I don't know whether it's intentional but the FAQ reads like it's intending to deceive me

> The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations. I don't know whether it's intentional but the FAQ reads like it's intending to deceive me. They answer questions with "no we're not doing that", then follow up with how they do exactly that with different words. For example: Q: "Does the draft Mathematics Framework eliminate middle school mathematics acceleration programs?" A: "No. The draft Mathematics Framework does not eliminate middle school mathematics acceleration programs (including programs that offer Integrated Math 1 or Algebra 1 courses to grade eight students). The draft Mathematics Framework emphasizes the importance of following the sequenced progression of topics laid out in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and considers the latest research on the impact of skipping grades or undermining the sequences progression." They're not "eliminating", they're "emphasising" and "considering". Maybe what they're doing really isn't eliminating but it sure reads like it is. The tone reads like corporate damage control. 'We didn't "spill" the oil, we misplaced it.'