> Read Aaronson and agree it would be fraudulent and ridiculous to force teaching to the lowest common denominator in service of "trendy" classes. Wonderful, t

> Read Aaronson and agree it would be fraudulent and ridiculous to force teaching to the lowest common denominator in service of "trendy" classes. Wonderful, thank you. On the Ra thing, here is the thesis from the blog post: > Ra is a specific kind of glitch in intuition, which can roughly be summarized as the drive to idealize vagueness and despise clarity. Can you really tell me that this has no application to your real life and experiences? If you truly feel it's irrelevant, spend two hours trying to figure out what exactly the CMF says and get back to me. Start here [1]. I actually read the chapter on grades 6-8 [2]. It engages in the classic Ra move of speaking out of both sides of the mouth: it criticizes early introduction of algebra content for being too challenging, causing students to fail, while claiming that its alternative proposal is actually more rigorous and challenging. Is it possible to make a curriculum more demanding while simultaneously reducing fail rates? Possibly, but it is not a claim we should accept lightly. [1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ [2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathfwchapter7.docx https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathfwchapter7.doc...