The article is pretty meh. The author seems a bit excited to map their own perspectives onto the experiences of millions of Californian students. Those perspec

The article is pretty meh. The author seems a bit excited to map their own perspectives onto the experiences of millions of Californian students. Those perspectives include some of the author's personal experiences (which I guess we should understand qualify the author to predict outcomes generally), an awkward set of entire countries against which we should compare this new CA program the author couldn't even be bothered to research patiently (let alone deeply), and some mention of how math made California prosper (actually it was history, no it was psychology, no wait it was geography, no wait...hmmm, these positions aren't just more of those "frameworks" the author was deriding, are they?). Sorry but it's not very interesting to read this unless you are looking for, let's say, more reinforcement for a rage-fueled position on how badly the new stuff sucks vs. back in the cold war days. (Guess what, cold war education sucked too, go read Feynman talking about his textbook review experiences.) (I do think there's a bit of a funny after-image you can see, if you read the article and then stare at a blank wall for a few seconds, so to speak--it's shaped a bit like pent up frustration about a lack of ideas to move ahead with. Very common recently, this phenomenon. It's one thing to crit, another to predict, and still another step to creatively address, correct, and emerge with a win.)