I think the argument (though not necessarily one I agree with) is a spin on what you said:
The current system pushes 50% of the kids into calculus and 50% into 'I hate math.' Of the 50% that go into calculus, 50% go into STEM.
That leads to (hyperbole) 25% A's / 25% B's / 50% F's.
The intent of the new rule is to maybe be more like 25% A's / 10% B's / 50% C's / 15% F's.
The key questions are 1) Is that actually better (I certainly think bringing up the floor is a good idea, but at what cost)? 2) Is this policy even going to get us there?
I like your example breakdown, but my understanding that by removing calculus as an option it’s lowering the ceiling so we’d end up with: 0% A, 25% B, 25% C, 25% D, 25% F.
I guess there is a societal discussion to be had if we should trade off losing As to reduce Fs.
But I think that first there’s not a dichotomy between approaches so the only way to get fewer Fs is to reduce the number of As. I think there are ways to improve education that doesn’t remove the opportunity to excel. And framing it as the California proposal or failing math is unfair.
I think what surprises me so is that they continue to propose these solutions that seem to reduce the overall math capabilities being produced.
I think you should do some primary research. This threads article argues that calculus is impossible, but the actual reality is [0]:
The draft Mathematics Framework includes calculus in the possible high school pathways, and also suggests ways to enable more students to get access to calculus. It notes that many high schools currently organize their coursework in a manner that requires eighth grade acceleration in order to reach calculus or other advanced mathematics courses by senior year. While some students succeed with this approach, acceleration has proved a problematic option for other students who could reach higher level math courses but would benefit from a stronger foundation in middle school mathematics.
There is nothing in this about actually removing calculus for high achievers, and this there’s an argument against it, it’s what I laid out: “is it better to push more kids into calculus at all costs or should we focus on raising the floor?”
It’s honestly a very similar argument to the (popular on HN) argument of “not everyone needs college”
And to be quite frank, this isn’t coming from nowhere, this is modeled on the success of other western countries with higher math scores across the board.
The current system pushes 50% of the kids into calculus and 50% into 'I hate math.' Of the 50% that go into calculus, 50% go into STEM.
That leads to (hyperbole) 25% A's / 25% B's / 50% F's.
The intent of the new rule is to maybe be more like 25% A's / 10% B's / 50% C's / 15% F's.
The key questions are 1) Is that actually better (I certainly think bringing up the floor is a good idea, but at what cost)? 2) Is this policy even going to get us there?