Not only does the earlier version of the framework explicitly reject this view, it cited specific empirical studies that the broad approach targeted (which I gather had not changed in the revisions which is why the complaints remain despite some revision to details) was better for people across the ability spectrum.
Similar points apply to each of your bad-faith assumptions about the underlying beliefs.
> Not only does the earlier version of the framework explicitly reject this view
Can you share that explicit rejection of the idea that there are not innate differences in ability, in the CMF? I have not seen it myself, thank you ahead of time.
To share what I've read, and colors my views a bit, is the following, from 'Chapter 1: Mathematics for All' of the Second Field Review [1]:
> An aim of this framework is to respond to the structural barriers put in the place of mathematics success: equity influences all aspects of this document. Some overarching principles that guide work towards equity in mathematics include the following:
> All students deserve powerful mathematics; high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated (Leslie et al., 2015; Boaler, 2019 a, b; Ellenberg, 2014).
...
> All students, regardless of background, language of origin, differences, or foundational knowledge are capable and deserving of depth of understanding and engagement in rich mathematics tasks.
> Hard work and persistence is more important for success in mathematics than natural ability. Actually, I would give this advice to anyone working in any field, but it’s especially important in mathematics and physics where the traditional view was that natural ability was the primary factor in success.
—Maria Klawe, Mathematician, Harvey Mudd President (in Williams, 2018)
> Fixed notions about student ability have led to considerable inequities in mathematics education.
Note that my pointing to this doesn't mean I inherently disagree that hard work/education can't help improve outcomes. I show the above citations to show that the CMF is not explicitly denying the Blank slate theory, which is what you are suggesting. If anything, they go out of the way to view ideas of innate ability negatively. I'm happy to also look at the references that you alluded to but did not cite.
[1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ (it's in the bottom section, the format is .docx, so don't want to directly link to it as that format can sometimes be cause for concern on random links shared on the internet)
Not only does the earlier version of the framework explicitly reject this view, it cited specific empirical studies that the broad approach targeted (which I gather had not changed in the revisions which is why the complaints remain despite some revision to details) was better for people across the ability spectrum.
Similar points apply to each of your bad-faith assumptions about the underlying beliefs.