The article restates a presumption that by offering advanced students harder coursework, they are "leaving behind" the rest of the students. However, by the very same logic, if 20% of the kids get ahead by one year, aren't we just leaving behind 80% there, vs 100% in the no-algebra-offering scenario?
In most analyses of STEM, the top echelon of US students is NOT behind the rest of the world's top echelon: it's only in the medians/means, accounting for the vast number of poorly performing Americans, do we see the international STEM education gap.
Therefore, I'd argue this policy is actually detrimental to the one and only group of students we are doing well with in the USA, namely the top tier of students.
In most analyses of STEM, the top echelon of US students is NOT behind the rest of the world's top echelon: it's only in the medians/means, accounting for the vast number of poorly performing Americans, do we see the international STEM education gap.
Therefore, I'd argue this policy is actually detrimental to the one and only group of students we are doing well with in the USA, namely the top tier of students.