[dahfizz]

> If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course?

If you can run a < 5 minute mile, you are not going to benefit from jogging at a pace set by the slowest pace. If you're that slowest kid, being forced to jog will be hugely beneficial.

If you think the bar is too low for the non-advanced classes, that's fine. You should be advocating for more rigour and mathematics across the board, not less. The stratification of classes is orthogonal to math education not being rigorous enough in general.

I don't know how it works in CA, but where I grew up the regular math classes were perfectly good math classes. But if you excelled in math, and wanted to focus on it, you could take the honors and AP level classes. Most of the kids in the regular math wanted to instead focus their time and energy on AP history, or literature. I found the system to work quite well. Nobody was "pigeonholed" and everyone got the fundamental education in all subjects that they needed.

[vkou]

If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can?

I am advocating for more across the board.

[dahfizz]

> If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can?

People all over this thread are making the assumption that the non-advanced math class is equivalent to no math class at all. That doesn't make any sense to me, and does not match my experience of regular, honors, and AP classes in high school.

Accepting your premise, the issue in your case is that the PE class needs to run more. Pulling all the talented athletes into that shitty class without changing the curriculum at all will strictly cause harm.