Math + Social Equality ≠ No Access

Last week was a bit anxiety-tinged as I was waking up each day. I’ve been teaching myself not to obsess over things that may or may not happen. Until something bad happens, nothing bad has happened. While reinforcing that lesson, my agenda book ended up ignored and neglected. The Spicy Italian Sausage & Basil Rigatoni (with a side of salad) got pushed around the week for days, repeatedly replaced by take-outs and hot dogs—until I noticed the basil was starting to wither.

In the past, I would’ve been guilt-ridden and panicked for not following the agenda, but this “be kind to myself” mindset is actually working. I’m learning to be flexible with myself about things that don’t really matter and to be okay with being lazy on certain days.

Even while going off-script, I’ve kept a few grounding routines. One of them is my morning ritual: brewing French-pressed coffee, moving through four sun salutations, then sipping and reading the news before the day begins. It pulls me back into what’s actually happening in the world, instead of letting me drift into those imagined narratives where I’m somehow being damaged.

Photo by ThisisEngineering RAEng on Unsplash

Early last week, an opinion piece in Newsweek—California is planning to “de-mathematize math.” It will hurt the vulnerable most of all—caught my attention during my morning reading ritual. California’s proposed math curriculum framework is built on good intentions: leveling the playing field and promoting social equality for all students. But the op-ed highlights how the new framework discourages placing students in accelerated courses and gifted programs, partly because of longstanding racial disparities. Between 2004 and 2014, for example, 32% of Asian students were enrolled in gifted programs, compared with 8% of white students, 4% of Black students, and 3% of Latinx students.

The whole discussion reminded me of something from many moons ago, when I lived in South Korea. Private tutoring was illegal then. The idea was noble—keep competition fair so every student had an equal chance, regardless of socioeconomic background. But it didn’t work. Families who could afford tutors suddenly had new “uncles” and “aunties”—our code names for tutors—coming over after school. The law didn’t eliminate inequality; it just moved it into the shadows.

Removing gifted programs feels similar. Students with wealthy parents won’t lose access to advanced learning; their families will simply outsource it. Those who stand to be hurt, as Monica Osborne argues, are the students who are already disadvantaged.

Social equality matters deeply, but can we truly achieve it by restricting access to accelerated courses? Gifted programs are valuable academic lifelines, especially for students with limited resources. The racial gaps in these programs often reflect inequities in public school funding—schools in underserved areas frequently lack even basic resources, let alone robust advanced programs.

Equality shouldn’t come at the price of no access. Real equality happens when everyone has access—regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or socioeconomic background. It’s easy to take something away and declare that no one can have it. What’s hard, and what actually matters, is ensuring that everyone can reach the same opportunities. If we’re serious about social equality, then our efforts should focus on expanding access, not eliminating it.