> Public school math curriculum at Palo Alto and San Francisco for middle and high school shows some similarities: both have implemented a math detracking initiative — ceasing the separation of students by academic ability for reasons of equity.

If I were a talented minority student that could've joined the fastest track in my school and mastered algebra 2 before grade 8, yet I couldn't because my school detracked and my family couldn't afford tutoring. Should I thank my school for the sake of "equity"? On the the other hand, the kids in my class who could get tutoring would get ahead. And that is more equitable for me, why?

It looks the left think that to achieve equity is to pull everyone down instead of lifting some people up. As a result, those with means will find a way to go up anyway, and those without will be harmed. I have a hard time imagining that the school boards couldn't see this logic. Or did I miss something?

You missed that the establishment does this "on purpose" because it helps them keep their position, not because they care about about equality, because as you say it achieves the opposite. It's the nature of any kind of "diversity" or "equity" initiative. Nobody actually disadvantaged asked for this

Then it gets even scarier: who holds the school boards accountable? It seems they do what they do to appease their constituents, which means the constituents, at last majority of them, think that the establishment was doing a great job?

What you're missing is that the after-school tutoring will also need to be stopped. Either declare it illegal or raise taxes high enough that families will not have any disposable income left to hire tutors.

State-sponsored tutors could then be required to apply for licenses that require them to reserve their hours for the neediest students.