I was frustrated by this article because I find it taking for granted the idea that math is only accessible to a small group of people - &#x27;talented, gifted, with an affinity for, confluence of specific abilities&#x27;. I find similar language around programs like the Russian School, Brilliant and quite obviously the &#x27;gifted&#x27; programs.<p>Yet in this article they quote the following statistics:<p>- High achievement in math: US 9% to SK 30%
- Ratio of high achievers affluent vs poor: US 8 to 1, SK 3 to 1<p>These statistics communicate to me that half of all students are capable of high achievement in mathematics. From my experience tutoring and visiting classrooms of various grade levels and demographics, most students are capable of the rich problem solving described in the article.<p>US education&#x27;s biggest issue is social justice. We spend the least resources on the children who need it most. It&#x27;s funny to me that the closing of this article suggests that it&#x27;s time for the advanced mentors to step in to the public education scene. What would a group of people that cater primarily to the best-served students in the system have to say about how to help the worst-served? What would they know about the obstacles faced by poor children and parents; overworked, undertrained and unsupported teachers; and underfunded schools?