The "problems" if we want to call them that are that first, math(and science) are hard for most people. Period. Difficult concepts must be grasped by an individual.
That's where I would actually disagree, or at least contribute a nuance that I think (gag me) I might share with the perception of some of these SJWS: people assume math and science "are hard" for them, but I think it's what you described in your following post--most don't actually just take the time to truly
know it like they ought. So, unfortunately, we reaffirm ideas in our cultural consciousness like "
most people can't do" math or science (as if it's this inherent talent, rather than a skill than can be cultivated--like cooking or playing the piano or learning to type) and then kids themselves inevitably reach a point of difficulty and deem themselves as a person who just "can't do" math. "I must not be a math/science person." (I think what increases this particular problem is a great lack in grit in our current generations). This is what (charitably speaking) undergirds some of the SJW concerns that some subgroups statistically aren't as proficient in these fields-- they're the ones who more easily come to that place of "I'm just not a math/science person" (of course that doesn't explain it all, and I am generalizing, but largely, I think the issues are not necessarily "systematic," top down as they might over-emphasize, but rather I think it's culture, particularly school culture, which is a much smaller scale than what many trying to effect these changes often focus on). So, many in education *are* trying to focus on growth mindset--showing people that they CAN become proficient, even masters, in science and math even if they don't start out with a "talent" for it...and that requires specifically addressing those students/sub-groups that cop out and feel like they're just not "math/science" people.
I was a student growing up who "wasn't good at math" by both my own standards and some academic standards growing up; I was also not a "science person." But in adulthood I returned to school, got a biology degree, became a science researcher, and also am a science teacher.
In EO Wilson's book "Letters to a Young Scientist" he has two "principles" that I think have been sorely under-emphasized in American STEM education in the past, and there are still vestiges today of teachers who gravitate more towards the kids that just "get it" and that can sometimes under-serve other possible candidates for future STEM fields (Especially if we show that there is a breadth of people needed in STEM that aren't all the top engineers, doctors, neuroscientists, etc...there's waaaaay more possibilities than that for various levels of competency). I love these quotes:
PRINCIPLE #1: It is far easier for scientists, including medical researchers, to require needed collaboration in mathematics and statistics than it is for mathematicians and statisticians to find scientists able to make use of their equations.
PRINCIPLE #2: For every scientist, whether researcher, technician, teacher, manager or businessman, working at any level of mathematical competence, there exists a discipline in science or medicine for which that level is enough to achieve excellence.
Anyway, all that to say...one, I really like talking about education and science. So...that's why I have big responses.
But number two, I am the statistical anomaly against the SJW notion that the explanation for these inequalities and discrepancies in achievement are always or primarily affected by race (in fact, one thing that greatly affects student achievement but is often underplayed in education talks is socioeconomics, regardless of race...it's often the local communities that can have the greatest impact). According to their stats, I, as a lower socioeconomic class, POC female who did NOT get excited about math or science by 4th grade, not by 8th grade, not even by high school graduation should NOT have become a STEM professional. What made the difference? For me, it was actually finding the "story" and "context" about science (through wildlife, ecology) that made me realize that there are fields of science (even "hard" sciences) that are right for someone like me who was kind of a "humanities" thinker. And for me, I actually needed a push from people in the community who showed me that different kinds of people (not just race, but backgrounds and abilities and experiences and interests) could make an impact and I started to explore more the social contexts and history aspects involved with Ecology (fell in love with the history and sociocultural story surrounding fire ecology and the longleaf pine ecosystem, for instance).
So all that to say--yeah, STEM education is complicated. But there are disparities and that should at least make us think about how we teach STEM, because maybe we are missing out on a possible workforce by emphasizing certain things over others, or under-emphasizing other things, etc. I don't personally see how integrating elements of the humanities (exempting the obvious extremes/strawmen) spoils the math or science (because that's what got me personally "hooked"), but rather that it could simply develop a connection and show a pathway for a student who might not otherwise experience that.
Also, I am in 100% in agreement that throwing "tech" in the faces of students is not effective (primarily because a lot of teachers have shown to be technologically illiterate and think that consumer tech like iPADS helps kids "create" or practice higher-order thinking when it's just another consumer tech). Teachers have this odd cognitive dissonance in thinking that knowing how to use a phone or play a video game somehow allows kids to learn about technology by osmosis and suddenly turns them into amazing researchers and coders and database users and creatives and many teachers are unfortunately not actually teaching kids those necessary skills because they take it for granted. But that's another topic altogether.
