Well, that got your attention, didn't it?
(Where this is going: we need to teach more probability and statistics.)
Teaching math is based on the idea of progressing from one skill to another. What we are learning today is based on what you were supposed to be learning yesterday, and you will need to understand both if you have any hope of understanding what we are doing tomorrow.
Teaching literature and the arts - and to some extent history, the social sciences, classics - endeavors to train students to see the world a certain way: to look for connections, trends, things others might not notice. What we call the culture wars arise because conservatives believe that the current dominant model in the schools is an attempt to train children to see things in ways that ultimately favor liberal politics and that is screwing up the country: identity studies of many sorts, power imbalances, focus on narrative. Liberals counter, with some justice, that we used to train children to see things in ways that favored conservative politics, and that's already screwed up the country.
I could make nice lists in each column for what viewpoints have been privileged, for how long, and who benefited, but I think that my readers know that I side about 70-30 with the conservatives on that and we'll say no more about it here.
What I am noting is that other than some information in each genre about poetic feet, or third-person omniscient, or archetypes, or notions of beauty, literature and the arts don't teach progress. You could teach freshman english to seniors, and senior english to freshman, with only some adjustment in presentation. Creating a habit of mind is what is sought, not only in reading but in seeing the world.
In school math, we draw an imaginary stalk leading from arithmetic through algebra and geometry on to calculus, at which point the field breaks open like a flower and there are a dozen directions to go. That is sorta true, but not really. If we accept that "spreading out" metaphor, we see that it actually extends far back down the stalk. Even as far back as middle school, geometry, symbolic logic, and fractions don't really depend on each other that much. Some, but not as heavily as advertised. Because the same kids who are good at one are mostly the same kids who are good at the others, we can get away with the fiction that it still requires a progressive approach. No. Each line may require some progressive approach, but the connections are already weakening.
Only 10% of students should be taking Algebra II and Calculus. You can play with the percentages, but it's something like that. And we know who that 10% is going to be by 8th grade. There will be late bloomers and diamonds in the rough, or hard workers who were able to disguise themselves as capable of the abstract reasoning, and we can create systems to ease transitions from one group to another, but it's not many who are going there.
The math that the other 90% are going to need, day in and day out, to understand the lives they are going to be living, are probability and statistics. A lot of this only takes a knowledge of arithmetic, plus some algebra and geometry. There is some progress of knowledge - and certainly both probability and statistics can get into some complicated math - but it isn't really progress that is needed. It is habit of mind. It is familiarity and comfort. What does this graph say? What does it hide? Is a 50-50 chance good or bad in this instance? Where is the data from? What's a sample size? Is this trend dramatic or unimportant? Students need to live in this world for all of their highschool years, not so much to progress to some higher level of being a statistician, but to increase their comfort in living in this world.
Because right now, the people who know how to make graphs and screw with them are manipulating the people who don't, and it's one of the most powerful forces in our society.