Talk:Jo Boaler

Jo Boaler's math background

WP:NOTAFORUM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is no mention in the article about Boaler's training in mathematics. Could someone kindly add this to the Academic Career section? I have not been able to find any information on this. Because Boaler is now involved in re-writing the California Math Framework (for K-12) and helping to determine what level of math high school students will study, her own level of mathematics mastery is highly relevant. Also, she often claims she has never memorized the multiplication tables and says this has never held her back. She actively discourages requiring students to memorize math facts. It may well be possible to have a successful career in math education without knowing basic math facts, but there are many math courses where this would be a severe handicap. Iddli (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I second this Mahie rahman (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Third. Notwithstanding the article's hagiographic tone, I'll wager that Ms. Boaler will eventually be proven to be math's analog to reading's Lucy Calkins. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

'Early career' and 'Return to Stanford' sections

Hi. Pleased to meet you. I am a person close to the subject, therefore, if I understand the guidelines correctly, I won't be making direct edits to the Jo Boaler page. I have also declared my COI. Below are several edits to the 'Early career' and 'Return to Stanford' sections I would like implemented.

• Please replace the third paragraph of the 'Early career' section with the following. Boaler did not develop the curriculum, and the source does not support what the main differences between the curricula were. The findings released in 2005 were not preliminary findings, they were findings released in preliminary form, and were later published fully in 2008. A close read of the sources supports this version of the paragraph.

In 2000, she was awarded a presidential Early Career Award from the National Science Foundation. The NSF funded study would come to be known as the Railside study. This was a longitudinal study across three schools in northern California. The goal of the study was to compare the impact of traditional math curriculum with the reform curriculum. Findings were released in preliminary form in 2005 and published in 2008. The findings were promising and were used to support further reform efforts.

• Please replace the fourth paragraph of the 'Early career' section with the following. This version removes the opening phrase "Believing the preliminary results 'too good to be true'", a non-neutral description of those results. All the following suggestions are consistent with the sources, unlike what is there now. I also added a quote from Stanford's decision to emphasize that the accusations were unfounded.

Stanford mathematician R. James Milgram, CSULA professor Wayne Bishop, and statistician Paul Clopton investigated Boaler's claims and wrote an essay stating that her claims were exaggerated, but did not publish the essay in a peer reviewed journal. In 2006, Milgram accused Boaler of research misconduct. Stanford's investigation concluded by acknowledging ongoing debates in mathematics education and absolving Boaler of scientific misconduct stating that "Dr. Boaler's responses to the questions put to her related to her report were thorough, thoughtful, and offered her scientific rationale for each of the questions underlying the allegations. We found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraudulent behavior related to the content of the report in question. In short, we find that the allegations (such as they are) of scientific misconduct do not have substance".

• In the first paragraph of the 'Return to Stanford' section, please remove the following sentence, which is the second to the last. It is outdated and Boaler no longer consults with these institutions:

Boaler also consults with other Silicon Valley digital educational institutions, such as Novo-ed, Inner Tube Games, and Udacity.

Thank you for your help, MeanderingWalrus (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources

 Not done @MeanderingWalrus: I don't see the info about the ECA award in the first two sources you provided. Am I missing something? Please review the links. STEMinfo (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi STEMinfo. Thank you for pointing that out. I was trying to adhere to the pre-existing text as much as possible, and did not check those first two sources. The third source I did check, however, because that is the part of the sentence I want changed, and a close reading of that source is better reflected by the changes I am requesting. For clarity I will leave the sources out of the TextDiff below, and supply the relevant source here: https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-divider?sra=true. To find the relevant section of the source, do a search for "Railside". Perhaps my request is better illustrated using the TextDiff template:

−

In 2000, she was awarded a presidential Early Career Award from the National Science Foundation. The [[National Science Foundation|NSF]] funded study would come to be known as the Railside study. This was a longitudinal study across three schools in northern California. The goal of the study was to compare the impact of traditional math curriculum and the reform curriculum developed by Boaler. A key distinction between the two approaches was that the traditional approach allowed students to take algebra in 8th grade, whereas algebra was delayed until 9th grade in the reform curriculum. Preliminary findings for the study were released in 2005. The findings were promising and were used to support further reform efforts.

+

In 2000, she was awarded a grant by the [[National Science Foundation]] to conduct a longitudinal study. The NSF funded study would come to be known as the Railside study. This was a longitudinal study across three schools in northern California. The goal of the study was to compare the impact of traditional math curriculum with the reform curriculum. Findings were released in preliminary form in 2005 and published in 2008. The findings were promising and were used to support further reform efforts.

Thanks so much.

MeanderingWalrus (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Unable to review One of the sources in the proposed text above uses a shortened ref note, meaning the information behind the ref note has been hidden from view. You can see this in the "References" section under note #6, which is empty. In order to fully review the proposed changes, all the information for these references needs to be included on the talk page. Additionally, the "CS1 maintenance error: multiple names: authors list" message displays under ref note #4, which needs to be corrected. Regards,  Spintendo  21:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Corrections of above Early career edit request

Hi Spintendo. I hope the following corrects the problems with the footnotes that you pointed out in the preceding edit request so that you will be able to review the request properly.

• In the "Early career" section, please change the last four sentences of the third paragraph, (the first sentence should be left the way it is now) as shown below, for the following reasons: Boaler did not develop the curriculum, and the source does not support what the main differences between the curricula were. The findings released in 2005 were not preliminary findings, they were findings released in preliminary form, and were later published fully in 2008. A close read of the sources supports this version of the paragraph.

The NSF funded study would come to be known as the Railside study. This was a longitudinal study across three schools in northern California. The goal of the study was to compare the impact of traditional math curriculum with the reform curriculum. Findings were released in preliminary form in 2005 and published in 2008. The findings were promising and were used to support further reform efforts.

• Please replace the fourth paragraph of the 'Early career' section with the following. This version removes the opening phrase "Believing the preliminary results 'too good to be true'", a non-neutral description of those results. All the following suggestions are consistent with the sources, unlike what is there now. I also added a quote from Stanford's decision to emphasize that the accusations were unfounded.

Stanford mathematician R. James Milgram, CSULA professor Wayne Bishop, and statistician Paul Clopton investigated Boaler's claims and wrote an essay stating that her claims were exaggerated, but did not publish the essay in a peer reviewed journal. In 2006, Milgram accused Boaler of research misconduct. Stanford's investigation concluded by acknowledging ongoing debates in mathematics education and absolving Boaler of scientific misconduct stating that "Dr. Boaler's responses to the questions put to her related to her report were thorough, thoughtful, and offered her scientific rationale for each of the questions underlying the allegations. We found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraudulent behavior related to the content of the report in question. In short, we find that the allegations (such as they are) of scientific misconduct do not have substance".

• In the first paragraph of the 'Return to Stanford' section, please remove the following sentence, which is the second to the last. It is outdated and Boaler no longer consults with these institutions:

Boaler also consults with other Silicon Valley digital educational institutions, such as Novo-ed, Inner Tube Games, and Udacity.

Thank you for your help and consideration. MeanderingWalrus (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done (mostly). The first two suggestions looked very reasonable. With regard to the third, I changed the sentence about consulting to past tense rather than removing it. Generalrelative (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Intro correction and Common Core

Hello. Please consider the two following edits: The first is to correct an outdated number in the Introduction. The second concerns the paragraph about "Common Core" in the "Return to Stanford" section.

• In the last sentence of the Introduction section, please change "nine books" to "eighteen books" which is the number Boaler has written as of January 2024. In the same sentence please add the word "students" after "teachers". The final sentence should look like this:

She is the author of eighteen books, including Limitless Mind (2019), Mathematical Mindsets (2016), What's Math Got To Do With It? (2009) and The Elephant in the Classroom (2010), all written for teachers, students, and parents with the goal of improving mathematics education in both the US and UK.

• Please change the paragraph in the "Return to Stanford" section that begins "As Common Core was being launched in 2015," to the following paragraph. The new paragraph is a better reflection of Boaler's relationship to the Common Core curriculum, and it removes the last sentence about "igniting a controversy in England" which was not supported by the sources and is anyway irrelevant.

When Common Core was launched in the United States in 2015 as the new curriculum standard, Boaler praised it for its approach; also stating that the best way to know math facts is by using them and understanding them. She also pointed out that math fluency is often misinterpreted to mean memorization and speed.

Pinging STEMinfo who has helped tremendously with this article. Thank you. MeanderingWalrus (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

@MeanderingWalrus: The two links you included for sources for the 18 total are publicist/writer provided boilerplate footers and almost identical. To err on the safe side, it would be nice to get independent validation of the total. We could use this Stanford link as a source, but it lists only 15 books. Amazon isn't a great source, but is still better than boilerplate text. FYI that her bio there says she wrote 11 books. I'm assuming you're counting the nine K-8 textbooks, and one that she edited, so perhaps we want to clarify with verbiage to that effect, like "Boaler published X books as author, co-author or editor." STEMinfo (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi STEMinfo. I understand your concerns about the sources for the number of books, and I have tried to address them here. In the meantime, if you have no objection, could you please implement the below request (second bullet point) concerning the new language for the section about "Common Core"?

As for the number of books Boaler has written, the sources I gave you are the best I have at the moment that says Boaler has written 18 books. Perhaps using the policy WP:ABOUTSELF will allow you to use the source since it is supporting something that Boaler herself is unlikely to misrepresent? And I do not mind using your suggested language so that the sentence says:

She is the author, co-author or editor of eighteen books, including Limitless Mind (2019), Mathematical Mindsets (2016), What's Math Got To Do With It? (2009) and The Elephant in the Classroom (2010), all written for teachers, students, and parents with the goal of improving mathematics education in both the US and UK.

Thanks again for all your help. MeanderingWalrus (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) MeanderingWalrus (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Despite the number of books being somewhat poorly sourced, I don' think there's any harm in following the boilerplate text, and this discussion explains the reasoning. However, I removed the last part of your request.The phrase

all written for teachers, students, and parents with the goal of improving mathematics education in both the US and UK.

isn't sourced, and sounds like WP:OR. This request is still open so if anyone disagrees, then can add it back. STEMinfo (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed the controversy in England statement as WP:OR based on a single WP:NEWSOPED, which is a primary source. Whether any such controversy is relevant is ultimately for published, secondary sources to decide, not us. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thread retitled from "Remove recent inappropriate edits".

• Please remove the fifth paragraph in the "Return to California" section that begins "In 2014, the San Francisco Unified School District…" for several reasons: The specific details of the SFUSD math program are not relevant or appropriate for a BLP. In addition, the specific details mentioned are not an accurate reflection of any of the three sources' content (one of which is an opinion piece, and should be rejected on that basis alone). A careful reading of the cited sources gives a much more nuanced presentation than the biased view which is currently on the page.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
Comment This has been addressed. Please see related comment below. STEMinfo (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• The second (and last) sentence of the seventh paragraph in the same section should also be removed, as the claim that the "document carries Boaler's unmistakable stamp" is speculative and non-encyclopedic. It is also irrelevant and misleading to mention how many times the second draft cites Youcubed and Boaler's work, because we don’t know how many times other contributors' works were cited to compare, and because the second draft was still open to review and was not final.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
Not done The article says The document carries Boaler’s unmistakable stamp. Twenty-six of her books, articles, and white papers, in addition to 18 links on Youcubed, are cited in the second draft of the framework, released in March 2022. If you can find evidence that others are cited more, please post it. STEMinfo (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please also remove the last paragraph of the same section that begins "In March of 2024…". Unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous complainants also do not belong on a Wikipedia BLP.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
Not done You'd have a case to remove unsubstantiated claims if the source was the complaint, but in this case, the source is independent reporting on the complaint, so it reaches a higher level of notability. The article clearly states that it was an anonymous complaint. I think that treats the subject matter fairly. Marking the request answered. STEMinfo (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging STEMinfo and Generalrelative who have participated in past Talk page discussions. Thanks so much, MeanderingWalrusthesecond (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment the below comment addresses the first request above. It was moved after it was posted. STEMinfo (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Rather than delete the info, I rewrote the paragraph based on the sources, and think it's more accurate and fair now. The replacement curriculum is credited to Boaler in the source, so that's what the text now says. I think in the future you'll have more luck correcting the phrasing rather than completely removing something you don't like. STEMinfo (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I agree with this approach. I haven't had time to give the edit request this kind of detailed attention so I thank STEMinfo for stepping up. Generalrelative (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Any content related to the CA Math Framework (or San Francisco) should be limited to sources which explicitly mention Boaler, and support statements about Boaler. That's not to say that we cannot include links to sources which do not mention Boaler, but those sources should play no role in determining WP:DUE weight for the article. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Everything I reviewed or changed was based on sources that explicitly mentioned Boaler and her work. STEMinfo (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you STEMinfo for your hard work on this. The San Francisco Unified School District's Wikipedia article does not go into nearly as much detail as the paragraph here in Boaler's BLP, which is only marginally related to the individual in question. This seems strange and unbalanced- surely the context of a decision made by an institution would be more appropriate on said institution's page. If you feel that there is still something of significance here for Boaler's BLP, I suggest only that which directly relates to her:

−

In 2014, the San Francisco Unified School District updated its math program, including removal of [[elementary algebra|algebra]] from their public middle schools. The effort removed honors classes and accelerated math, placing all students into the same curriculum based on grade. The replacement curriculum was heavily based on Boaler's work, and had groups of students work through a series of math tasks. In an Op-Ed signed by Boaler and several colleagues, the group praised the effort, claiming the repeat rate for 9th grade algebra dropped from 40% to 8%. However, the school district later clarified that those numbers were not related to curriculum changes, but rather it was a "one-time major drop" that occurred when placement tests were removed.

+

Boaler's work influenced the [[San Francisco Unified School District]]'s math program update in 2014. In 2018 Boaler and five colleagues wrote an op-ed praising SFUSD’s reforms in which they delayed tracking, with student failure rare in algebra, dropping from 40% to 8%. Later the district added more detail saying the improvements came from many changes they had implemented, including a change in the testing arrangements.

Reply by User:STEMinfo

Not done Without understanding the context of why the SF USD changed the curriculum, the reader would have less understanding of why Boaler's curriculum was needed in the first place. I think it's necessary to keep. I moved a source so it immediately followed the statement it supported, and modified the text to state that it was a spokesperson for the district who made the statement. STEMinfo (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I also suggest the following minor modifications to the paragraph about the California Math Framework, including taking out the word "heavily," which is a Wiki editor's interpretation of the phrase "unmistakable stamp" which is very much the opinion of the author of the source. Although Boaler and Youcubed are cited "over 40 times" in the framework, according to the source, that is out of almost 650 total citations (See here, Appendix B: Works Cited). "Heavily" is too loaded a word to use it here and still remain NPOV.

−

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education's controversial [[California Department of Education#2021 Mathematics Framework|2021 Mathematics Framework]], approved in July 2023 by the state board of education. The Framework is heavily based on Boaler's work, with the second draft citing either her work, or the work of Youcubed over 40 times.

+

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education's controversial [[California Department of Education#2021 Mathematics Framework|2021 Mathematics Framework]], approved in July 2023 by the state board of education. The second draft of the Framework was partly based on Boaler's work and the work of Youcubed, among others.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
Done @MeanderingWalrusthesecond: This I agree with. I reviewed the source list and the doc, and there's no way to determine how heavily Boaler's contributions are without doing significant WP:OR. Edit request has been implemented. STEMinfo (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to ask again to remove entirely the paragraph that begins "In March of 2024 an anonymous complaint was sent..."

According to WP:BLPPUBLIC: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." In addition, an article was recently published stating that the allegations have been investigated and they "reflect scholarly disagreement and interpretation," and not any type of wrongdoing. Mentioning the "allegations" goes against Wiki guidelines to avoid unnecessary negative content in biographical articles of living people.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
Not done Rather than delete this properly sourced info, I added closure to the complaint based on the source you posted above. This is similar to the way the 2006 complaint was handled, and is I think more balanced. STEMinfo (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for considering these changes which I believe help to maintain balance and neutrality. MeanderingWalrusthesecond (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: The above point-by-point replies by STEMinfo have been hidden to better preserve the flow of discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Fox News article

Thread retitled from "Use of Fox News for sourcing non-political content".

@Sangdeboeuf has removed content sourced to Fox News, [1] claiming the cited article was a politics article. A reading of the article establishes that this was not about any politics or political controversy. If @Sangdeboeufthinks this non-political content should be removed, I suggest bringing any concerns to the talk page. TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the very first line of the source: A Stanford professor, who was one of the thought leaders behind San Francisco's removal of algebra in junior high for equity reasons, is coming under fire [...] Not sure how anyone could read this source and think it has nothing to do with politics. Equity is an inherently political concept, and the 2021 California mathematics framework, which was the source of the controversy here, has been heavily politicized.[2][3][4] The Fox article is also based on an anonymous complaint to Boaler's university, which falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP. If this were a simple academic dispute over "accuracy", then Fox News would not be the only source available. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

People are inherently political. You're going to need to make a stronger case than that for an article reported in the media section of Fox News is about politics. Happy to take this to WP:RSN. TheMissingMuse (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Education is political, like it or not. Especially in the U.S. these days. Fox News is hot garbage for U.S. politics. If the whole issue revolves around an anonymous complaint no other source is reporting on, why are we including it? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu do you have any policy reference for the claim that "education is political". As noted above, anything involving people is inherently political, but I don't think the scope of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS covers any topic relating to people. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of RS discuss this. CRT, DEI, "woke", Moms for Liberty at school board meetings, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's not forget "Don't Say Gay"! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Anything involving people is inherently political? No it isn't. Politics refers specifically to group decision-making processes and the distribution of status and resources within groups, which specifically relates to the concept of equity. As I already noted at RSN, the "media" tag on Fox's website is applied to a number of political stories, not just this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has moved to https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard#Use_of_Fox_News_on_Jo_Boaler, feel free to contribute there. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

See also: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_Fox_News_on_Jo_Boaler. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)