Not to worry; she tried her best to get me censured by my university but failed miserably because the paper trail behind anything posted, said, or posted privately but intercepted (that took too much of my time) made such a powerful document than anything but full exoneration would have been a travesty. For example, identification of her renamed schools was done by using some of the (highly selective) data presented in one (two?) of her papers and comparing it with the state database. In each case, there was exactly one school that fit each set of data. We had a pretty good hunch (as in conviction) about two of them but we had the most important one, Railside, completely wrong. Thanks to Allah, we had not gone public with anything up to that point. In the year of popular public announcement of success, that school was in the bottom 1st decile of California high school and the 1st decile of the state's set of "comparable" schools; a 1-1 school in the vernacular of the state assessment folk. Among the 1-1 schools, it was the lowest of the general schools (a school for the deaf and a few "continuation" schools performed below it). To make this clearer, it was arguably the least effective high school in the entire state of California.
For more information, the news accounts quoting her papers point out that half the school's seniors take calculus. Calculus should be quotes because nobody that year or in the previous four years had ever taken, much less passed with 3 or better, the College Boards national exam. Judging by the performance of those students who signed up for a CSU campus (where we all require the same ELM - Entry-Level Mathematics - exam), most of the students needed to start with noncredit remedial mathematics; i.e, they were not competent that Algebra II/Trig level required to begin real Calculus. Hope that helps,
At 07:11 AM 10/14/2012, Haim wrote: >GS Chandy Posted: Oct 13, 2012 10:20 AM > > >If Dr Boaler is correct in her account, then both > >Professor Milgram and Professor Bishop have much to > >answer for. > > And what if she is not correct? > >Haim >No representation without taxation.