Date: Dec 15, 2012 8:41 AM
Author: Haim
Subject: Re: Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop

lajones Posted: Dec 14, 2012 10:37 PM 	

>You might also be interested to read:
>Private Data - The Real Story: A Huge Problem with
>Education Research, R. James Milgram, 12/7/2012

That is interesting.

Wayne, is it possible that you and Milgram missed a step in this sordid squabble with Boaler? The way this sort of thing (ie, the meaning and application of federal law or agency regulations or institutional policy) is frequently handled, short of legal proceedings, is that you formally and officially ask the relevant agency for its interpretation rather than expressing your own interpretation of law, regulation, or policy.

For example, if you were contending over some matter involving federal law, you might send a letter, providing all the relevant details, to the office of the Attorney General of the US asking for their opinion on the matter. If you were contending over some matter of state law, you would send a similar letter to the office of the Attorney General of your state. If it is a matter of agency regulations, you would send a similar letter to the relevant agency. People put inquiries to the IRS, to the EPA, etc., all the time.

In this case, you would send a letter, providing all relevant details (essentially, you would be writing a quasi legal brief, and the assistance of a lawyer would not go amiss) to the legal department of the US Dept of Education asking exactly how FERPA applies to your situation. And, you would send a letter to the legal department of Stanford U asking them how they interpret their policy in light of your disagreement with Boaler.

It is my strictly amateur opinion that agencies are required to respond. Stanford U cannot have an official policy and then not comment on that policy. They may decline to comment pending an official hearing, but just such a hearing is something you and Milgram should greatly desire. Or so it seems to me.

With this new assault by Jo Boaler, and the rise of the Jeremy Kilpatrick lynch mob, it seems to me that favorable responses by the US DoE and Stanford U would fully and finally discredit Boaler and Kilpatrick in a way that no protestations by you and Milgram ever could.

Of course, if the responses were not favorable, this would be a sobering and highly revealing development. You will have reckoned the true power of the Education Mafia and you will have plumbed the depths, once and for all, of institutional and social corruption in American public education.

From my point of view, soliciting opinions of the relevant institutions is a dominant strategy. If the opinions are favorable, you would win a comprehensive victory over Jo Boaler and the Kilpatrick Mob. If the opinions are not favorable then maybe, just maybe, you and Milgram and the others will come to realize the futility of fighting the Education Mafia and will finally start to consider alternative strategies for rescuing American public education---just what I have been arguing for, for years.

No representation without taxation.