At 08:59 PM 7/28/2005, Haim wrote:

   Therefore, when you made the comment, in your initial note in this thread, about Wayne trying to "really bring people down", I thought you were referring to a story you tell about Wayne contacting your employer, trying to get you fired.

As with most things Mikey writes, there is some tiny gimmer of fool's truth in his charge.  I did not try to get him fired but I did try to get him shutup. I do not remember what the incident was (I'm sure my hard drive does but I'm not interested enough to have it check) that struck me as so egregious that I wrote to his employer wondering aloud if they might feel that such language and general rudeness could be misinterpreted as some reflection of the institution for which he was an employee and included as part of his signature block.  Whether or not they contacted him about the situation I have no idea.  What I do know is how he was aware that I had made such an effort.  It is because I Cc'd him in my correspondence to them, always my preference in such things.

By contrast, and since Victor's name came up as well, I've had my own problems with Stanford University and with my own campus over his correspondence with Stanford's education professor, Jo Boaler, who appears to have a fixation that I have some kind of personal desire to pursue and discredit her research in mathematics education.  Apparently she shared that concern about me with Education Week writer Debra Viadero in interviews in preparation for the short and generally favorable report on a substantial NSF grant that was soon coming to the end of its five-year run:

Published: February 16, 2005
Study: Teacher-Designed Math Curriculum Is Effective
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/02/16/23math.h24.html?querystring=viadero

On Professor Boaler's remarks or not, Ms Viadero did contact me in preparation of the article and I suggested that she get the names of the schools involved or consider the research meaningless.  Not right, not wrong, just meaningless.  If there's no way to study an education situation except through a researcher's filter, I've long since argued here and elsewhere that it can be given no legitimate credence because there is no way to independently assess accuracy or mitigating factors of the situation.  I was told by the reporter that she had made that request but was refused since the schools had been promised anonymity.

The report did reflect my concern but that was only one paragraph in the generally positive article:
"Wayne K. Bishop, a mathematician at California State University-Los Angeles, and a critic of innovation-oriented math education programs, said such disparities on the different exams may be cause for skepticism. He also said the results of the study could be meaningless, given that the schools were unidentified, leaving independent researchers with no means to cross-check the testing data."
(it's actually W. but K. is not KKK so no problem)  That expressed negativity was enough to again (only therein did I find out that this had been an ongoing effort from at least March of 2001) seek a request from Stanford University to mine for censure through our campus's Academic Ethics and Professional Responsibility committee although I did not find out about it until a couple months later.  From the February 26, 2005, complaint of the Stanford legal staff to mine entitled "More problematic behavior by Wayne Bishop" we have:

"As you will see below, the situation that Professor Boaler anticipated has now come to pass.  On February 16, 2005, the newspaper Education Week...>

That inquiry has since concluded with no negative ramifications but it was disconcerting to say the least.  Part of my defense was somewhat serendipitous.  Because Dr. Boaler would not release the names of the three schools to Ms Viadero (or to me in private inquiries of February 19 and 25), I set about doing what I was being suspected of doing, trying to identify the three schools involved.  After a couple of missteps, that endeavor was successful and it turns out that the ideal school portrayed does look quite different when viewed though different eyes.  The first i-iv are verbatim from Dr Boaler's own writings:

i.      One of the findings of the study was the incredible success of one of the schools.
ii.     Within two years the Railside students were significantly outperforming students at the other schools.
iii.    In addition, achievement differences between students of different ethnic groups were reduced in all cases and were eliminated in most. By their senior year 41% of Railside students were taking calculus compared to around 27% of students in the other two schools.
iv.     There were no gender differences in performance in any of the tests we gave students at any level, and young women were well represented in higher mathematics classes.  They made up 50% of students in the advanced classes at Hilltop, 48% at Greendale and 59% at Railside."

Moreover, this ($558K, NSF-funded) success has been widely communicated and well received by the mathematics education community; I was even told of a standing ovation for her talk about it at the annual convention of the NCTM in Anaheim last April.  Who would guess, from such a glowing report, that Railside, the school that is such a success has, during the course of her 5-year study:

i.      slipped from an API 3-6 in 1999 to an API 1-1, the bottom decile among all California schools and the bottom decile among its comparable schools, or that
ii.     at Railside no one takes the AP Calculus exam, or that
iii.    Railside's SAT I Math scores lag Greendale's by 90 points, or that
iv.     the SAT Math gender gap is the customary 40 points, male over female?

In fact, who would suspect that by a couple reasonable and objective measures, Railside has become the least effective high school in the entire state of California?

Back to Victor...  How was he involved?  Part of the February 26 complaint, prominent on its first page in fact, is a portion of an email message that I wrote on February 23, 2003, and copied to this list the following March 11 (immediately after my interview with the Stanford campus police), in which I recommended, perhaps facetiously, that a solution to the apparently insurmountable problems of schools of education would be to, "nuke 'em all, dammit."  For that offense, Dr. Boaler reported me as a potential terrorist to the Stanford University police (a faxed copy of her complaint was included in my defense package).   Where had this come from?  My post had been only to a "secure" education listserve so how had she obtained it to be able report me on March 3?  Well Victor, of course, without thinking to Cc me, or even to Bcc me.  He was living on the listserve under the assumed personality of Rita Arrugio for exactly such purposes and passed my post along to Dr. Boaler who, in turn, supplied it to the Stanford campus police.  That verification also helped with my defense.

Wayne.