Wayne Bishop posted Sep 10, 2013 6:02 AM,http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9256291 (GSC's remarks interspersed): > >At 03:40 AM 9/9/2013, GS Chandy wrote in response to me: > >> I do not know much about Dan Meyer's dissertation >> adviser Jo Boaler's work - only that Professor Milgram >> and yourself had some serious disagreements/disputes >> with with her: unresolved thus far, I observe - >> Stanford seems to have washed its hands off both sides >> to the dispute, in effect, saying "a pox on both your >> houses". Both you and Dr Boaler are just repeating >> your same old stories. So I must assume the >> disagreements are not about to be resolved, now or >> ever. > > If you mean the illustrious Stanford School of > Education, you are probably correct. > So, your 'solution' to the lack of response from the "illustrious Stanford School of Education" to your (and Professor Milgram's plaint against Jo Boaler is "BLOW UP (ALL) THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!" (??!!)
Of course, I freely acknowledge that that brilliant response is actually from Reid Lyon, Reading Research Expert. (I know nothing about Mr/Dr/Professor Reid Lyon other than what what you've told us).
But you were unable to understand that this is no 'solution' at all to the system problem confronted. You simply jumped onto the 'Reid Lyon Bandwagon' without bothering to understand for yourself that it (the 'slogan') is something that will NEVER happen, regardless how loudly you shout. If the Stanford School of Education and/or its faculty have been guilty of some sins (which I'm in no position to judge or comment upon), then some way should be found to 'clean things up'. Schools of education are surely a very important component (or sub-system) of the 'education system' which you claim [I think] that you wish to make effective. OK, just do it - and don't come out with these ridiculous slogans which serve no purpose whatsoever. > > If you mean the > school in question, Boaler's "Railside", that's an > entirely different story. Once revealed, the district > replaced its management and returned to a much more > conventional and much more effective opportunity for > students to learn mathematics. As one example of how > that school was reported (and still is because of the > nature of education "research"): > http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/02 > /16/23math.h24.html?querystring=viadero&levelId=2300 >> "For instance, 41 percent of the Railside >> students had taken calculus by the end of 12th grade, >> compared with 29 percent of the students at each of >> the other schools."
> The difference was that, at the other schools, "had > taken calculus" meant AP Calculus aimed toward the > College Boards' national exam. At the strongest > school, 80-90% were (and are) scoring 4 or 5 on the AB > and close to 50% on the BC. Difference? Calculus at > Railside meant whatever they said it meant, no one in 5 > years had ever signed up for it and none would have > scored above 1, the score for paying the fee and > showing up for the exam. Some did enter one of the CSU > campuses (my sister schools with a common entrance exam > and public school-level information) and very few even > passed out of remedial mathematics; not competent at > the level of intermediate algebra. > As noted above, I really know nothing about 'Railside' or about Jo Boaler's alleged transgressions or about "AP Calculus aimed toward the College Boards' national exam". I also know nothing about 'Greendale' or 'Hilltop'. My knowledge or lack of knowledge about them don't matter at all. The only thing that matters in your educational system is the performance of the students in it. Nothing else.
I'm not a stakeholder in the system. If you wish your students to accomplish better learning (in math; or in anything else) - just do it. Learn that slogans are irrelevant. If my interjections here have taught that much, then I possibly could claim some small success at least. > > My offense (after the Ed Week article came out and the > author told me that Boaler "could not" reveal the name > of the school to her, even on the promise of press > confidentiality) was to get busy and, using some of her > own reported state database data, positively identify > the schools so that they could be studied by other > "researchers" who might want to use standard public > data available by FOIA if not provided by the school or > district rather than her own exams and very carefully > filtered state database "evidence". For example, in > the year of her data, it was a 1-1 API (Academic > Performance Index) among the high schools of > California. The first 1 means within the lowest decile > among all of them and the second 1 means the same but > within 100 comparable schools (by however California > determines such things). > Well, I congratulate you on your detective work. If 'Railside' sacked its management, the real question at issue is: "Did the students at 'Railside' subsequently improve their performance?" If not, then your exercise has failed (just as much as - or more than - Jo Boaler's did. > >> ("Still Shoveling!
> We know that and that you won't stop but we can still > include our wish as we kneel for our bedside prayers. > > Wayne > I'm sure He Who Listens to your bedside prayers will do the needful for you. I won't.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING! Not GOADING!")