If you have evidence of scientific misconduct then show what you've got. If not, the culture-war bullshit is off-topic.

She repeatedly misquoted research in her papers. This has been well documented. Here's a comprehensive critique of her, by Stanford math professor Brian Conrad: https://sites.google.com/view/publiccommentsonthecmf/?ref=st...

The investigation into these allegations was terminated after finding no wrongdoing.

There was a previous investigation, years ago, which failed to dismiss her as a tenured professor (which is very difficult to do — as we've seen with MTL). But the document I linked to is from 2023, related specifically to her misrepresentations in the CMF. That has not had a hearing, AFAIK. If you have more information, please share it!

I would be surprised if misstatements in such a document (which is not published research) could lead to a tenured professor being fired. But I would welcome an investigation by the Daily into the issue, which could turn up evidence of other misrepresentations in contexts that are more likely to receive administrative scrutiny. She surely has freedom of speech, as a professor. But purposely and persistently misquoting research is precisely the sort of thing that professors can be punished for.

I tried looking at that document. It's pages upon pages of nitpicky detail causing my eyes to glaze over.

Better would be something which points out the scientific misconduct. Otherwise it comes across like a Gish gallop.

As an example, I picked one of the documents - https://drive.google.com/file/d/17O123ENTxvZOjXTnOMNRDtHQAOj... - and found a comment that intrigued me:

> In some places, the CMF has no research-based evidence, as when it gives the advice “Do not include homework . . . as any part of grading. Homework is one of the most inequitable practices of education.” The research on homework is complex and mixed, and does not support such blanket statements.

I stuck "homework inequitable" in Google Scholar and found https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/8910k087s saying "Based on the literature, it is apparent that homework is not equitable for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. It is important to mention that some studies claimed a positive correlation with homework and learning outcomes, but those studies don’t take socioeconomic status into account."

There's a book from 2000 on the topic, "The end of homework : how homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning", at https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780807042182/page/n9/mode/... and "Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs" with a second edition in 2018.

This all makes me wonder why doesn't the research-based evidence support this statement?

If it isn't "one of the most", what are the most?

Or is the issue that the author doesn't understand the topic enough, so think it's too complex for anyone else to understand?

> the document I linked to is from 2023

That's an unfair characterization. While parts of it are from 2023, https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/05/california... shows the document was there in 2022.

> That's an unfair characterization. While parts of it are from 2023, https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/05/california... shows the document was there in 2022.

The document was edited over the last year or so, as the CMF was released and edited. But the investigation referenced by another commenter took place way back in 2006, well before the CMF popped up. [1]

1: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-prof...

Thank you for agreeing with me about that point.

What about my more substantial one - I don't have the time to dig through what appear to be a lot of personal disagreements about what how to interpret research, so would you please highlight the part which you best believe constitutes scientific misconduct?

I mean, sure, repeating a false myth about calculus from the 1800s may be wrong, but if that counts as misconduct then there's a lot of misconduct going on in academia.

I didn't actually agree with you — I maintain that it is not "an unfair characterization", since the document was created a decade and a half after the investigation that another commenter referenced. Nice try on claiming the W though!

> Or is the issue that the author doesn't understand the topic enough, so think it's too complex for anyone else to understand?

I would say the same to you, in your attempt to critique Professor Conrad's piece. As you say, your eyes glazed over so you didn't actually read it. Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value.

You original wrote "But the document I linked to is from 2023, related specifically to her misrepresentations in the CMF".

I said it was unfair because it was from 2022, with edits in 2023.

You agreed that it was from 2022, with edits in 2023.

> Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value.

Again, Gish Gallop. This has the mark of throwing everything on the wall in hopes that something will stick. Making a mountain out of every molehill means it's hard to see if there are any actual mountains.

You say it's evidence that she "repeatedly misquoted research in her papers". My own spot check of literally the first topic I looked into makes me suspect the author's own ability to interpret the research. I listed my analysis - am I wrong?

Otherwise, sure, perhaps that one item I looked at is an exception and the rest of the document contains actual mountains.

Since you've read the report, what misquoted research stands out to you as the most damning?

Seems to me like she is the victim of right-wing conspiracy theorists.

For those who don't know this kerfuffle

Dr. Brian Conrad is a very vocal critic of the California Math Framework. He definitely has an axe to grind.

Dr. Jo Boaler is a British education author and Nomellini-Olivier Professor of Mathematics Education at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. Boaler is involved in promoting reform mathematics and equitable mathematics classrooms. She is the primary author of the California Math Framework.

It's probably worth noting that they are both full professors at Stanford, not just a guy with a doctorate vs a Stanford professor.

I'm unaware of Professor Conrad having an "axe to grind". AFAIU, he simply thinks that what Professor Boaler advocates is incorrect, and he sees fit to describe the myriad mistakes and misrepresentations in her research and advocacy.

He shares this outlook with many people, including those who believe that despite saying that she advocates for "equity", her agenda would actually lead to worse outcomes for many students, including low-income students who lack family resources to procure advanced mathematical education.

That certainly sounds like what someone who agrees with Dr. Conrad, and has the same axe to grind, would say.

When I look up "axe to grind" I see this definition:

have a private reason for doing or being involved in something.

I have never met Professor Boaler, nor do I have any private/hidden agendas. Do you simply mean "someone who disagrees with" when you say "axe to grind"? If so, it's somewhat of a meaningless epithet. If you mean the normal definition, I'd be curious what evidence you have for that (related to Professor Conrad, or me).

Well, let's just agree to disagree, then.

If you won’t say what you mean, there’s no other choice!

Oh yes, there is another choice. Rather than assume that what I mean is the dictionary definition and asserting your opinions, why not ask some good questions?

Did they cover her misdeeds before? I'd love to see that reporting. Such a shame that the state of CA adopted the math framework she was pushing, even though so many of her colleagues (STEM professors, not education professors) described the negative impact it will have on learning and college readiness.

This isn't Reddit. If you have something to say, say it, but drive-by content-free comments like this aren't appropriate here.