Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Michael Paul Goldenberg
This message is from Jeremy Kilpatrick who started the petition "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fundamental values.," which you signed on Change.org.

Colleagues:

I’m writing to inform you of the status of this petition, which has gone to Stanford University’s president and provost. Jo reports that Stanford is strongly supporting and encouraging her work. There are serious legal constraints that restrict the removal of Jim Milgram’s writing, no matter how incorrect and malicious it is, but Stanford’s support reinforces their respect for Jo’s work.

On a personal note, Jo also reports that after many years of attacks stemming from Milgram and Bishop’s writing, she has felt great support from this community and wants to extend her heartfelt thanks to all those who took part in this campaign and supported the continuation of her research.

Here is what Jo says:

We are closing the petition with the knowledge that the support of so many people has been extremely important to our shared cause and the petition was just the start of our work together. We have created a community of people who stand against public harassment intended to suppress scholarship and ideas. When researchers, educators, humanists, and others have been attacked for their work in the past, they have often stood alone, not knowing who would support them. This petition has shown that there are many of us who have either been attacked for honest work or are simply willing to stand together against oppressive forces. A Facebook page has now been set up for all those who signed the petition and would like to keep a united front. We gain strength in numbers. We can, and we should, keep each other informed of any attacks or movements to suppress work so that we will always be strong in the future. The Facebook group can be joined at https://www.facebook.com/StandingUpTo!
 AcademicBullying Please join this group.

And here is the response that Stanford has made to our petition:
____________________________
In response to your question, Stanford University wishes to reiterate its strong support for the work of Stanford School of Education Professor Jo Boaler. In 2005, an individual made certain allegations that prompted an inquiry into Dr. Boaler’s research study that later appeared as “Creating Mathematical Futures through an Equitable Teaching Approach: The Case of Railside School” (Teachers College Record, 2008, 110(3), 608–645). Under Stanford policy (and as required by law), the University has an obligation to look into such allegations to determine whether falsification or fabrication of research data or results are being alleged.

The Stanford committee carefully reviewed Dr. Boaler’s study and the allegations that were being made. It concluded that the concerns expressed by the complainant did not demonstrate any evidence of fabrication or falsification. The committee concluded as follows:

“We understand that there is a currently ongoing (and apparently passionate) debate in the mathematics education field concerning the best approaches and methods to be applied in teaching mathematics. It is not our task under Stanford’s policy to determine who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ in this academic debate. We do note that Dr. Boaler’s responses to the questions put to her related to her report were thorough, thoughtful and offered her scientific rationale for each of the questions underlying the allegations. We found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraudulent behavior related to the content of the report in question. In short we find that the allegations (such as they are) of scientific misconduct do not have substance.” (Emphasis added)

The committee therefore recommended that—as a result of its findings—no further investigation was warranted. The University adopted that recommendation.

Dr. Boaler is a nationally respected scholar in the field of math education. Stanford has provided extensive support for Dr. Boaler as she has engaged in scholarship in this field, which is one in which there is wide- ranging academic opinion. Stanford respects the fundamental principle of academic freedom: the merits of a position are to be determined by scholarly debate.
____________________________
I would like to express my thanks to all who signed the petition and to those of you who provided comments on it. This has been a milestone in the coming together of our community of mathematics educators.

Jeremy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Robert Hansen
Cool, I look forward to the release of raw data so that we can understand better the basis for Jo's remarks. Strange that it wasn't included in this release though. You would have thought that would have cleared everything up immediately.

Bob Hansen

On Jan 9, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Michael Paul Goldenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This message is from Jeremy Kilpatrick who started the petition "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fundamental values.," which you signed on Change.org.
>
> Colleagues:
>
> I’m writing to inform you of the status of this petition, which has gone to Stanford University’s president and provost. Jo reports that Stanford is strongly supporting and encouraging her work. There are serious legal constraints that restrict the removal of Jim Milgram’s writing, no matter how incorrect and malicious it is, but Stanford’s support reinforces their respect for Jo’s work.
>
> On a personal note, Jo also reports that after many years of attacks stemming from Milgram and Bishop’s writing, she has felt great support from this community and wants to extend her heartfelt thanks to all those who took part in this campaign and supported the continuation of her research.
>
> Here is what Jo says:
>
> We are closing the petition with the knowledge that the support of so many people has been extremely important to our shared cause and the petition was just the start of our work together. We have created a community of people who stand against public harassment intended to suppress scholarship and ideas. When researchers, educators, humanists, and others have been attacked for their work in the past, they have often stood alone, not knowing who would support them. This petition has shown that there are many of us who have either been attacked for honest work or are simply willing to stand together against oppressive forces. A Facebook page has now been set up for all those who signed the petition and would like to keep a united front. We gain strength in numbers. We can, and we should, keep each other informed of any attacks or movements to suppress work so that we will always be strong in the future. The Facebook group can be joined at https://www.facebook.com/StandingUpTo!
> AcademicBullying Please join this group.
>
> And here is the response that Stanford has made to our petition:
> ____________________________
> In response to your question, Stanford University wishes to reiterate its strong support for the work of Stanford School of Education Professor Jo Boaler. In 2005, an individual made certain allegations that prompted an inquiry into Dr. Boaler’s research study that later appeared as “Creating Mathematical Futures through an Equitable Teaching Approach: The Case of Railside School” (Teachers College Record, 2008, 110(3), 608–645). Under Stanford policy (and as required by law), the University has an obligation to look into such allegations to determine whether falsification or fabrication of research data or results are being alleged.
>
> The Stanford committee carefully reviewed Dr. Boaler’s study and the allegations that were being made. It concluded that the concerns expressed by the complainant did not demonstrate any evidence of fabrication or falsification. The committee concluded as follows:
>
> “We understand that there is a currently ongoing (and apparently passionate) debate in the mathematics education field concerning the best approaches and methods to be applied in teaching mathematics. It is not our task under Stanford’s policy to determine who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ in this academic debate. We do note that Dr. Boaler’s responses to the questions put to her related to her report were thorough, thoughtful and offered her scientific rationale for each of the questions underlying the allegations. We found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraudulent behavior related to the content of the report in question. In short we find that the allegations (such as they are) of scientific misconduct do not have substance.” (Emphasis added)
>
> The committee therefore recommended that—as a result of its findings—no further investigation was warranted. The University adopted that recommendation.
>
> Dr. Boaler is a nationally respected scholar in the field of math education. Stanford has provided extensive support for Dr. Boaler as she has engaged in scholarship in this field, which is one in which there is wide- ranging academic opinion. Stanford respects the fundamental principle of academic freedom: the merits of a position are to be determined by scholarly debate.
> ____________________________
> I would like to express my thanks to all who signed the petition and to those of you who provided comments on it. This has been a milestone in the coming together of our community of mathematics educators.
>
> Jeremy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Robert, they say that Reading Is Fundamental. So maybe you'd like to read, carefully, the part that refers directly to Stanford's official finding about this matter and charges leveled against Jo Boaler's alleged 'scientific misconduct' and alleged 'fabrication of data and/or results.'

"In response to your question, Stanford University wishes to reiterate its strong support for the work of Stanford School of Education Professor Jo Boaler. In 2005, an individual made certain allegations that prompted an inquiry into Dr. Boaler’s research study that later appeared as “Creating Mathematical Futures through an Equitable Teaching Approach: The Case of Railside School” (Teachers College Record, 2008, 110(3), 608–645). Under Stanford policy (and as required by law), the University has an obligation to look into such allegations to determine whether falsification or fabrication of research data or results are being alleged.

The Stanford committee carefully reviewed Dr. Boaler’s study and the allegations that were being made. It concluded that the concerns expressed by the complainant did not demonstrate any evidence of fabrication or falsification. The committee concluded as follows:

“We understand that there is a currently ongoing (and apparently passionate) debate in the mathematics education field concerning the best approaches and methods to be applied in teaching mathematics. It is not our task under Stanford’s policy to determine who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ in this academic debate. We do note that Dr. Boaler’s responses to the questions put to her related to her report were thorough, thoughtful and offered her scientific rationale for each of the questions underlying the allegations. We found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraudulent behavior related to the content of the report in question. In short we find that the allegations (such as they are) of scientific misconduct do not have substance.” (Emphasis added)

The committee therefore recommended that—as a result of its findings—no further investigation was warranted. The University adopted that recommendation.

Dr. Boaler is a nationally respected scholar in the field of math education. Stanford has provided extensive support for Dr. Boaler as she has engaged in scholarship in this field, which is one in which there is wide- ranging academic opinion. Stanford respects the fundamental principle of academic freedom: the merits of a position are to be determined by scholarly debate.

- -------

So you may look forward to whatever you like, but how you glean from what Stanford officially stated that you'll be seeing that raw data eludes me.

Note that Stanford doesn't seem worried about Boaler's work, nor about accusations by one of its faculty members, nor by one of Cal State-LA's faculty members. I think it's a pretty safe bet that they're not worried about you.

So if things remain other than "cleared up" in your mind, perhaps it's due to your presumptive judgments. I suggest you take your resulting doubts, misgivings, hard feelings, etc., up with Stanford University. I'm sure they'll be eager to assuage your concerns with all possible haste. After all, they all know how vital Robert Hansen's opinion is in every venue on every subject and would not want to risk your disapproval of their findings.

By the way, I, too, conducted research in mathematics education as a graduate student in the early 1990s, and the results were published in a University of Georgia  peer-reviewed journal of mathematics education (I believe our article appeared in the inaugural issue, but I wouldn't swear to that).

I strongly suggest that you, Wayne, Dr. Milgram, and everyone else who thinks as you do demand that the chief investigator release all the raw data. After all, if someone with Jo Boaler's reputation in her field is ostensibly faking data and results (regardless of what Stanford University has to say on the subject), undoubtedly an untenured assistant professor and a couple of graduate students were probably doing at least as much if not far worse. You can tell without seeing the data because we (modestly and tentatively) drew some inferences from the data that likely wouldn't jibe with the thinking of anyone affiliated with Mathematically Correct or HOLD. And you know what THAT means, don't you? Call a cop!

Indeed, you might like to spend the rest of your life investigating mathematics education research. With your deep knowledge of social science research methodology (quantitative, qualitative, and blended, with their myriad design models and theoretical research frameworks, etc.), you'd be perfect. Remind me, though: where was it you trained in such things? I know Stanford will want to know.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 10, 2013 12:41 AM:
>
> Cool, I look forward to the release of raw data so
> that we can understand better the basis for Jo's
> remarks. Strange that it wasn't included in this
> release though. You would have thought that would
> have cleared everything up immediately.
>
> Bob Hansen
>
A thorough investigation was conducted.

NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OR FABRICATION OF RESULTS (BY JO BOALER).  

That is, the complaint made by 'a certain individual' was found to be utterly phony.

To me it seems that the only real issue may be to inquire why such a phony complaint was ever made in the first place.

And I do tend to wonder why you, Robert Hansen, keep supporting such a phony case.  

It seems that there is good reason for some serious introspection here (quite apart from any formal investigations).
 
GSC
("Still Shoveling Away!)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Robert Hansen
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg

On Jan 9, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Michael Paul Goldenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

The Stanford committee carefully reviewed Dr. Boaler’s study and the allegations that were being made. It concluded that the concerns expressed by the complainant did not demonstrate any evidence of fabrication or falsification. The committee concluded as follows:

Then it should have been a no brainer to show that with the DATA. Obama is questioned about his birth place, he produces a birth certificate. GWB is questioned about WMD and he produces data, crappy inaccurate data, but still data. Boaler is questioned about her conclusions in her paper and she produces a statement from Stanford?

In any other field a good researcher would have responded with more data and more discussion of his or her results. That is what research is about.

Bob Hansen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Robert Hansen
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
The actual reality that Milgram et al uncovered at the three schools did not match Boaler's descriptive conclusion in her study. Now, it may be Stanford's policy that educational research is to be taken with a grain of salt and with particular attention to the fine print, however, in this case, Boaler's study had neither a grain of salt nor fine print. I am not going to try to hide my disappointment. I was hoping for something like the following from Boaler (with MPG's signature after hers)...

"I realize that the reader might infer from my conclusion and comments in my original study that the students at Railside were passing, or even doing very well, in these advanced classes. Heaven's no! Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost none of these students did well enough to even pass. Indeed, they were failing. But that wasn't what my study was about. My study was about showing that if we adopt an open and encouraging environment in mathematics education then we can achieve a semblance of success in mathematics. I realize that most readers are puzzled and will ask why we would want a semblance of success and not actual success, and more importantly, why I didn't point this detail out in my original study? This is because my study was not about mathematics, not in the common sense, it was about equality. But in order to achieve a semblance of equality we must establish a semblance of success in mathematics. Now, I don't have an answer to the question "Why does!
 equality, or even a semblance of equality, have anything to do with mathematics?" But if equality can be reduced to a semblance of equality based on a semblance of success in mathematics then my study shows a possible way of achieving that semblance."

Bob Hansen


On Jan 9, 2013, at 11:16 PM, GS Chandy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 10, 2013 12:41 AM:
>>
>> Cool, I look forward to the release of raw data so
>> that we can understand better the basis for Jo's
>> remarks. Strange that it wasn't included in this
>> release though. You would have thought that would
>> have cleared everything up immediately.
>>
>> Bob Hansen
>>
> A thorough investigation was conducted.
>
> NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OR FABRICATION OF RESULTS (BY JO BOALER).  
>
> That is, the complaint made by 'a certain individual' was found to be utterly phony.
>
> To me it seems that the only real issue may be to inquire why such a phony complaint was ever made in the first place.
>
> And I do tend to wonder why you, Robert Hansen, keep supporting such a phony case.  
>
> It seems that there is good reason for some serious introspection here (quite apart from any formal investigations).
>
> GSC
> ("Still Shoveling Away!)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
So please demand to see the data from the study I worked on in the early 1990s. I will then contact the National Science Foundation and request the non-disclosure forms the researchers signed, guaranteeing anonymity to the participants and the school/district.

You can then take matters up with the NSF, and the various organizations (including the officers in charge at the University of Michigan) on why they insist on anonymity for human subject research.

I'm not sure, but it's possible that some people with foresight anticipated the sort of harassment of researchers and participants that are at the center of the Boaler complaints against Messrs. Bishop and Milgram and made non-disclosure a requirement for all human subject research. Ironically, a major cause for serious revising of human subject research was the work of another Milgram, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram.  Perhaps you've heard of him?

Regardless, the hysteria on this list surrounding Boaler's work is particularly interesting. One might think that the world of mathematics teaching (at least the world comprising the United States of America) had been set on its ear by Boaler's work. In other words, as a result of her research, dramatic, wholesale changes in math teaching practices took place on a wide basis. And yet, working as I do with schools, teachers, and students in all grade bands other than pre-K and early el, I see almost nothing but traditional mathematics instruction: teacher-centered, with lots and lots of direct instruction, and perhaps an occasional smattering of some of the practices that our intrepid Math Warriors find so objectionable: small group work, hands-on investigations, "real-world" problem-solving, "discovery" learning, and the like. Oh, and calculators and other technologies (including, shockingly, pencil and paper - which do comprise technology). But I don't believe that MC/HOLD !
 and friends have yet accused Jo Boaler of being responsible for the use of calculators in school mathematics, the key word there being "yet."

So why the hysteria? Why the villagers with torches and pitchforks swarming around Boaler's work? If I didn't know better, I'd think certain people were engaged in a vendetta that is both personal and ideological.

I also wonder why these same bloodhounds are at rest regarding research results that fit their personal philosophies of education. I can't recall a similar investigation on the part of either these two academics or any of their like-minded colleagues into research results surrounding the Direct Instruction projects connected with Doug Carnine & company at the University of Oregon. Why does DI get a free pass? Don't you wonder about that, Robert? Or don't you think about things that you don't think about?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Responding to Robert Hansen's (RH's) post dt. Jan 10, 2013 8:54 PM (pasted below my signature for ready reference):

I shall leave it to Jo Boaler to explain, if she desires to, why she is not doing as RH wants her to do.

I feel I am justified in asking RH to explain why he himself does not do as he recommends that Jo Boaler should do.

Specifically I refer to the falsehoods that he - along with Haim - promoted here at Math-teach over several years about the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) - an aid to problem solving and decision making developed by the undersigned.

The falsehoods involve his claim that "OPMS is just petty list-making and nothing else - and it is therefore trivial" (words to that effect), when it would be abundantly clear to even a high-school student who examines the literature that the OPMS is considerably "more than petty list-making".  See, for instance, the attachments herewith which clearly demonstrate that the OPMS is much more than lists - AND that RH's claim was and is total falsehood.

Can RH provide ANY data at all to demonstrate the validity of his claim that OPMS is just "petty list-making - and nothing else"???  

I have provided my data to demonstrate that OPMS is much more than "petty list-making".  All needed data is available at those attachments.  More data can develop from live cases for anyone who wishes to check out by applying the OPMS to any issue of interest to himself/ herself/ themselves.

RH is very prompt, I observe, to ask Jo Boaler  to provide data in support of her claims - but he refuses to do the same in support of his own claims!

One may certainly disagree as to the value to problem solving of the OPMS; one may claim it is worthless - that is anybody's prerogative - but why these blatant lies???

Kindly do yourself the favor of explaining the falsehoods (i.e., blatant lies) that you promoted, RH.

GSC
("Still Shoveling Away!")

Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 10, 2013 8:54 PM:

>
> The actual reality that Milgram et al uncovered at
> the three schools did not match Boaler's descriptive
> conclusion in her study. Now, it may be Stanford's
> policy that educational research is to be taken with
> a grain of salt and with particular attention to the
> fine print, however, in this case, Boaler's study had
> neither a grain of salt nor fine print. I am not
> going to try to hide my disappointment. I was hoping
> for something like the following from Boaler (with
> MPG's signature after hers)...
>
> "I realize that the reader might infer from my
> conclusion and comments in my original study that the
> students at Railside were passing, or even doing very
> well, in these advanced classes. Heaven's no! Nothing
> could be further from the truth. Almost none of these
> students did well enough to even pass. Indeed, they
> were failing. But that wasn't what my study was
> about. My study was about showing that if we adopt an
> open and encouraging environment in mathematics
> education then we can achieve a semblance of success
> in mathematics. I realize that most readers are
> puzzled and will ask why we would want a semblance of
> success and not actual success, and more importantly,
> why I didn't point this detail out in my original
> study? This is because my study was not about
> mathematics, not in the common sense, it was about
> equality. But in order to achieve a semblance of
> equality we must establish a semblance of success in
> mathematics. Now, I don't have an answer to the
> question "Why does!
> equality, or even a semblance of equality, have
> e anything to do with mathematics?" But if equality
> can be reduced to a semblance of equality based on a
> semblance of success in mathematics then my study
> shows a possible way of achieving that semblance."
>
> Bob Hansen
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2013, at 11:16 PM, GS Chandy
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 10, 2013 12:41 AM:
> >>
> >> Cool, I look forward to the release of raw data so
> >> that we can understand better the basis for Jo's
> >> remarks. Strange that it wasn't included in this
> >> release though. You would have thought that would
> >> have cleared everything up immediately.
> >>
> >> Bob Hansen
> >>
> > A thorough investigation was conducted.
> >
> > NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OR
> FABRICATION OF RESULTS (BY JO BOALER).  
> >
> > That is, the complaint made by 'a certain
> individual' was found to be utterly phony.
> >
> > To me it seems that the only real issue may be to
> inquire why such a phony complaint was ever made in
> the first place.
> >
> > And I do tend to wonder why you, Robert Hansen,
> keep supporting such a phony case.  
> >
> > It seems that there is good reason for some serious
> introspection here (quite apart from any formal
> investigations).
> >
> > GSC
> > ("Still Shoveling Away!)

Some Missions of Interest.ppt (4M) Download Attachment
04 OPMS Deep Logic.doc (94K) Download Attachment
01_OPMS___in_Outline.doc (224K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Robert Hansen

On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:02 PM, GS Chandy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can RH provide ANY data at all to demonstrate the validity of his claim that OPMS is just "petty list-making - and nothing else"???  

Yes, certainly. You have been trying to sell OPMS to the world for at least 20 years and all you have to show for that is a single anecdotal story of a relative using it once.

May I give you some advice? If you really believe that OPMS still has promise left in it, after all these years, then wouldn't it make more sense for you to focus your efforts and attention on making it better and finding someone, anyone, that can make it work and provide actual examples of it working? Wouldn't that be better than focusing so much of your attention towards the very people who have the lowest regard for your tool?

As another piece of advice, maybe you were simply wrong and it is past time that you realize that. That complex issues and especially supremely complex human issues are simply too complex for lists and pert charts, something I realized in the 80's.

I don't have anything else to offer you other than those two pieces of advice. Choose one.

Bob Hansen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 10, 2013 8:54 PM:
>
> The actual reality that Milgram et al uncovered at
> the three schools did not match Boaler's descriptive
> conclusion in her study.
>
<SNIP>
The actual reality that GSC uncovered right here at Math-teach does not at all match RH's 'descriptive claims' in all his postings about OPMS over the years.

See, for details, my post dt.  Jan 10, 2013 10:32 PM at this very thread - http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8044921 that indicates the precise nature of his 'failure'.

GSC
("Still Shoveling Away!)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
If this is about to turn into another interminable and pointless argument about OPMS, could the two principles please take it to another thread? Because nothing in the last two posts and little in the one before that is pertinent to the topic of this thread, which is Jo Boaler's fight against attacks on her research and the recent statement of Stanford University's findings in regard to accusations against her, found by them to be groundless.

Fascinating as other topics may be, they deserve their own thread so as to not be conflated with the Boaler/Stanford/Milgram-Bishop thread.

Thanks in advance for the courtesy of not continuing the OPMS debate here.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
er, principals? In this case, strangely enough, it makes about as much sense either way. . .
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Robert Hansen
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg

On Jan 10, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Michael Paul Goldenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

So please demand to see the data from the study I worked on in the early 1990s. I will then contact the National Science Foundation and request the non-disclosure forms the researchers signed, guaranteeing anonymity to the participants and the school/district.

Well, I have provided an example of a response that Boaler could have provided, she of course can fill in the details. Also note that in my example of a response I do not divulge any information not already divulged in the original study, other than a more transparent explanation. I don't think the issue starts with identifying the schools (which other studies often do) and it certainly has nothing to do with identifying the students. The issues starts with her statements regarding success but with no reasonable data or explanation offered by her to qualify that success. But even if she had qualified and explained better the results in her study, there still must be an avenue for an independent researcher to verify those results. I might not qualify as an "independent researcher" but I certainly thought someone like Milgram or Bishop would. Finally, I saw a few posts regarding new policies by the NSF that data be more transparent and accessible. So maybe this is no longer an issue.

Bob Hansen

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Robert Hansen wrote: " I might not qualify as an "independent researcher" but I certainly thought someone like Milgram or Bishop would."

Really? You believe that either of these gentlemen has a background in social science research, its protocols, etc.? I think you're fooling yourself.

As someone with actual, if limited, experience in such research, I would no sooner profess competence in conducting or publishing research in the physical sciences in general, let alone in a specific discipline than I would claim to be able to conduct surgery because I have removed the occasional hang nail.

But the fact is that neither of these scholars has any background in publishing research in either the social or the physical sciences. And to the extent that either of them has experience publishing original research of any kind whatsoever, it would be in the mathematical sciences, which has protocols that differ dramatically from social and physical sciences for reasons that might be obvious if you gave it a little thought.

Finally, new policies at NSF are not retroactive and do not release researchers from confidentiality agreements signed at the time of the research in which subjects were promised anonymity for participation.

I know you desperately want to find a logical argument that makes Messrs. Bishop and Milgram in the right for what many believe to be execrable intellectual harassment and bullying, but I'm afraid you'll need to do much better than you have thus far. Your ridiculous and insulting hypothetical disclaimer does not improve your position or theirs.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Robert Hansen

On Jan 10, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Michael Paul Goldenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Really? You believe that either of these gentlemen has a background in social science research, its protocols, etc.? I think you're fooling yourself. 

Seriously? It was high school mathematics. I expect that three university mathematicians can deal with a study involving high school mathematics. By qualified, I meant that they are associated with respected universities.

During your lengthy absence from math-teach, did you forget that we are immune to responses like this? Well, now that you are reminded, let me also say that it's one of those immunities that are hard fought and hard won against a virus that changes its spots on each presentation. It is the type of immunity that, once you attain it, you have it the rest of your life.

You have a dozen excuses of why she doesn't explain this study. That doesn't help explain this study.

Bob Hansen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Responding to Michael Goldenberg's post of Jan 11, 2013 12:39 AM (pasted below my signature for reference):

Mike:

Before I read your request/suggestion as pasted below my signature, I had already responded to Robert Hansen's of Jan 10, 2013 11:03 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8045478) - and yes, my response did specifically discuss the issues he had raised in his post. (Of course, I don't yet know whether my response will be passed for publication by our Moderator - but that is another matter).

Whatever, as one of the 'principals' you had referred to, I believe I may not be far wrong to feel that it is also a matter of 'principle':

To refute lies and falsehoods (along with the intents behind those lies and falsehoods) as and when they appear.  

Which is, I believe, also the real issue underlying Jo Boaler's case against Professors Milgram and Bishop?  

And yes, we certainly do need practical means to help us discuss complex issues more effectively than what we generally manage to do (and THAT is what OPMS is all about).

GSC
Michael Paul Goldenberg (MPG) posted Jan 11, 2013 12:39 AM:

> If this is about to turn into another interminable
> and pointless argument about OPMS, could the two
> principles please take it to another thread? Because
> nothing in the last two posts and little in the one
> before that is pertinent to the topic of this thread,
> which is Jo Boaler's fight against attacks on her
> research and the recent statement of Stanford
> University's findings in regard to accusations
> against her, found by them to be groundless.
>
> Fascinating as other topics may be, they deserve
> their own thread so as to not be conflated with the
> Boaler/Stanford/Milgram-Bishop thread.
>
> Thanks in advance for the courtesy of not continuing
> the OPMS debate here.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Robert, I could offer a great deal of commentary on what you're immune to, but respect for the moderator and list rules stays my hand.

That you appear to seriously believe that all that is needed to critique the research methods, the theoretical framework (do you know what those things are, I seriously wonder?), etc., is knowledge of high school math, since the studies took place in high school math classes begins to reveal that you are, shockingly, unable to bring anything to the conversation that ANYONE in the social sciences would take seriously.

Now, if the focus of the Bishop/Milgram vendetta against Boaler was the mathematical content - that is to say, the accuracy from a mathematical perspective - of what was being taught, well, that might be another matter. But it isn't. No one is asserting that there were mathematical errors or untruths being taught, as far as I recall. Rather, this was the usual anti-progressive hate-fest that centers on pedagogy and a basic attitude towards the teaching and learning of mathematics. For Bishop, Milgram, and their allies, this is about no pain, no gain; about making the teacher the entire center of the classroom, who is all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful, and who, through (almost invariably) his good graces, the powerless students will be allowed to glimpse revealed mathematical truth.

Here in the 21st century, however, a lot of folks have figured out that not only is such an approach unnecessary, but in many instances it is counter-productive. Of course, we all know that some individuals manage to make it through that particular gauntlet, and to them we say, "More power to you. If mathematics doesn't work out for you, there's always becoming a monk or nun, for you have demonstrated the ability to tolerate many indignities and deprivations."

For the rest of the population, who isn't particularly successful with such sparse and severe conditions, there are other ways through the woods than one. Your response, I know, is that anything that isn't the Holy Writ of the Priesthood is "not mathematics." Well, super for you, Robert. You keep thinking that. But do the rest of population a huge favor: back off, go serve the people who want your services, and stop whining so much. Stop acting like the dog in the manger who, in this case, can't teach these other kids effectively, and rather than let someone else do so, insist that if YOU can't reach them, no one can. Quit trying to ensure that there is but one path, and you are the determiner of what that path is.

Because there is nothing you can do to stop all the other projects and approaches, as Kirby demonstrates daily. He neither needs nor awaits your imprimatur, Robert, and is happily doing much good with those who appear very interested in his services and products (so to speak). I am happily teaching kids, coaching inner city math teachers, and doing much good with those who appear very interested in my services and products. Please feel free to do the same. Or not. Do something creative. Or not. But trying to pollute everyone else's waters is a losing proposition for all concerned, and no reasonable person is going to sit quietly and let you do so.

So, once again, you are more than free to pursue whatever courses of action you like, though I do encourage you to think positively, if you can. But telling Jo Boaler what she SHOULD say, or me what I SHOULD sign, or any of your many other amusing but futile ideas is a waste of time, effort, and space. It will impact precisely no one but yourself.

As for what passes for discourse here, do you seriously suggest that ANY person coming to this list for the first time, with no major preconceptions and no dogs in any fights, would spend more than a week without noticing how narrow and repetitive the conversations are? So please, don't attempt to warn me about what works, what you think you're immune to, or any other nonsense because you're the last person on earth whose views matter to me. I do learn things of value from some list members, and I've privately thanked some people (you'd be surprised) for putting up links and names of great interest that were unfamiliar to me. I will be happy to thank you, too, should a miracle occur. Until then, I suggest (fully knowing that you will not heed any suggestions that make sense) to save your breath to cool your soup.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Haim-5
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Robert Hansen Posted: Jan 10, 2013 12:33 PM

>> On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:02 PM, GS Chandy
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Can RH provide ANY data at all to demonstrate the
>> validity of his claim that OPMS is just "petty list-
>> making - and nothing else"???
>
>Yes, certainly. You have been trying to sell OPMS to the
>world for at least 20 years and all you have to show for
>that is a single anecdotal story of a relative using it
>once.

   Not so, Bob.  Perhaps you have forgotten that GS and I conducted a demonstration of OPMS in this very forum.  First, my own conclusion about OPMS,

- ---------------------------
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7357856
Ah! I get it, finally. OPMS is not a method of analysis, like a flow chart or a decision table, it is a method of persuasion. That is why you cannot present to us the results of an OPMS analysis. The process is the result. That is why process is everything to you. That is why OPMS is an endless road to nowhere. That is why your writings have less the flavor of an engineer working on a physical problem and much, much more the flavor of a psychologist who wants everyone in the same room, sharing feelings. Everyone's feelings are equally valid, and you are not looking for an optimal outcome except insofar as consensus is optimal, whatever that consensus might be.
- ------------------------------

   Now, the main part of the "Live Demonstration" starts here,
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2308842&tstart=0
and here,
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7594819

Unfortunately, for reasons I have never investigated, discussion threads on Math-Teach become fragmented and orphaned.  To follow the entire Demonstration requires some perseverence.

   Finally, the Live Demonstration continues on a bit in the thread, "Towards an effective public school system for US" Was: "Live Demo..."
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=2335906&messageID=7652351#7652351
wherein I again conclude,

 "At this point, it should be apparent to anyone who has had the patience and the stamina (and the poor judgement) to follow our preposterous conversation that OPMS is a slow, painful road to nowhere."

Haim
No representation without taxation.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg
Responding to Haim's post Jan 11, 2013 9:54 AM (copied below my signature for ready reference):

With due respect for MPG's request to take any discussions of OPMS off this thread, I state only:

Haim's statement are quite as false and foolish as is his fatuous recommendation for US public school education:

"PUT THE EDUCATION MAFIA IN JAIL!"

If our Moderator would kindly permit, I shall start a 'New Topic' that will properly demonstrate the falsity (and foolishness) of Haim's asseverations as pasted below my signature - AND which will also serve, at least superficially, to indicate how an effective Action Plan could be created for any *worthwhile* Mission for your education system.  (In a little while, as right now I'm busy preparing for a workshop). *"Worthwhile" means VERY DIFFERENT FROM Haim's fatuous recommendation.

GSC
("Still Shoveling!")

Haim posted Jan 11, 2013 9:54 AM

>
> Robert Hansen Posted: Jan 10, 2013 12:33 PM
>
> >> On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:02 PM, GS Chandy
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Can RH provide ANY data at all to demonstrate the
> >> validity of his claim that OPMS is just "petty
> list-
> >> making - and nothing else"???
> >
> >Yes, certainly. You have been trying to sell OPMS to
> the
> >world for at least 20 years and all you have to show
> for
> >that is a single anecdotal story of a relative using
> it
> >once.
>
> Not so, Bob.  Perhaps you have forgotten that GS
> GS and I conducted a demonstration of OPMS in this
> very forum.  First, my own conclusion about OPMS,
>
> - ---------------------------
> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7357856
> Ah! I get it, finally. OPMS is not a method of
> analysis, like a flow chart or a decision table, it
> is a method of persuasion. That is why you cannot
> present to us the results of an OPMS analysis. The
> process is the result. That is why process is
> everything to you. That is why OPMS is an endless
> road to nowhere. That is why your writings have less
> the flavor of an engineer working on a physical
> problem and much, much more the flavor of a
> psychologist who wants everyone in the same room,
> sharing feelings. Everyone's feelings are equally
> valid, and you are not looking for an optimal outcome
> except insofar as consensus is optimal, whatever that
> consensus might be.
> - ------------------------------
>
> Now, the main part of the "Live Demonstration"
> on" starts here,
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2308842&t
> start=0
> and here,
> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7594819
>
> Unfortunately, for reasons I have never investigated,
> discussion threads on Math-Teach become fragmented
> and orphaned.  To follow the entire Demonstration
> requires some perseverence.
>
> Finally, the Live Demonstration continues on a bit
> bit in the thread, "Towards an effective public
> school system for US" Was: "Live Demo..."
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&thread
> ID=2335906&messageID=7652351#7652351
> wherein I again conclude,
>
> "At this point, it should be apparent to anyone who
> o has had the patience and the stamina (and the poor
> judgement) to follow our preposterous conversation
> that OPMS is a slow, painful road to nowhere."
>
> Haim
> No representation without taxation.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in defending fun

Robert Hansen
In reply to this post by Michael Paul Goldenberg

On Jan 10, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Michael Paul Goldenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Robert, I could offer a great deal of commentary on what you're immune to, but respect for the moderator and list rules stays my hand.

Thank you for saying that, it means my immunity system is healthy and wise.


Now, if the focus of the Bishop/Milgram vendetta against Boaler was the mathematical content - that is to say, the accuracy from a mathematical perspective - of what was being taught, well, that might be another matter. But it isn't. No one is asserting that there were mathematical errors or untruths being taught, as far as I recall. Rather, this was the usual anti-progressive hate-fest that centers on pedagogy and a basic attitude towards the teaching and learning of mathematics. For Bishop, Milgram, and their allies, this is about no pain, no gain; about making the teacher the entire center of the classroom, who is all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful, and who, through (almost invariably) his good graces, the powerless students will be allowed to glimpse revealed mathematical truth.

That was actually only one focus. The focus I was referring to was that she reported success, in advanced classes, beyond even the other two schools, yet when Milgram et al ascertained the schools and obtained the CST, SAT and AP test scores, this was clearly not indicated. Seriously,  very few of the pages, if any of the pages, in the Milgram paper were devoted to a critique of alternate methods. They were devoted to what I just said and the bad math problems. I was more interested in the discrepancy between Boaler's statements of success and CST, SAT and AP test scores.

Milgram et al did not harp on alternative pedagogy in that paper. It was not a paper about what Milgram et al think is proper pedagogy. Yet this is what you want to talk about. I want to talk about why Boaler's statements didn't match reality. This should also be of interest to you because this is why people do not trust educational research. This is why even the good little ideas won't make it into mainstream pedagogy, let alone the grandiose schemes of social justice.


For the rest of the population, who isn't particularly successful with such sparse and severe conditions, there are other ways through the woods than one. Your response, I know, is that anything that isn't the Holy Writ of the Priesthood is "not mathematics." Well, super for you, Robert. You keep thinking that. But do the rest of population a huge favor: back off, go serve the people who want your services, and stop whining so much. Stop acting like the dog in the manger who, in this case, can't teach these other kids effectively, and rather than let someone else do so, insist that if YOU can't reach them, no one can. Quit trying to ensure that there is but one path, and you are the determiner of what that path is. 

Geez, I am hurt. After all the years and you get me so wrong.

1. K-12 mathematics is well defined. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, statistics, precalc, calculus, and any tidbits I missed.
2. I don't care how you get there as long as you get THERE and not some other place that doesn't even look like THERE.


Because there is nothing you can do to stop all the other projects and approaches, as Kirby demonstrates daily. He neither needs nor awaits your imprimatur, Robert, and is happily doing much good with those who appear very interested in his services and products (so to speak). I am happily teaching kids, coaching inner city math teachers, and doing much good with those who appear very interested in my services and products. Please feel free to do the same. Or not. Do something creative. Or not. But trying to pollute everyone else's waters is a losing proposition for all concerned, and no reasonable person is going to sit quietly and let you do so.

I am doing something creative. I am intensely focused. Not withstanding those that I directly coach or advise, my presence on forums is affecting many. I would offer private communications, but I don't have to. That it brought you here all the way back from the math-teach grave to tell me to my face to STOP, says enough. What I am not doing is finding out where Kirby posts or lives just to tell him I hate him. Or finding out where you post or live just to tell you I hate you. Or finding out where GS posts or lives just to tell him I hate him. For two reasons, one, I don't even think of them (that includes you) unless we are in a dialog, and two, what a waste of time that would be.


So, once again, you are more than free to pursue whatever courses of action you like, though I do encourage you to think positively, if you can. But telling Jo Boaler what she SHOULD say, or me what I SHOULD sign, or any of your many other amusing but futile ideas is a waste of time, effort, and space. It will impact precisely no one but yourself. 

I wasn't telling anyone to do anything, it was an example of what I was hoping to receive. I take it from your tone here that I won't be receiving it.:(


As for what passes for discourse here, do you seriously suggest that ANY person coming to this list for the first time, with no major preconceptions and no dogs in any fights, would spend more than a week without noticing how narrow and repetitive the conversations are?

GS has also said the same thing you just did, about this list being repetitive and narrow. While it does have it's share of repetition (all lists do) I don't find it narrow. I have increased my expertise immensely, my reflexes have grown pristine, and my writing has improved. I think when people go to a forum looking for one thing only, and they don't get it, then the forum looks narrow. But that is because their mind was narrow to begin with. The whole world probably looks narrow to them.

Bob Hansen

123