> peer-reviewed research That turns out not to be the case, and egregiously so. A review of much of the research cited, however, reveals that what the Framewo

> peer-reviewed research That turns out not to be the case, and egregiously so. A review of much of the research cited, however, reveals that what the Framework describes as “clear” is often actually pretty murky, hotly disputed, or contradicted by other research, misleadingly stretched to cover situations for which it was not intended, or, in some instances, just plain wrong. Consider how the Framework supports one of its overarching principles, namely its rejection of the “ideas of natural gifts and talents.” The text refers to a paper by a New York University psychologist Andrei Cimpian in 2015 to support that proposition, but the only work of Cimpian listed in the footnotes is a paper written with a Princeton University psychologist, Sarah-Jane Leslie. “This isn't a question that my own research was designed to address.” Leslie said in an emailed response to questions about the Framework's citation of her work. And so on and so forth. Lying about having research that you do not actually have is very much worse than not having research. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/07/14/research_used_to_justify_californias_racial_equity_math_doesnt_add_up_784966.html https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/07/14/...