9 ms·

The person quoted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Boaler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Boaler) is a "Nomellini-Olivier Professor of Mathematics Education a

The person quoted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Boaler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Boaler) is a "Nomellini-Olivier Professor of Mathematics Education at the Stanford Graduate School of Education" who "won the award for best PhD in education from the British Educational Research Association" I'm not saying I agree with the proposed California Framework. As a formerly gifted maths student, I hate it. But let's not dismiss the rigorous work of an academic who is attempting to improve education for a public education body for a state with 40 million people as "bonehead" (or "woke nonsense" as another commenter did). 90% of the reasons why kids say "<subject> is stupid, who needs it" it's because they are not enjoying it or struggling with it and using this as a defense mechanism. Noone who is doing WELL at a school subject dismisses it as useless. So maybe, just maybe, it's worth evaluating the education process to make it easier to teach kids to give them the foundations that then the more gifted ones can invest and build on top of, and everyone comes out with baseline math competency.

chmod600 5y ago
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
TimPC 5y ago
A Professor of Mathematics Education is a role that fits into a woke section of academia and generally publishes woke forms of advocate research. Many people can study mathematics education without studying much mathematics at all. When the Mathematicians and Scientists are screaming that the policy is nonsense, I'm not convinced by an advocacy researcher saying it's rigorous work.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 Can you make specific arguments instead of devolving to shorthand dogwhistles that are completely up to the interpretation of the reader. The term 'woke' has no meaning, depending on the context it's anything between "We should shame all white people for the crimes of their ancestors" to "We should make a movie with a female lead". By using it, you leave it ambiguous as to where on the spectrum you fall.
  - TimPC 5y ago
    The specific argument is that the Mathematicians and Scientists are screaming that the policy is nonsense. The other specific argument is that a researcher in mathematics education doesn't need to take a lot of mathematics. The inference is that we should trust the former set of people more even on matters of mathematics education.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
rayiner 5y ago
I believe this is a paper from her thesis work: http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/EMAT6990Sp10/JRME1998-Jo_Boaler.pdf http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/EMAT6990Sp10/JRME1998-Jo_Boale... It’s mainly a qualitative analysis that wouldn’t pass for rigorous in any real scientific or engineering field.
- fn-mote 5y ago
  I find this kind of shallow dismissal of a tenured Stanford professor's work based on their thesis unproductive. Engaging with their current, relevant work would be more appropriate. This is exactly what the GP is saying - many of us don't like the conclusions, but just blowing off a whole body of work in a sentence is pretty arrogant.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    There’s tenured Stanford professors in many subjects, such as theology. I’m sure their work is impressive within the context of the field. But that doesn’t mean it’s rigorous or has real world application. PhD publications are supposed to be a serious contributions to the field. This particular work won a major award. Stop it with the accusations of “arrogance” and naked credentialism. Any of the millions of people with an undergraduate STEM degree (mine is in aerospace engineering) learns enough about the scientific method to distinguish “rigorous” work from non-rigorous work. It’s actually kind of an important thing they try to teach. Scientists and engineers who don’t call out non-rigorous work that claims the mantle of “expertise” are shirking their moral obligations and helping to erode the credibility of science as a larger discipline.
    - deanCommie 5y ago
      Arrogance is skimming a PhD thesis in a field wildly different from your own and deciding you are more competent in your ability to evaluate its "rigor" than the dozens or people in that field who evaluated it that had a different conclusion. It's not an original arrogance - it's pretty common amongst the STEM educated to basically consider all humanities, philosophy, social sciences to be not "serious" fields. Just because it's common, doesn't make it not arrogant. Individual humans are not free body diagrams. And societies even more so. The study of people and groups of people and the way to understand them, engage them, and influence them (which is what "education" is) is not going to be familiar to an aerospace engineer. That doesn't mean it isn't built on the work and research of thousands of people over centuries.

chmod600 5y ago

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

TimPC 5y ago

A Professor of Mathematics Education is a role that fits into a woke section of academia and generally publishes woke forms of advocate research. Many people can study mathematics education without studying much mathematics at all. When the Mathematicians and Scientists are screaming that the policy is nonsense, I'm not convinced by an advocacy researcher saying it's rigorous work.

deanCommie 5y ago
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 Can you make specific arguments instead of devolving to shorthand dogwhistles that are completely up to the interpretation of the reader. The term 'woke' has no meaning, depending on the context it's anything between "We should shame all white people for the crimes of their ancestors" to "We should make a movie with a female lead". By using it, you leave it ambiguous as to where on the spectrum you fall.
- TimPC 5y ago
  The specific argument is that the Mathematicians and Scientists are screaming that the policy is nonsense. The other specific argument is that a researcher in mathematics education doesn't need to take a lot of mathematics. The inference is that we should trust the former set of people more even on matters of mathematics education.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 5y ago

I believe this is a paper from her thesis work: http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/EMAT6990Sp10/JRME1998-Jo_Boaler.pdf http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/EMAT6990Sp10/JRME1998-Jo_Boale... It’s mainly a qualitative analysis that wouldn’t pass for rigorous in any real scientific or engineering field.

fn-mote 5y ago
I find this kind of shallow dismissal of a tenured Stanford professor's work based on their thesis unproductive. Engaging with their current, relevant work would be more appropriate. This is exactly what the GP is saying - many of us don't like the conclusions, but just blowing off a whole body of work in a sentence is pretty arrogant.
- rayiner 5y ago
  There’s tenured Stanford professors in many subjects, such as theology. I’m sure their work is impressive within the context of the field. But that doesn’t mean it’s rigorous or has real world application. PhD publications are supposed to be a serious contributions to the field. This particular work won a major award. Stop it with the accusations of “arrogance” and naked credentialism. Any of the millions of people with an undergraduate STEM degree (mine is in aerospace engineering) learns enough about the scientific method to distinguish “rigorous” work from non-rigorous work. It’s actually kind of an important thing they try to teach. Scientists and engineers who don’t call out non-rigorous work that claims the mantle of “expertise” are shirking their moral obligations and helping to erode the credibility of science as a larger discipline.
  - deanCommie 5y ago
    Arrogance is skimming a PhD thesis in a field wildly different from your own and deciding you are more competent in your ability to evaluate its "rigor" than the dozens or people in that field who evaluated it that had a different conclusion. It's not an original arrogance - it's pretty common amongst the STEM educated to basically consider all humanities, philosophy, social sciences to be not "serious" fields. Just because it's common, doesn't make it not arrogant. Individual humans are not free body diagrams. And societies even more so. The study of people and groups of people and the way to understand them, engage them, and influence them (which is what "education" is) is not going to be familiar to an aerospace engineer. That doesn't mean it isn't built on the work and research of thousands of people over centuries.