Let's see what they're fighting about. From Boaler's complaint: "[...] research evidence that could be used to improve the mathematics achievement of students

Let's see what they're fighting about. From Boaler's complaint: "[...] research evidence that could be used to improve the mathematics achievement of students in the United States and beyond [...]" From her critics' paper (Bishop, Clopton, Milgram): "This study makes extremely strong claims for discovery style instruction in mathematics, and consequently has the potential to affect instruction and curriculum throughout the country." ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/combined-evaluations-version3.pdf Both sides agree that a positive research result has the potential to alter mathematics education in the country. Then the question is: what's true, that Boaler has found a way to substantially improve education, or that her analysis is flawed?