This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted on 17 December 2013 by reviewer Nonsenseferret ( talk · contribs).

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Edits made by the below user were last checked for neutrality on 31-12-2016 by Wikishovel. Youcubed ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. MeanderingWalrus ( talk · contribs) MeanderingWalrusthesecond ( talk · contribs)

I am not clear exactly how to use the talk page, in general. Please feel free to tell me if this is not correct.I am struggling with this:) I feel that I have used primary sources correctly according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I have added more secondary sources. I do not feel that I have misused primary sources on my Wikipedia article at all. I feel that I have not used them to "interpret" information about Dr. Jo Boaler. Also, I have used books published by the author by reputable publishers and the research articles by Dr. Jo Boaler that I have cited were published in blind-peer-reviewed, reputable journals. See the excerpt from Wikipedia about primary sources,below: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Someone please respond to my comments, here. Anyone at all. I am definitely struggling with how to use the Talk page and to converse with the editors.

Also, I have made revisions in terms of grammar and format in this article. I am hoping that someone can look at the article and see if it is fit for publication, without reservations. I am not sure how to follow up on the comments that are saying that the article has issues. Any help would be greatly appreciated;) Felicia Darling 03:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Felicia Darling 00:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleadarling ( talk • contribs)

There is no mention in the article about Boaler's training in mathematics. Could someone kindly add this to the Academic Career section? I have not been able to find any information on this. Because Boaler is now involved in re-writing the California Math Framework (for K-12) and helping to determine what level of math high school students will study, her own level of mathematics mastery is highly relevant. Also, she often claims she has never memorized the multiplication tables and says this has never held her back. She actively discourages requiring students to memorize math facts. It may well be possible to have a successful career in math education without knowing basic math facts, but there are many math courses where this would be a severe handicap. Iddli ( talk) 19:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I second this Mahie rahman ( talk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The research section appears to be poorly source, with most citations being primary sources. I suspect the author of the section (Fleadarling) was an associate of Boaler's, as the only article they ever worked on was this one.

I think this section should be removed based on sourcing, and the available secondary sources merged into the other sections. Input invited. 99.152.115.208 ( talk) 19:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Cleaned up primary sourcing per WP:PRIMARY and WP:DUE. 99.152.115.208 ( talk) 05:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I've just removed a reference to the British Journal of Educational Studies which was being used to support the statement that Boaler's book Experiencing School Mathematics won the Outstanding Book of the Year award as (unless I skipped over something) the source did not mention Boaler or the book.

The award is still mentioned in the lead where it is referenced to a webpage on the Stanford Graduate School of Education. However, it would be useful to indicate which organisation conferred the award. I haven't been able to find out that information myself, so wanted to flag it here. Richard Nevell ( talk) 17:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I removed it until someone can find a reliable source. 99.152.115.208 ( talk) 05:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I did not link the actual contract in the article as there may be some WP:BLP issues, but here it is if anyone thinks it passes muster for inclusion in the article: https://www.oxnardsd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=24956&dataid=23535&FileName=Full%20Agenda%20-%20August%204%202021%20Regular%20Board%20Meeting.pdf 99.152.115.208 ( talk) 05:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The language used to the discuss the letter sent by Boaler is not neutral or objective (for example, using words like ‘passive-aggressive’ and ‘histrionic’). The relevance of the training contract is also not clearly explained. 2A00:23C6:A89F:DF01:129:8F38:521:886A ( talk) 16:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I made a few copy edits to TheMissingMuse's recent additions, including getting rid of the word "many" in the following sentence:

Conrad highlighted many cases where he said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted cited sources...

TheMissingMuse reverted that part of my edit immediately, with the edit summary correct to source. Strictly speaking, this isn't correct (though it's a really minor quibble). Here's what the source says:

The most prolific and one of the strongest critics of the framework is a colleague at Stanford, Brian Conrad, a professor of mathematics and director of undergraduate studies in math. Conrad said he agrees that math is often poorly taught and needs to be improved. But he faults the framework’s solutions as simplistic, oversold and not grounded in research. Conrad said he spent spring break reading not only the framework but also many of the citations from which the authors justified their recommendations. “To my astonishment, in essentially all cases, the papers were seriously misrepresented” and in some cases “even had conclusions opposite to what was said” in the framework. The misrepresentations of the neuroscience of math comprehension, de-tracking in favor of heterogeneous student grouping, the use of assessments and acceleration call into question the recommendations. Writers, he said, “should not be citing papers they do not understand to justify their public policy recommendations” fitting their perspectives.

The source says that Conrad read many of the citations and then characterized them as misrepresentations. He hasn't actually listed what they were, at least not in the reference provided. I'd suggest therefore as a compromise:

Conrad said that he had checked many of the references cited in the framework and that he had found "in essentially all cases, the papers were seriously misrepresented,” in some cases presenting conclusions contrary to the underlying research.

It's less felicitous language, but at least it avoids running afoul of WP:BLP. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

If you want to review Conrad's work, it's linked to from the cited article. Here is a direct link for convenience. However, that is a primary source and not generally useful for editing per wp:primary. The paraphrasing of the secondary source is correct, so I'm not sure what your question is. He read many of the sources, and essentially all were misrepresented. I would characterize your paraphrase as cumbersome and needlessly pedantic to the point of potentially being a WP:COPYVIO. Is there a specific aspect of my paraphrase that bounces off of WP:BLP? If you really think there is a BLP issue with my paraphrase, maybe WP:BLPN is the correct noticeboard to get further guidance? TheMissingMuse ( talk) 01:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Nope, I think I've made my point. If others come along who agree with you you can restore the word. But for now it stays out per WP:ONUS. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

FYI: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Properly_paraphrasing_source_for_Jo_Boaler TheMissingMuse ( talk) 06:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The CoHE just published an article which does a good job of summarizing Boaler's history, including the Railside study and more recent work with the CAMF. I'll be reviewing the article and integrating it with the existing text along with other sources from the last five years. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 20:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Great! Chronicle is an excellent source. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Is there a valid URL we can change this to? 172.58.109.146 ( talk) 08:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Seems to be. Primefac ( talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wikipedia Changes: - take out this section

2021 California Math Framework

Boaler is the primary author of the California Department of Education's controversial mathematics draft framework.[46][47][48] The draft framework seeks to refocus mathematics education towards equity.[49][50] The draft framework recommends that all students take the same fixed set of math courses until their junior year of high school, which critics, including some leading mathematicians, say will hold back students.[51][52][53] Berkeley Professor Jelani Nelson found the framework worrying, saying it removed rigor and created a lower track of study, which would negatively impact diversity in STEM careers.[54]

Replace with:

2023 Approved California Mathematics Framework

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education’s Mathematics Framework. The Framework came from a committee of 20 education leaders and a four-year process of public comments and revisions. The framework proposes a mathematics approach of teaching to ‘big ideas’ allowing mathematical connections to be highlighted. It shares the value of opening high level pathways to more students, (recommending that a working group be formed to review high school courses) and a focus on data literacy all through K-12. It was unanimously approved by the state board on July 12th, 2023. Bigmathguy123 ( talk) 00:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil ( talk) 03:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wikipedia Changes: - take out this section

2021 California Math Framework

Boaler is the primary author of the California Department of Education's controversial mathematics draft framework.[46][47][48] The draft framework seeks to refocus mathematics education towards equity.[49][50] The draft framework recommends that all students take the same fixed set of math courses until their junior year of high school, which critics, including some leading mathematicians, say will hold back students.[51][52][53] Berkeley Professor Jelani Nelson found the framework worrying, saying it removed rigor and created a lower track of study, which would negatively impact diversity in STEM careers.[54]

Replace with:

2023 Approved California Mathematics Framework

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education’s Mathematics Framework. The Framework came from a committee of 20 education leaders and a four-year process of public comments and revisions. The framework proposes a mathematics approach of teaching to ‘big ideas’ allowing mathematical connections to be highlighted. It shares the value of opening high level pathways to more students, (recommending that a working group be formed to review high school courses) and a focus on data literacy all through K-12. It was unanimously approved by the state board on July 12th, 2023. Mathguy8921 ( talk) 01:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: I'm afraid that I have to give the same answer that Lightoil gave above. Please note that the text you're seeking to replace is well sourced (with 9 high quality citations) while the text you're seeking to replace it with contains no citations. If you can provide reliable sources to support the new text I'd be very happy to consider it, though probably as an addition rather than as a replacement. Also, please familiarize yourself with our policy regarding multiple accounts. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

References provided through VRTS, re-opening for review

• https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
• https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathcfccagendafeb2020.asp
• https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr23/yr23rel54.asp

(for the record I have not looked at them, just posting). Primefac ( talk) 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

 Partly done:

These are all primary sources, and the third one especially is full of the same promotional language as the edit request. The second one establishes the existence of the 20-person committee, but doesn't call them "education leaders". (It links to a list of the members, with their employers and job titles, but it would be WP:OR for us to characterize them in any fashion.) Both sources tell us the date the board adopted the framework, but I don't see where either say that it was a unanimous vote. This is about all I can *add* to the article using the given citations: On July 12, the framework was adopted by the California State Board of Education after a four-year process lead by a 20-person committee. Feedback from two public comment periods and two public hearings was included in the approved version.

For anything else, you need to provide reliable secondary sources that are independent from any of the organizations involved in proposing, drafting, or approving the framework. I am closing this request until you can do so. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 13:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Can we suggest this amendment? There is no 2021 Math Framework

2023 California Math Framework

The California Math Framework came from a committee of 20 educators and a 5 person writing team. Brian Lindaman was the lead writer. The controversy around the framework centered upon its focus on equitable outcomes. Although earlier versions of the framework recommended that all students take common core math 6, 7 and 8 before advancing to higher level courses, the final approved framework makes clear that some students can accelerate in their pathways, as long as it does not set up a structure where most students are filtered out of a pathway to high levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathguy8921 ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pomegranateenjoyer ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pomegranateenjoyer ( talk) 20:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The requested changes were not specific enough.

Hi. Pleased to meet you. I am a person close to the subject, therefore, if I understand the guidelines correctly, I won't be making direct edits to the Jo Boaler page. I have also declared my COI. Below are several edits to the 'Early career' and 'Return to Stanford' sections I would like implemented.

• Please replace the third paragraph of the 'Early career' section with the following. Boaler did not develop the curriculum, and the source does not support what the main differences between the curricula were. The findings released in 2005 were not preliminary findings, they were findings released in preliminary form, and were later published fully in 2008. A close read of the sources supports this version of the paragraph.

In 2000, she was awarded a presidential Early Career Award from the National Science Foundation. ^{[1] [2]} The NSF funded study would come to be known as the Railside study. This was a longitudinal study across three schools in northern California. The goal of the study was to compare the impact of traditional math curriculum with the reform curriculum. ^[3] Findings were released in preliminary form in 2005 and published in 2008. The findings were promising and were used to support further reform efforts. ^[3]

 Not done @ MeanderingWalrus: I don't see the info about the ECA award in the first two sources you provided. Am I missing something? Please review the links. STEMinfo ( talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi STEMinfo. Thank you for pointing that out. I was trying to adhere to the pre-existing text as much as possible, and did not check those first two sources. The third source I did check, however, because that is the part of the sentence I want changed, and a close reading of that source is better reflected by the changes I am requesting. For clarity I will leave the sources out of the TextDiff below, and supply the relevant source here: https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-divider?sra=true. To find the relevant section of the source, do a search for "Railside". Perhaps my request is better illustrated using the TextDiff template:

−

In 2000, she was awarded a presidential Early Career Award from the National Science Foundation. The [[National Science Foundation|NSF]] funded study would come to be known as the Railside study. This was a longitudinal study across three schools in northern California. The goal of the study was to compare the impact of traditional math curriculum and the reform curriculum developed by Boaler. A key distinction between the two approaches was that the traditional approach allowed students to take algebra in 8th grade, whereas algebra was delayed until 9th grade in the reform curriculum. Preliminary findings for the study were released in 2005. The findings were promising and were used to support further reform efforts.

+

In 2000, she was awarded a grant by the [[National Science Foundation]] to conduct a longitudinal study. The NSF funded study would come to be known as the Railside study. This was a longitudinal study across three schools in northern California. The goal of the study was to compare the impact of traditional math curriculum with the reform curriculum. Findings were released in preliminary form in 2005 and published in 2008. The findings were promising and were used to support further reform efforts.

Thanks so much.

MeanderingWalrus ( talk) 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Please replace the fourth paragraph of the 'Early career' section with the following. This version removes the opening phrase "Believing the preliminary results 'too good to be true'", a non-neutral description of those results. All the following suggestions are consistent with the sources, unlike what is there now. I also added a quote from Stanford's decision to emphasize that the accusations were unfounded.

Stanford mathematician R. James Milgram, CSULA professor Wayne Bishop, and statistician Paul Clopton investigated Boaler's claims and wrote an essay stating that her claims were exaggerated, but did not publish the essay in a peer reviewed journal. ^{[4] [5]} In 2006, Milgram accused Boaler of research misconduct. Stanford's investigation concluded by acknowledging ongoing debates in mathematics education and absolving Boaler of scientific misconduct stating 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". ^{[6] [3]}

• In the first paragraph of the 'Return to Stanford' section, please remove the following sentence, which is the second to the last. It is outdated and Boaler no longer consults with these institutions:

Boaler also consults with other Silicon Valley digital educational institutions, such as Novo-ed, Inner Tube Games, and Udacity.

Thank you for your help, MeanderingWalrus ( talk) 16:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

 Unable to review One of the sources in the proposed text above uses a shortened ref note, meaning the information behind the ref note has been hidden from view. You can see this in the "References" section under note #6, which is empty. In order to fully review the proposed changes, all the information for these references needs to be included on the talk page. Additionally, the "CS1 maintenance error: multiple names: authors list" message displays under ref note #4, which needs to be corrected. Regards,  Spintendo  21:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi Spintendo. I hope the following corrects the problems with the footnotes that you pointed out in the preceding edit request so that you will be able to review the request properly.

• In the "Early career" section, please change the last four sentences of the third paragraph, (the first sentence should be left the way it is now) as shown below, for the following reasons: Boaler did not develop the curriculum, and the source does not support what the main differences between the curricula were. The findings released in 2005 were not preliminary findings, they were findings released in preliminary form, and were later published fully in 2008. A close read of the sources supports this version of the paragraph.

The NSF funded study would come to be known as the Railside study. This was a longitudinal study across three schools in northern California. The goal of the study was to compare the impact of traditional math curriculum with the reform curriculum. Findings were released in preliminary form in 2005 and published in 2008. The findings were promising and were used to support further reform efforts. ^[1]

• Please replace the fourth paragraph of the 'Early career' section with the following. This version removes the opening phrase "Believing the preliminary results 'too good to be true'", a non-neutral description of those results. All the following suggestions are consistent with the sources, unlike what is there now. I also added a quote from Stanford's decision to emphasize that the accusations were unfounded.

Stanford mathematician R. James Milgram, CSULA professor Wayne Bishop, and statistician Paul Clopton investigated Boaler's claims and wrote an essay stating that her claims were exaggerated, but did not publish the essay in a peer reviewed journal. ^{[2] [3]} In 2006, Milgram accused Boaler of research misconduct. Stanford's investigation concluded by acknowledging ongoing debates in mathematics education and absolving Boaler of scientific misconduct stating 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". ^{[4] [1]}

• In the first paragraph of the 'Return to Stanford' section, please remove the following sentence, which is the second to the last. It is outdated and Boaler no longer consults with these institutions:

Boaler also consults with other Silicon Valley digital educational institutions, such as Novo-ed, Inner Tube Games, and Udacity.

Thank you for your help and consideration. MeanderingWalrus ( talk) 16:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done (mostly). The first two suggestions looked very reasonable. With regard to the third, I changed the sentence about consulting to past tense rather than removing it. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks so much Generalrelative for implementing my edit request above. I hope you will also consider implementing the following edits as well. The section called "2021 California Math Framework" has too much detail about the framework than what is appropriate for a BLP about Jo Boaler. The following edits will make this a more balanced presentation:

• At the top of the section add the following:

See main article: California Department of Education: 2021 Mathematics Framework

• The first sentence in this section mis-represents Boaler as "the primary author" of the framework, when in fact she was "part of a committee" or "one of five writers" involved, according to the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. I also suggest removing the adjective "controversial" to describe the framework, a contentious description, as discussed here: MOS:LABEL. Plus, the framework was approved, so it is no longer a draft. The new first sentence should appear as follows:

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education's mathematics framework, ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} approved in July 2023 by the state board of education. ^[5]

• The rest of the section should be deleted. Boaler's Wikipedia article is not the place to discuss the contents of the framework, nor a long discussion of the adoption process. The opening link takes interested readers to the place where the framework is discussed in detail.

Thanks so much. MeanderingWalrus ( talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ MeanderingWalrus: I came in belated response to your request on my talk page, but see that was already addressed. I took a look at your more recent request and partially implemented it. Her work on the framework doesn't need that many sources, per WP:OVERCITE, the framework is clearly controversial, per the sources, and it seemed to make sense to combine the shorter sentences into the regular history section. We don't need to call out the framework info - we can just link to it, as I did. Also, the youcubed.org info is poorly sourced, and might even get deleted if there's not an independent third party source. As it stands, it doesn't warrant a standalone stub section. STEMinfo ( talk) 02:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks STEMinfo so much for implementing the above edit request, your other edits, your clear explanations, and suggestions. All the best for a great new year. MeanderingWalrus ( talk) 23:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Jo Boaler. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 168 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hello. Please consider the two following edits: The first is to correct an outdated number in the Introduction. The second concerns the paragraph about "Common Core" in the "Return to Stanford" section.

• In the last sentence of the Introduction section, please change "nine books" to "eighteen books" which is the number Boaler has written as of January 2024. In the same sentence please add the word "students" after "teachers". The final sentence should look like this:

She is the author of eighteen books, ^{[1] [2]} including Limitless Mind (2019), Mathematical Mindsets (2016), What's Math Got To Do With It? (2009) ^[3] and The Elephant in the Classroom (2010), ^[4] all written for teachers, students, and parents with the goal of improving mathematics education in both the US and UK.

@ MeanderingWalrus: The two links you included for sources for the 18 total are publicist/writer provided boilerplate footers and almost identical. To err on the safe side, it would be nice to get independent validation of the total. We could use this Stanford link as a source, but it lists only 15 books. Amazon isn't a great source, but is still better than boilerplate text. FYI that her bio there says she wrote 11 books. I'm assuming you're counting the nine K-8 textbooks, and one that she edited, so perhaps we want to clarify with verbiage to that effect, like "Boaler published X books as author, co-author or editor." STEMinfo ( talk) 19:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi STEMinfo. I understand your concerns about the sources for the number of books, and I have tried to address them here. In the meantime, if you have no objection, could you please implement the below request (second bullet point) concerning the new language for the section about "Common Core"?

As for the number of books Boaler has written, the sources I gave you are the best I have at the moment that says Boaler has written 18 books. Perhaps using the policy WP:ABOUTSELF will allow you to use the source since it is supporting something that Boaler herself is unlikely to misrepresent? And I do not mind using your suggested language so that the sentence says:

She is the author, co-author or editor of eighteen books, ^[5] including Limitless Mind (2019), Mathematical Mindsets (2016), What's Math Got To Do With It? (2009) ^[6] and The Elephant in the Classroom (2010), ^[7] all written for teachers, students, and parents with the goal of improving mathematics education in both the US and UK.

Thanks again for all your help. MeanderingWalrus ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) MeanderingWalrus ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Despite the number of books being somewhat poorly sourced, I don' think there's any harm in following the boilerplate text, and this discussion explains the reasoning. However, I removed the last part of your request.The phrase

all written for teachers, students, and parents with the goal of improving mathematics education in both the US and UK.

isn't sourced, and sounds like WP:OR. This request is still open so if anyone disagrees, then can add it back. STEMinfo ( talk) 01:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Please change the paragraph in the "Return to Stanford" section that begins "As Common Core was being launched in 2015," to the following paragraph. The new paragraph is a better reflection of Boaler's relationship to the Common Core curriculum, and it removes the last sentence about "igniting a controversy in England" which was not supported by the sources and is anyway irrelevant.

When Common Core was launched in the United States in 2015 as the new curriculum standard, Boaler praised it for its approach; also stating that the best way to know math facts is by using them and understanding them. ^[8] She also pointed out that math fluency is often misinterpreted to mean memorization and speed. ^[9]

Pinging STEMinfo who has helped tremendously with this article. Thank you. MeanderingWalrus ( talk) 17:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• Please remove the fifth paragraph in the "Return to California" section that begins "In 2014, the San Francisco Unified School District…" for several reasons: The specific details of the SFUSD math program are not relevant or appropriate for a BLP. In addition, the specific details mentioned are not an accurate reflection of any of the three sources' content (one of which is an opinion piece, and should be rejected on that basis alone). A careful reading of the cited sources gives a much more nuanced presentation than the biased view which is currently on the page.

Comment This has been addressed. Please see related comment below. STEMinfo ( talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The second (and last) sentence of the seventh paragraph in the same section should also be removed, as the claim that the "document carries Boaler's unmistakable stamp" is speculative and non-encyclopedic. It is also irrelevant and misleading to mention how many times the second draft cites Youcubed and Boaler's work, because we don’t know how many times other contributors' works were cited to compare, and because the second draft was still open to review and was not final.

 Not done The article says

The document carries Boaler’s unmistakable stamp. Twenty-six of her books, articles, and white papers, in addition to 18 links on Youcubed, are cited in the second draft of the framework, released in March 2022.

If you can find evidence that others are cited more, please post it. STEMinfo ( talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Please also remove the last paragraph of the same section that begins "In March of 2024…". Unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous complainants also do not belong on a Wikipedia BLP.

 Not done You'd have a case to remove unsubstantiated claims if the source was the complaint, but in this case, the source is independent reporting on the complaint, so it reaches a higher level of notability. The article clearly states that it was an anonymous complaint. I think that treats the subject matter fairly. Marking the request answered. STEMinfo ( talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pinging STEMinfo and Generalrelative who have participated in past Talk page discussions. Thanks so much, MeanderingWalrusthesecond ( talk) 16:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment the below comment addresses the first request above. It was moved after it was posted. STEMinfo ( talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done Rather than delete the info, I rewrote the paragraph based on the sources, and think it's more accurate and fair now. The replacement curriculum is credited to Boaler in the source, so that's what the text now says. I think in the future you'll have more luck correcting the phrasing rather than completely removing something you don't like. STEMinfo ( talk) 00:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just chiming in to say I agree with this approach. I haven't had time to give the edit request this kind of detailed attention so I thank STEMinfo for stepping up. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Any content related to the CA Math Framework (or San Francisco) should be limited to sources which explicitly mention Boaler, and support statements about Boaler. That's not to say that we cannot include links to sources which do not mention Boaler, but those sources should play no role in determining WP:DUE weight for the article. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. Everything I reviewed or changed was based on sources that explicitly mentioned Boaler and her work. STEMinfo ( talk) 23:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply