A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report

Jo Boaler, an Associate Professor at the Stanford School of Education has just published an already well known study of three high schools that she called Hillside, Greendale, and Railside. This study makes extremely strong claims for discovery style instruction in mathematics, and consequently has...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Paul Clopton, Wayne Bishop, R. James Milgram
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nonpartisan Education Group 2012-12-01
Series:Nonpartisan Education Review
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pdf
id doaj-a93cb5a792b54a5fbcc26ee35307d307
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a93cb5a792b54a5fbcc26ee35307d3072021-07-02T17:20:18ZengNonpartisan Education GroupNonpartisan Education Review2150-64772012-12-0181120A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside ReportPaul CloptonWayne BishopR. James MilgramJo Boaler, an Associate Professor at the Stanford School of Education has just published an already well known study of three high schools that she called Hillside, Greendale, and Railside. 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.As is the case with much education research of this nature, Prof. Boaler has refused to divulge the identities of the schools to qualified researchers. Consequently, it would normally be impossible to independently check her work. However, in this case, the names of the schools were determined and a close examination of the actual outcomes in these schools shows that Prof. Boaler’s claims are grossly exaggerated and do not translate into success for her treatment students. We give the details in the following article.Other papers where the researchers have refused to divulge such details as the names of the schools to qualified researchers have affected and continue to affect education policy decisions at the school, state and even national levels. Among these papers are Standards, Assessments – and What Else? The Essential Elements of Standards-Based School Improvement, D. Briars - L. Resnick, CRESST Technical Report 528, (2000) which has been cited repeatedly as justification for the adoption of Everyday Mathematics in school districts throughout the country, and The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. D. Perda, P. Noyce, J. Riordan, J. for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2001), p. 368-398. which has been used to justify the adoption of the mathematics program “Investigations,” developed by TERC. It is worth noting that currently about 19% of U.S. elementary students use Everyday Mathematics and between 6% and 9% use Investigations, including many of our inner city schools.If we are to reverse the woeful performance of our students it seems crucial that K-12 education research be subject to the same high standards as are the norm in medicine and the sciences. As a key step we believe that the analysis here shows the dangers of accepting the legitimacy of articles such as those mentioned above as long as the results cannot be independently studied and verified.http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pdfmathematics educationeducation researchcensorshipstudent achievementeducation policy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Paul Clopton
Wayne Bishop
R. James Milgram
spellingShingle Paul Clopton
Wayne Bishop
R. James Milgram
A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report
Nonpartisan Education Review
mathematics education
education research
censorship
student achievement
education policy
author_facet Paul Clopton
Wayne Bishop
R. James Milgram
author_sort Paul Clopton
title A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report
title_short A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report
title_full A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report
title_fullStr A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report
title_full_unstemmed A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report
title_sort close examination of jo boaler's railside report
publisher Nonpartisan Education Group
series Nonpartisan Education Review
issn 2150-6477
publishDate 2012-12-01
description Jo Boaler, an Associate Professor at the Stanford School of Education has just published an already well known study of three high schools that she called Hillside, Greendale, and Railside. 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.As is the case with much education research of this nature, Prof. Boaler has refused to divulge the identities of the schools to qualified researchers. Consequently, it would normally be impossible to independently check her work. However, in this case, the names of the schools were determined and a close examination of the actual outcomes in these schools shows that Prof. Boaler’s claims are grossly exaggerated and do not translate into success for her treatment students. We give the details in the following article.Other papers where the researchers have refused to divulge such details as the names of the schools to qualified researchers have affected and continue to affect education policy decisions at the school, state and even national levels. Among these papers are Standards, Assessments – and What Else? The Essential Elements of Standards-Based School Improvement, D. Briars - L. Resnick, CRESST Technical Report 528, (2000) which has been cited repeatedly as justification for the adoption of Everyday Mathematics in school districts throughout the country, and The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. D. Perda, P. Noyce, J. Riordan, J. for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2001), p. 368-398. which has been used to justify the adoption of the mathematics program “Investigations,” developed by TERC. It is worth noting that currently about 19% of U.S. elementary students use Everyday Mathematics and between 6% and 9% use Investigations, including many of our inner city schools.If we are to reverse the woeful performance of our students it seems crucial that K-12 education research be subject to the same high standards as are the norm in medicine and the sciences. As a key step we believe that the analysis here shows the dangers of accepting the legitimacy of articles such as those mentioned above as long as the results cannot be independently studied and verified.
topic mathematics education
education research
censorship
student achievement
education policy
url http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT paulclopton acloseexaminationofjoboalersrailsidereport
AT waynebishop acloseexaminationofjoboalersrailsidereport
AT rjamesmilgram acloseexaminationofjoboalersrailsidereport
AT paulclopton closeexaminationofjoboalersrailsidereport
AT waynebishop closeexaminationofjoboalersrailsidereport
AT rjamesmilgram closeexaminationofjoboalersrailsidereport
_version_ 1721325518068908032