Talk:Jo Boaler

Jo Boaler's Math Background
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)

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

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

Clarification needed: Outstanding Book of the Year award
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)


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

Added SF Chron article covering Oxnard contract
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)

2021 California Math Framework
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)

Conrad's criticism
I made a few copy edits to 's recent additions, including getting rid of the word "many" in the following sentence: 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 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: It's less felicitous language, but at least it avoids running afoul of WP:BLP. Generalrelative (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Properly_paraphrasing_source_for_Jo_Boaler TheMissingMuse (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Chronicle of Higher Education
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)


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

Citation 9’s link returns a 404
Is there a valid URL we can change this to? 172.58.109.146 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to be. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023
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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.
 * 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)

Amendment proposal
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)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS
— Assignment last updated by Pomegranateenjoyer (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

'Early career' and 'Return to Stanford' sections
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. 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.
 * ❌ 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.  STEM info  (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi . 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:
 * Thanks so much.
 * MeanderingWalrus (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * MeanderingWalrus (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 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. 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".


 * 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)
 * 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)

Corrections of above Early career edit request
Hi. 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.


 * 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. 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".


 * 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)
 * ✅ (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)

2021 California Math Framework
Thanks so much 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,   approved in July 2023 by the state board of education.


 * 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)
 * 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.  STEM info  (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks 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)

Intro correction and Common Core
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,  including Limitless Mind (2019), Mathematical Mindsets (2016),  What's Math Got To Do With It? (2009) and The Elephant in the Classroom (2010), all written for teachers, students, and parents with the goal of improving mathematics education in both the US and UK.
 * 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." STEM info  (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi . 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, including Limitless Mind (2019), Mathematical Mindsets (2016), What's Math Got To Do With It? (2009) and The Elephant in the Classroom (2010), 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)
 * 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. STEM info  (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 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. She also pointed out that math fluency is often misinterpreted to mean memorization and speed.

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

Remove recent inappropriate edits

 * 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. STEM info  (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * ❌ The article says If you can find evidence that others are cited more, please post it.  STEM info  (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * ❌ 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.  STEM info  (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging and  who have participated in past Talk page discussions. Thanks so much, MeanderingWalrusthesecond (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment the below comment addresses the first request above. It was moved after it was posted.  STEM info  (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ 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. STEM info  (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Absolutely. Everything I reviewed or changed was based on sources that explicitly mentioned Boaler and her work.  STEM info  (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on this. The San Francisco Unified School District's Wikipedia article does not go into nearly as much detail as the paragraph here in Boaler's BLP, which is only marginally related to the individual in question. This seems strange and unbalanced- surely the context of a decision made by an institution would be more appropriate on said institution's page. If you feel that there is still something of significance here for Boaler's BLP, I suggest only that which directly relates to her:
 * ❌ Without understanding the context of why the SF USD changed the curriculum, the reader would have less understanding of why Boaler's curriculum was needed in the first place. I think it's necessary to keep. I moved a source so it immediately followed the statement it supported, and modified the text to state that it was a spokesperson for the district who made the statement.  STEM info  (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ Without understanding the context of why the SF USD changed the curriculum, the reader would have less understanding of why Boaler's curriculum was needed in the first place. I think it's necessary to keep. I moved a source so it immediately followed the statement it supported, and modified the text to state that it was a spokesperson for the district who made the statement.  STEM info  (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I also suggest the following minor modifications to the paragraph about the California Math Framework, including taking out the word "heavily," which is a Wiki editor's interpretation of the phrase "unmistakable stamp" which is very much the opinion of the author of the source. Although Boaler and Youcubed are cited "over 40 times" in the framework, according to the source, that is out of almost 650 total citations (See here, Appendix B: Works Cited). "Heavily" is too loaded a word to use it here and still remain NPOV.
 * ✅ This I agree with.  I reviewed the source list and the doc, and there's no way to determine how heavily Boaler's contributions are without doing significant WP:OR. Edit request has been implemented.  STEM info  (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ This I agree with.  I reviewed the source list and the doc, and there's no way to determine how heavily Boaler's contributions are without doing significant WP:OR. Edit request has been implemented.  STEM info  (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPPUBLIC: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." In addition, an article was recently published stating that the allegations have been investigated and they "reflect scholarly disagreement and interpretation," and not any type of wrongdoing. Mentioning the "allegations" goes against Wiki guidelines to avoid unnecessary negative content in biographical articles of living people.
 * I would like to ask again to remove entirely the paragraph that begins "In March of 2024 an anonymous complaint was sent..."
 * ❌ Rather than delete this properly sourced info, I added closure to the complaint based on the source you posted above. This is similar to the way the 2006 complaint was handled, and is I think more balanced. STEM info  (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for considering these changes which I believe help to maintain balance and neutrality. MeanderingWalrusthesecond (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary Sourcing
This article relies heavily on sources directly written by, or associated with, the subject of the article. There are several op-eds cited without proper attribution, citations to Youcubed, citations of the authors books, as well as her website. Most of these citations are not backed up by secondary sources that establish WP:DUE weight. I am in the process of refactoring references, with the primary goal of separating out secondary sources from the primary sources. I'm not sure how to properly attribute the primary sources in the notes and references, so for now I am only refactoring the secondary sources. All of the primary sources should be reviewed, and if there is no secondary source support, likely removed. TheMissingMuse (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've refactored many of the sources, removing some of the lowest quality sourcing (mostly PR type sources). There are still a number of dubious sources, but for the most part any source refactored to the References section should be good. Feedback invited. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of sources that I'm less confident w.r.t. sourcing for this article.
 * Stanford Profile: https://ed.stanford.edu/faculty/joboaler
 * Youcubed Profile: https://www.youcubed.org/our-team/
 * SCOPE Profile: https://web.archive.org/web/20151211015255/https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/node/647
 * IOWME Profile: https://web.archive.org/web/20170309082626/http://www.mathunion.org/iowme/
 * Sussex Profile: https://web.archive.org/web/20110515101112/https://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/205572
 * CASBS Page: https://web.archive.org/web/20151029042804/http://www.casbs.org/
 * Most of these have no author and many are likely directly managed by the subject of the article. Most of the facts sourced to these citations should be covered in other more robust sources. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)