Comments on: PROOF POINTS: Stanford’s Jo Boaler talks about her new book ‘MATH-ish’ and takes on her critics

By: Cathy Kessel

Cathy Kessel — Sun, 05 May 2024 00:04:24 +0000

“Cognitive science research suggests that students need a lot of practice and memorization to master math.” This seems a bit vague—are there articles that could be cited? Perhaps it’s intended as a reference to learning “math facts,” that is, sums and products of single-digit numbers. There’s widespread agreement that students need to know these from memory.

Here are some examples.

From the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, March 2023:

“Do I want my students to have the basic facts memorized? Yes, and most teachers probably agree because it allows students’ working memories to be free to focus on new concepts. Do I want my students to learn those basic facts through memorization? No!”
https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/Archive/Kevin-Dykema/To-Memorize-or-Not-to-Memorize_/

From a group of mathematicians and mathematics education researchers, October, 2005:

“fluency requires automatic recall of basic number facts: by basic number facts we mean addition and multiplication combinations of integers 0 through 10.”
https://www.ams.org/notices/200509/comm-schmid.pdf

From an article on Version 2 of the framework, Fall 2023:

“Fluency in mathematics usually refers to students’ ability to perform calculations quickly and accurately. The Common Core mathematics standards call for students to know addition and multiplication facts “from memory,” and the California math standards expect the same.”
https://www.educationnext.org/californias-new-math-framework-doesnt-add-up/

By: Cathy Hobart

Cathy Hobart — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 18:36:07 +0000

I attended an innovative teacher conference years ago and heard Jo Boaler speak. Her ideas sounded great. She was the sparkly new thing typical of education gurus who speak about their “new way of teaching” without much data to back it up. I was immediately skeptical once I saw how her philosophy was implemented in the classroom. When my three boys were in elementary school, I saw how her changes impacted math education. Her philosophy completely dumbs down math education. Kids who are good at math and fast learners should be able to go at a faster pace. Trying to make kids who are more advanced in math teach math to students who struggle might sound good in theory but not in practice. Jo Boaler is being called out because she is harmful AND on the California Math Framework Committee. She has too much influence and uses the Stanford name to further her ideology. Jo Boaler is just another Lucy Calkins. She needs to stop making excuses and calling her critics “right-wing” (not many of those in SF). Just look at CA math test scores to know how her ideas do in practice.

By: Arch Sudame

Arch Sudame — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:54:34 +0000

Dear Ms. Barshay, Thank you for the article. I would like to refer to an old article (2018) from Hechinger — https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-how-one-city-got-math-right/. One of the co-authors of the article is Dr. Boaler herself. I am quoting what it says, “San Francisco Unified did something unusual — it studied the research that shows the ineffectiveness of tracking and shallow curricula, and made bold decisions based on knowledge of the relevant research.” Unfortunately, today, six years since then, we now know San Francisco’s decision “backfired” as more students “failed” to achieve grade appropriate math competency due to de-tracking. SFUSD recently reversed its decision. It’s quite possible that Dr. Boaler’s pedagogical solutions work really well in early grades (up to third grade) but are not relevant for high school years. On some public forums, Dr. Boaler wants to alienate herself from the San Francisco de-tracking mess, which she has commended extensively before. Isn’t it possible that she got the research that led to this de-tracking wrong? Disagreements are common in academia and should not be labeled “abuses.”

By: Maya K

Maya K — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:05:33 +0000

This denial by Dr. Boaler in reference to San Francisco is left unchallenged:

“Boaler denies any involvement in the unpopular San Francisco reforms.”

There is *video* from a Feb 2014 BoE meeting right before they vote to delay Algebra I. She is credited *by name* by the official district representative as “contributed to this work”.

It is not parents. It is official district business.

02:46:00

https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/19433?view_id=47&redirect=true

By: Kat

Kat — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:02:17 +0000

This pretty much sums it up for me (and the irony is Sanford is now backing her): “ Math professors at Stanford and Cal State University re-crunched the numbers and declared they’d found the opposite result.” I have found that if students don’t know their multiplication math facts by 4th grade, everything in math afterward (fractions specifically) become a huge hurdle. I taught math facts on an ipad about 10 years ago and had an 18 year old learn most of her math facts in about 4 months. She didn’t have to go that long to learn them. And she was extremely eager. It’s sad what our school system in Oregon has gone to (new math).

By: Howard Dolgin

Howard Dolgin — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:09:51 +0000

Dear Ms. Barshay.
Please devote another column explaining what type of teaching Professor Boaler is advocating. How is her program different from “traditional mathematics education?” What do her classrooms and lessons look like? What happens in classrooms that follow Boaler’s program? What do math teachers who follow Boaler’s program do in the classroom?

Thank you for your research and columns.