IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report

  • Wayne Bishop, Paul Clopton, & R. James Milgram

    ()

Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.htm
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Nonpartisan Education Review in its journal Nonpartisan Education Review.

    Volume (Year): 8 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 1-20

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:teg:journl:v:8:y:2012:i:1:p:1-20
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:teg:journl:v:8:y:2012:i:1:p:1-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Richard P. Phelps)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.