Talk:Jo Boaler

Recent edits

Thread retitled from "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.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
Comment This has been addressed. Please see related comment below. STEMinfo (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.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
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)

• 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.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
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)

Pinging STEMinfo and Generalrelative 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. STEMinfo (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 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)

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. STEMinfo (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you STEMinfo 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:

−

In 2014, the San Francisco Unified School District updated its math program, including removal of [[elementary algebra|algebra]] from their public middle schools. The effort removed honors classes and accelerated math, placing all students into the same curriculum based on grade. The replacement curriculum was heavily based on Boaler's work, and had groups of students work through a series of math tasks. In an Op-Ed signed by Boaler and several colleagues, the group praised the effort, claiming the repeat rate for 9th grade algebra dropped from 40% to 8%. However, the school district later clarified that those numbers were not related to curriculum changes, but rather it was a "one-time major drop" that occurred when placement tests were removed.

+

Boaler's work influenced the [[San Francisco Unified School District]]'s math program update in 2014. In 2018 Boaler and five colleagues wrote an op-ed praising SFUSD’s reforms in which they delayed tracking, with student failure rare in algebra, dropping from 40% to 8%. Later the district added more detail saying the improvements came from many changes they had implemented, including a change in the testing arrangements.

Reply by User:STEMinfo

Not done 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. STEMinfo (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.

−

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education's controversial [[California Department of Education#2021 Mathematics Framework|2021 Mathematics Framework]], approved in July 2023 by the state board of education. The Framework is heavily based on Boaler's work, with the second draft citing either her work, or the work of Youcubed over 40 times.

+

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education's controversial [[California Department of Education#2021 Mathematics Framework|2021 Mathematics Framework]], approved in July 2023 by the state board of education. The second draft of the Framework was partly based on Boaler's work and the work of Youcubed, among others.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
Done @MeanderingWalrusthesecond: 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. STEMinfo (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to ask again to remove entirely the paragraph that begins "In March of 2024 an anonymous complaint was sent..."

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.

Reply by User:STEMinfo
Not done 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. STEMinfo (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)

• Note: The above point-by-point replies by STEMinfo have been hidden to better preserve the flow of discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Fox News article

Thread retitled from "Use of Fox News for sourcing non-political content".

@Sangdeboeuf has removed content sourced to Fox News, [1] claiming the cited article was a politics article. A reading of the article establishes that this was not about any politics or political controversy. If @Sangdeboeufthinks this non-political content should be removed, I suggest bringing any concerns to the talk page. TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the very first line of the source: A Stanford professor, who was one of the thought leaders behind San Francisco's removal of algebra in junior high for equity reasons, is coming under fire [...] Not sure how anyone could read this source and think it has nothing to do with politics. Equity is an inherently political concept, and the 2021 California mathematics framework, which was the source of the controversy here, has been heavily politicized.[2][3][4] The Fox article is also based on an anonymous complaint to Boaler's university, which falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP. If this were a simple academic dispute over "accuracy", then Fox News would not be the only source available. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

People are inherently political. You're going to need to make a stronger case than that for an article reported in the media section of Fox News is about politics. Happy to take this to WP:RSN. TheMissingMuse (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Education is political, like it or not. Especially in the U.S. these days. Fox News is hot garbage for U.S. politics. If the whole issue revolves around an anonymous complaint no other source is reporting on, why are we including it? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu do you have any policy reference for the claim that "education is political". As noted above, anything involving people is inherently political, but I don't think the scope of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS covers any topic relating to people. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of RS discuss this. CRT, DEI, "woke", Moms for Liberty at school board meetings, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's not forget "Don't Say Gay"! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Anything involving people is inherently political? No it isn't. Politics refers specifically to group decision-making processes and the distribution of status and resources within groups, which specifically relates to the concept of equity. As I already noted at RSN, the "media" tag on Fox's website is applied to a number of political stories, not just this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard#Use_of_Fox_News_on_Jo_Boaler, feel free to contribute there. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_Fox_News_on_Jo_Boaler. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Jelani Nelson

Thread retitled from "Emailed police threats for retweeting".

@Sangdeboeuf deleted a summary of the high-profile story of Boaler emailing a police threat to a prominent black computer science professor at Berkeley for retweeting a thread about Boaler's consulting fees to an underprivileged (97% non-white and 89% economically-disadvantaged) school district. @Sangdeboeuf instead replaced this story with a mention of the un-notable fact that Boaler changed her phone number in response to her concerns about her personal address appearing in one of the pages of a consulting contract on a school district website that had been linked on Twitter. (@Sangdeboeuf also deleted the context that the school district was underprivileged.) I consider this edited replacement story un-notable because such facts have only ever been mentioned in news articles in the context of the emailed-police-threat-to-black-professor story.

The original story about the police-threat email was reported in The San Francisco Chronicle [1] (second-largest newpaper on West Coast). The police-threat email story also served as the introduction to a 9000+ word feature article [2] in The Chronicle for Higher Education (largest newsroom in nation dedicated to colleges and universities) on controversies about Boaler primarily surrounding criticism of her work and behavior by academics, professional mathematicians, and STEM experts.

To compare the impact of the police-threat Chronicle stories compared to the replacement story inserted by @Sangdeboeuf , one could also consider quantitative comparisons from the original tweets in question. The consulting-fees tweet (by a high school teacher) that Professor Jelani Nelson retweeted currently still has only 22 retweets [3]. His quote tweet about this consulting fees issue [4] has fewer than 200 retweets (mostly accumulated after the later police-threat story came out). His quote tweet does not itself include the contract page that contained her address, since that page, and the link to it on the school district website, was further up the thread (and the high school math teacher immediately deleted the tweet linking to the contract page containing Boaler's address after being informed that that was her personal address). By comparison, there are several thousand retweets of Professor Nelson's tweet of the screen shot of Boaler's threatening email to him, for which he tweeted the caption "[...] we now have Retweet Rachel. Public advisory: don't call the cops on black people for no reason. [...]" [5]

I think we should be cautious not to whitewash this story. Scalymath (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Comparing retweets is original research. Wikipedia articles are based instead on reliable, independent, secondary sources. The San Francisco Chronicle story doesn't say anything about the Oxnard School district being underprivileged. Since you included an inline citation to that story in your addition of the dispute with Nelson, that comment seemed like simple editorializing. The email dispute as described by the Chronicle was also a literal "he said, she said" with no interpretation or analysis, and so seemed unduly weighted. Feel free to propose an appropriately weighted summary of the event as described in the Chronicle of Higher Education. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

My tweet count argument was just to reinforce a point about relative notability of stories that I had already argued from the basis of secondary source attestation, for purposes of a talk page discussion. I would have thought that more grace and flexibility would be allowed for the methods of analysis employed in the talk-page meta-task of determining which content fits Wikipedia standards (such as for notability).

I believe what I originally wrote fits the description of "an appropriately weighted summary of the event as described in the Chronicle of Higher Education." It's just that I forgot that the inline reference I reused was the Chronicle article instead of the Chronicle of Higher Education article. As such, my plan is to adapt the text you deleted for this purpose, but this time I plan to include the citation for the Chronicle of Higher Education article. What I wrote before also took pains to retain, as much as possible, the original sentence that predated my edit. But I could write a shorter summary if I relax that goal of previous text retention.

After that, there will be multiple other topics to address here, since there seem to be multiple problems with lack of NPOV, with an excess of advertising/promotional material, and with use of self-published material by the subject that does not meet Wikipedia criteria for WP:BLPSELFPUB . (Sorry, I think I have incorrectly formatted this tag, but I don't know how to fix this. This is my first time using a talk page, since my prior editorial experience here is with technical mathematics content, which tends to be less contentious.) Scalymath (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf, thank you for your recent edit of the Nelson paragraph. I think your reorganisation of the exposition was more clear and succinct than mine was. (I added some very brief minor edits, explained in the edit comments.)

As an aside, although I did not revert your edit on this, I do think my mention of Jelani Nelson's founding and volunteer work with summer instruction programs in Ethiopia and Jamaica[AddisCoder][JamCoders] was relevant to the context rather than a random appeal for sympathy, because it helps explain Nelson's dismay at an academic charging a disadvantaged school district in her community $40000 for 8 hours of outreach work directly related to her field. (Volunteer community engagement/outreach by faculty is often an expected component of faculty service, especially for grant recipients, and the type of fee-for-services arrangement she contracted was supposed to be strictly regulated by Stanford.) However, I can agree to the removal on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Scalymath (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This is all WP:SYNTH unless there is a published source connecting any of it to Boaler herself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not WP:SYNTH. The Lee 2023 article about Boaler brings up Nelson's volunteer service benefitting Black students: "In his spare time, he runs coding workshops for high schoolers in Ethiopia and Jamaica," and in fact her article discusses this volunteer work before stating anything about Nelson's concerns that some of the Framework recommendations were "antithetical to its goal of closing racial-achievement gaps. Watered-down instruction in public schools could drive wealthier families to pay for workarounds or switch to private schools, and leave behind lower-income students of color[...]." Lee 2023 In addition to discussing this volunteer service in the context of Boaler's story, Lee also provides a link (as a primary source about the dispute) to Nelson's 2-tweet retweet thread that triggered Boaler's email. The second tweet in that 2-tweet thread discusses his volunteer work on these summer programs for Black students. In other words, the tweet thread that caused Boaler to email him said more about Boaler's and Nelson's service to programs intended to benefit minority students and the associated fees they charged ($5,000/hr vs $0/hour) than it said about the framework.

If you are instead concerned about the primary source links I cited about Stanford regulations, etc, the discussion of faculty service and fee-for-services by academics also comes up in secondary sources already cited here about the Boaler-Nelson story. Those secondary sources already cited in the Wikipedia article do not contain additional primary source links on the topic of faculty service/engagement and Stanford regulations on fees-for-services, but there are other secondary sources on this story that do contain primary source links for this topic, for example [here https://stanfordreview.org/review-investigation-jo-boaler-is-worse-than-we-thought/] This is a somewhat lower-quality secondary source, but the primary source links cited in the article are verifiable.

But again, all of this is on the talk page. I already prefaced my above talk-page paragraph on this with the statement that I would accept deleting the Ethiopia-service remark from the article if it was felt that this made the paragraph too long (WP:DUE). I just brought it up on the talk page because I wanted to state for the record that it was not the case that it was an off-topic appeal for sympathy, but was instead an important, relevant factor in the story.

Scalymath (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

You said it helps explain Nelson's dismay, which is not in any published source. It's WP:SYNTH to imply any connection between the two that is not supported by published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Disputed claim of WP:RAWDATA for $40,000 and $5,000/hr figures

@Sangdeboeuf, would you be able to clarify what aspect of WP:RAWDATA you feel is met by the $40,000 and $5,000/hr figures that you have now deleted twice from what I wrote? You first deleted these figures with the edit-comment that you felt these were not in Nelson's retweet. When I replaced these figures with an edit-comment explaining how the $5,000/hr figure shows up in 3 places in Nelson's retweet, that the $40,000 shows up in 2 places in Nelson's tweet, and that both figures are attested in secondary sources such as [Lee 2023], you next deleted the numbers and wrote the edit-comment that this was WP:RAWDATA. I found this explanation confusing, since I was unable to figure out what aspect of that page would have caused you to direct me to it.

The $5,000/hr figure shows up in every secondary-source article I have found on this story, including sometimes appearing in the title itself, such as "Stanford prof calls cops on Berkeley prof who exposed her $5K/hour consulting fee" Most secondary-source articles, including [Lee 2023], also include the $40,000 figure, and I explained in my edit-comment how this $40,000 figure shows up twice in Nelson's retweet and also is discussed in Lee's article. The secondary source that you added yourself includes the $40,000 and $5,000 figures in the second sentence of the article: "The saga began March 31, when Nelson retweeted a filing showing that Boaler, one of the proponents of controversial new recommendations for math in California schools, was paid $5,000 an hour for a total of $40,000 by the Oxnard School District for consulting." [SFGate]

Moreover, in the Nelson paragraph you wrote for the Boaler Wikipedia article, the quotation you provided from Nelson's tweet cut the $5,000/hr part off the end of the quotation, turning "alarmingly lucrative consulting deals with school districts with large minority populations, charging $5,000/hr." into "alarmingly lucrative consulting deals with school districts with large minority populations," which to me, raises concerns about what the WP:QUOTE article calls neutralizing a quote, also mirroring concerns discussed in WP:NPOV. The $5,000/hr figure, together with the total of $40,000, provides the reader crucial information about what the "lucrative" claim is referring to. Scalymath (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Boaler has disputed the $5,000/hr figure, stating that the rate is actually $416.67 per hour. If we include the $5,000/hr quote, we'd have to include her response as well under WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which would overload the paragraph with even more extraneous detail. Per WP:RAWDATA and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nelson might think $5,000 per hour is "alarming", but the average reader won't know what any of these numbers mean without context provided by published sources' interpretation and analysis. The paragraph is already too long for this incident IMO. I doubt this bit of Twitter drama will survive WP:10YT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I propose we choose the compromise of adding the italicised text in "contract between Boaler and Oxnard School District taken from the school district's website, showing a $40,000 total fee for 4 2-hour sessions (with this fee also accounting for preparation time)." [SFGate]

This formulation adds the issue of preparation time, but is otherwise similar to my "Boaler’s $40,000 contract for 4 2-hour sessions" text that you deleted from my 04:56, 26 February 2025 paragraph. The edit-comment explanation you gave for this deletion was "Nelson tweeted about 'alarmingly lucrative consulting deals with school districts with large minority populations' but did not mention specific numbers," when in fact, Nelson’s text in his quote-tweet said "…alarmingly lucrative consulting deals with school districts with large minority populations, charging $5,000/hr," (emphasis added) followed by the quoted tweet in his retweet, which said "…she collected $40,000 ($5,000/hour)," followed by the contract screen shot in his same quote-tweet, which said "Provide four (4) two-hour sessions at the rate of $5,000.00 per hour for a total of $40,000," as also attested, for example, in the [SFGate] reference that you added.

Every secondary source reporting on this story featured the numerical monetary amounts of these fees as essential to the story. I also think that adding the phrase "with this fee also accounting for preparation time" is sufficient acknowledgement of the fact that presentations can involve preparation time. Another reason I feel this phrase is sufficient is that if one were to attempt to quantify Boaler’s preparation time, there would be the challenge of selecting which answer of hers to give. For example, here are three versions of this answer (with emphasis added) from three different sources rated left-center/high-factual by Media Bias Fact Check, from articles spanning an 11-day interval.

April 5, 2022 San Francisco Chronicle: “The Oxnard district training or others like it don’t include only the time in front of teachers or at the district, but also about 18 hours of preparation, Boaler said, which isn’t specified in the contract. The deal also means significant travel time.” (Stephanie Lee later reported [Lee 2023] confirming Nelson’s observation that p.124 of a budget-related document on Oxnard's website said that Boaler’s meetings and presentations with Oxnard had been virtual, hence not involving travel.)

April 7, 2022 SFGate: "To illustrate the length of her prep time, [Boaler] emailed SFGATE a link to a Quora.com page titled, 'How long does it usually take you to prepare a presentation?' and cited an answer stating that it can take 10 to 15 hours to prepare an hourlong presentation. 'If we conservatively assume 11 hours per hour, then the rate of pay would be $454.00 per hour, If you ask academics you will find that is a very reasonable rate [sic] – actually on the low end,' she wrote. 'Correction – the rate is $416.67 an hour,' she wrote in a subsequent email."

April 15, 2022 Ventura County Star: "Boaler received $40,000 for eight hours of training. She also received $7,500 in February 2021 for a 90-minute 'Parent's Night,' training parents on the 'importance of a growth mindset' in math education. Boaler defended her hourly rate, saying in email response to The Star that her pay covered "many hundreds of hours" of preparation and meetings with district leaders and teachers."

For context, Stanford regulations require faculty to report the amount of time (including preparation time) spent consulting for each project, and impose a limit of 13 days of total consulting per academic term, capped at 130 hours per academic term. If she complied with these regulations, then by the time of these articles, she would have had a report on file recording the total time she had told Stanford she had spent for Oxnard. Scalymath (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. The alarmingly lucrative quote from Nelson conveys the substance of his complaint without going into specific numbers that require additional explanation to make any sense. It's not Wikipedia's job to attempt to quantify the disputed figures; that's for reliable, secondary sources to do, which we merely summarize.

None of the above statements by Boaler clarifying her fees are the same as evaluation and analysis by secondary sources. (You also left out the part where Boaler said Tucker had "likely misinterpreted her comments" about billing for travel time.) Citing a minor regional newspaper like the Ventura County Star for important claims certainly doesn't help with NPOV issues.

I predict no one will care about how many hours Boaler billed the school district for in ten years' time. Stanford's regulations on faculty consulting are irrelevant bordering on WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Since we appear to be misunderstanding each other, let me attempt to summarize our recent exchanges, in hopes that we can clarify our understanding of what each person is trying to say.

If I understand your earlier 11:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC) message correctly, you argued that if we were to include the contract's $40,000 and/or $5,000/hr figures (as highlighted in all news coverage of this story), then you felt this would result in an overlong article because you felt the inclusion of numbers for this fee would also require us to

(a) include a statement of Boaler's from an SFGate article in which she speculated about specific numbers of preparation hours and suggested a particular recalculation of her hourly rate, and

(b) attempt to find a published "interpretation and analysis" somewhere that might contextualize her fees, and then include this in the article as well. (Here, your "interpretation and analysis" phrase was hyperlinked to the "secondary sources" subsection of Wikipedia's "No original research" page. I'm not sure if the hyperlink was a copy-paste error or if I am just misunderstanding how you intended the hyperlinked content to relate.)

For my 04:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC) reply above, I ignored part (b) of your suggestion (since I did not know where we would find a secondary source with an evidenced "interpretation and analysis" section of the type you suggested), and I instead focussed on part (a) of your suggestion. However, your above 13:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC) reply appears to have interpreted my discussion of part (a) as if it were a response to part (b).

Given the extent of confusion that appears to have occurred, let me try to clarify how my above 04:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC) message attempted to respond to part (a) of your suggestion. When I wrote that I thought my proposed "(with this fee also accounting for preparation time)" phrase was "sufficient" acknowledgement of the role of preparation time, I meant that the inclusion of this phrase should make it unnecessary to include the SFGate-hourly-rate-recalculation statement you had suggested for part (a). I further wrote, "Another reason I feel this phrase is sufficient is that if one were [note subjunctive] to attempt to quantify Boaler’s preparation time, there would be the challenge of selecting which answer of hers to give." Here, I meant that---as opposed to your suggestion in (a)---I felt we should not attempt to quantify Boaler's preparation time, because there were conflicting answers for this quantity.

I then listed 3 MBFC-left-center/high-factual secondary sources that stated 3 numerically-different answers they said Boaler had given them to this question. I also acknowledged the likely existence of a primary source with a reliable answer to this question (i.e., the report Boaler would have sent to Stanford), but since this primary source is not accessible to us, the only thing we can know about it is that it is capped at 130 hours for her total consulting-related time toward all parties for that academic term.

Again, when I listed the 3 conflicting answers in these 3 sources on the talk page, I was not suggesting that we include any of these 3 conflicting reports of Boaler's answers in the mainpage text of the paragraph. Rather, I was suggesting the opposite: that the lack of consensus in her reported answers to this question meant we should not feel obligated to pick out a particular numerical answer of hers from these articles, and that we should instead just include a disclaimer that her $40,000 fee also accounted for any preparation time. Scalymath (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

My response is the same: the specific numbers are WP:UNDUE and fail WP:10YT. The paragraph is already too long as is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

If I understood your earlier intended argument correctly, your WP:UNDUE argument hinged on your claim that the addition of numerical figures would require an associated addition of discussions (a) and (b) as mentioned above. Since I believe I successfully established above that adding discussions (a) and (b) would neither be necessary nor appropriate, an WP:UNDUE argument is not applicable here. As for WP:10YT, the longest, most-researched and highest-profile account of this story yet appeared in an article that was written a year after the events occurred [Lee 2023].

I have therefore made edits that reduce the total length of the paragraph but simultaneously include the $40,000 figure in a manner similar to the proposal I made above.

Notes on my recent edits:

Since you expressed that you felt the paragraph was too long, I made 3 edits to shorten the paragraph enough to leave room for the $40,000 figure (better reflecting the information emphasized by news coverage of the event), while still retaining the information from the prior paragraph version.

I removed the "an opponent of the 2021 California mathematics framework" line for brevity, since redundant to later information and language was slightly inaccurate (see edit comment).

To add the $40,000 figure, I first had to reorganize the statement about the original tweet and retweet, splitting this into two parts. I also made minor edits about the fact that the framework was a draft.

I reordered sentences in the last part of the paragraph (to match chronology better), and I reworded the discussion of address-on-contract circumstances for clarity, and to remove WP:BLP-violating risk of false impressions about the teacher’s actions and her non-awareness of the address on the public-domain contract, since the San Francisco public school math teacher who posted the original tweet is a non-public-figure living person explicitly named in many of the articles about this story (such as [Tucker 2022]).

Balance/NPOV: In the displayed final version, including citations, the new paragraph allots roughly 540 characters to Nelson's actions/communications and roughly 725 characters to Boaler's actions/communications, including roughly 350 characters for Boaler's explanation of her side to reporters. Scalymath (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

MOOC promotion

Most of the first paragraph in the Return to California section arguably violates WP:NOTADVERT, since it reads as an advertisement for the no-longer-free “How to Learn Math for Teachers” online course currently being sold by Stanford Online. Nearly every source cited in the paragraph is either promotional material written by Boaler, promotional material hosted on Stanford’s website, or promotional material written by a Stanford communications staff member advertising Boaler’s course. Even the article in the decade-defunct wired-academic media source says of its author, “Jonathan Rabinovitz is the director of communications at the Graduate School of Education.”[wiredacademic] Moreover, this wiredacademic article is a copy of a press release on Stanford’s website, with the latter making no mention of the wiredacademic article.

The only article cited in the paragraph that is from a non-Stanford-based source is a Telegraph interview of Boaler about her MOOC, but this article uses Boaler as its only source for information about the course in question, and it primarily promotes the fact that the course was free, which it no longer is.

Information such as customer satisfaction survey results for the course are not appropriate here, since we have no way of knowing how leading the questions on this survey were. For this reason, I am removing customer satisfaction survey information and condensing more promotional aspects in the description of this product. Scalymath (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Return to California: Chronological Reorganization

Since the "Return to California" section had many headings of the form, "In 20xx, blah Boaler did y," I tried to reorder these parts so that they were listed in chronological order. They were previously listed very much out of chronological order.

I'm still not sure what to do with the part that reads "In addition to focusing on inquiry-based learning, Boaler's research has highlighted problems associated with ability grouping in England and the US, and she has written about mistakes and growth mindset in the context of mathematics." Those cited sources from approximately 2012, but they seemed to be geared more toward a general thematic discussion of Boaler's research and writings than associated to a sequence of events. It's possible that if further reorganizations elucidate a clear section allocated to summarize the types of research and writing she did, then those sentences might belong there, instead of in the chronological section after 2012. Scalymath (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

British vs American English

Hi, I've noticed there are challenges with this article incorporating a mixture of punctuation, grammatical, and spelling conventions from British and American English. The Wikipedia guidelines for this, as discussed in WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH and MOS:ENGVAR, say that the choice of English vs British English should be self-consistent for an article (i.e., one language choice for the whole article) and should be determined by whether topics in the article relate more to the United States or to British topics. For the Boaler article, Boaler is British, but the majority of topics covered involve research, events, and organisations in the United States, so I think there is a stronger case for using American English, but it's possible this should be up for debate. Any thoughts?

I think the most important issue for this is for the language choice to be consistent. For example, I often see editors randomly changing "X...Y." to "X...Y". in sporadic places, but American English always puts commas and periods (full stops) inside quotation marks (inverted commas). Scalymath (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

2023 California Mathematics Framework

I think the most recent version of the California Mathematics Framework (CMF) section needs to be restructured, since the unnatural ordering of the current structure appears to be contributing to its excessive length.

It now begins with describing Boaler's relationship to the updated CMF and its different drafts (from 2021 through 2023), followed by a brief description of key differences of the 2020/2021 drafts from the 2013 CMF. But the next part of the sequence currently goes as follows:

(a) a description of how these key differences in the 2021/2022 drafts were largely overturned in the 2023 revision by WestEd; (b) a long list of organizations listed as endorsers on the 2023 WestEd revision; (c) some failed-verification mention of two organizations for which I can't tell if the editor who added this intended to indicate that they supported Boaler et al's 2021/2022 version or the modified 2023 version by WestEd, since the cited sources did not say anything about those organizations' opinions of any version of the CMF; (d) the next paragraph, which describes a fraction of the opposition by California STEM faculty and STEM experts to the delayed-algebra-1 and alternative-pathway-data-science components of Boaler et al's 2021/2022 drafts; (e) concluding statements about WestEd creating a 2023 revision that was eventually adopted.

It seems to me that a more logical restructuring of content in (a)-(e) would be to start with (d), the description of opposition to the delayed-algebra-1 and alternative-pathway-data-science, since this opposition is what then led to the associated changes in the 2023 revision by WestEd. If there are competing news articles about competing petitions to keep algebra 1 out of public middle schools, etc, then this could go next, replacing (c), but someone else might be better versed in where to find such an article, if it exists. This could then be followed by (a), allowing us to discard (e) as redundant. This could then be followed by some version of (d), although given that the mainspace list here replicates the list in the primary source cited, and given that an approximate consensus had been reached by that stage, it might make sense to summarise that list of endorsers instead. Scalymath (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)