Of Men, Women, and Orange Goo

In response to Rob Port, and the “Bad Data Used to Justify Gender Pay in Legislation”

This is probably the most naive article I've ever read. I'm stunned yet again this evening and I've only read three things on this site. -- at least I'm hoping that it is naive. Otherwise we're looking at either dreadfully challenged in the "short-bus & Scooby-Do lunch box" way, or sexist denier on the "foaming mouth" level.

"Here’s another inconvenient fact for the narrative:77 percent of human resources positions are held by women. Given that HR personnel are deeply involved in the areas of hiring, pay, promotion, and investigating workplace discrimination it’s a little hard to believe that all there’s an institutional bias against women…perpetrated by other women." -- Rob Port

Yes... because your low-paid HR person, frequently seen as an "over-paid secretary" -- and who you would not have at all if you could get away with it, but your insurance won't let you -- is so very often the person who negotiates salary and benefits.

Right, yes... that's the way it works, yes... let's go with that fantasy shall we?

Who the Hell are All of these Experts?

I was just reading over a story on Democracy Now! about the sudden flood of Terrorist Experts hitting the Media after the attack in Paris.

How to Be a Terror "Expert": Ignore Facts, Blame Muslims, Trumpet U.S. Propaganda

Who are the so-called terrorism experts? In the wake of the Paris attacks, the corporate media has once again flooded its news programs with pundits claiming authority on terrorism, foreign policy and world events. (read the story if interested)

I reflected that this was much the same situation we have with US Education, Common Core, Teachers and what Data should be collected, and why. To be an Education Expert, apparently all that is required is to stand up and start proclaiming you are one. No credentials, experience level, or history of success in the field is required. Also, no references are needed either.

• Dr. Sandra Stotsky: No educational experience of any merit. No degree in education, zero history of success, no peer references.
• Dr. James Milgram:  No educational experience of any merit. No degree in education, zero history of success, no peer references (in fact most professors who have worked with him give negative reviews in the are of professionalism)
• Jane Robbins:  An attorney employed by APP (a propaganda machine) with vague ties to the EPA -- surface background check suggests her name at one time could have been Jane Scott-Smith, but in fact doesn't show an Internet footprint at all before 2009. This is a very unlikely result, even from a surface scan, which suggests that Jane Robbins is a character played by someone else -- as in having even less credentials to discuss the validity or effectiveness of a an educational proposal. 

I would gladly put my name up on this list, since I'm basically as qualified as these three are -- and I'm a real person. But I've yet to introduce myself as someone qualified  to make statements on the validity of particular methods or standards for education. All I do, and all I'll ever do, is to check the claims given, point out the tactics of propaganda being used, if any, and background check the claims of those giving these judgements on Common Core.

And in those areas I am highly qualified and if you have questions about the core you would like to receive information on, just ask.

Am I the only one who thinks it's a waste of tax dollars to guard a tomb?

An open response to Hank Green, and his insightful Response to Cable News

Written in response to Hank Green's

Holy Shit, I Interviewed the President

Yes, but there’s a little more to it…

Like most things in life, if you scratch the surface of understanding, you are frequently engulfed in the complexity of even the simplest of issues.

Your points are valid and easily verified. Your concerns are as well. News content has a powerful impact on politics, with ideologically diverse content producing socially desirable outcomes. According to the U.S. Supreme Court (1945),

International Core's - Fool Your Friends! Benchmark At Home!

Finland Core 

Singapore Core

This is really exactly what it looks like. Instead of taking the time to make this more attractive and a more stable, maintainable feature, I've taken the lazy way out and slapped them into a post.

The Letter Requesting James Milgram to be Removed from Stanford Professorship 2002

This letter was signed and supported by 1007 academic supporters in 2002 as a protest against James Milgram, his lack of professionalism, his intimidation methods and the outright assault on Professor Jo Boaler of Stanford University


Dear President Hennessy and Provost Etchemendy:

On November 1, 2012, Professor Jo Boaler of Stanford University gave a keynote address at the meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA). In her address, Professor Boaler discussed the importance of communicating research with broader audiences and recognizing and facing the challenging political climates in which we work. Professor Boaler made public the troubling attacks to which she has been subjected from a member of your mathematics faculty, Professor James Milgram. She has also posted a detailed account (http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/) of these attacks. The response, from the research community around the world, has been immediate and virulent. Shocked reactions are spreading rapidly.

Professor Boaler’s report describes some serious breaches of academic integrity (protecting the confidentiality of human subjects) and of ethical behavior (harassment and personal attacks). We view the behavior that has been reported as a threat to Professor Boaler’s academic freedom, that is, her freedom to conduct research without harassment. Professor Boaler is a valued and respected member of our community, and we cannot stand by and see such activity without lodging a protest. Furthermore, we see the attacks on the work of Professor Boaler, and Stanford’s inaction in response, as threatening to the work of the mathematics education research community.

We the undersigned believe, on the basis of the evidence that has been made publicly available, that Professor Jo Boaler has been the object of a campaign of harassment conducted by Stanford University Professor James Milgram and others that far exceeds the boundaries of scholarly discourse and academic freedom, that these actions have harmed Professor Boaler, and that these actions, if unaddressed by Stanford, will continue to damage Professor Boaler and may well damage the university itself. We ask you to open an official inquiry into the actions taken against Professor Boaler, and to make public the results of that inquiry and the actions that follow from it.