This version of events you found is extremely interesting and paints a very different picture of the situation.
General background is Boaler published findings from her trial studies that showed miraculous improvements at a low income school that adopted the curriculum she advocates. Bishop was skeptical as it was different from results he had seen, but when asked for more details, Boaler claimed she had to promise the schools anonymity to do the studies and thus the data could not be verified. This claim of anonymity of the school being necessary doesn't make a lot of sense. Anonymity for the students of course, but there is no reason for the schools not to be identified if the study is legit. Bishop's questioning the legitimacy of Boaler's results because of her refusal to publish anything that would enable verification of her remarkable results resulted in her filing harassment complaints against Bishop, a professor at a totally different university. Later Boaler filed complaints that Bishop was "a terrorist", resulting in him being interrogated by police.
He then went and found the identity of the school himself and it turned out that the school went from API 3-6 results to the worst possible result, API 1-1 subsequent to the adoption of Boaler's advocated curriculum, something completely the opposite of her claimed findings. If this is true that this is the same school, then she is clearly engaged in fraud, academic misconduct, stalking, and making false police reports, and is not the victim in this at all, but is actually engaging in conduct bordering on the criminal. If on the other hand this is not the school, the school should be identified so that the claims of significant improvement can be verified. The claim that the school needs anonymity can not be taken seriously.
This version of events you found is extremely interesting and paints a very different picture of the situation.
General background is Boaler published findings from her trial studies that showed miraculous improvements at a low income school that adopted the curriculum she advocates. Bishop was skeptical as it was different from results he had seen, but when asked for more details, Boaler claimed she had to promise the schools anonymity to do the studies and thus the data could not be verified. This claim of anonymity of the school being necessary doesn't make a lot of sense. Anonymity for the students of course, but there is no reason for the schools not to be identified if the study is legit. Bishop's questioning the legitimacy of Boaler's results because of her refusal to publish anything that would enable verification of her remarkable results resulted in her filing harassment complaints against Bishop, a professor at a totally different university. Later Boaler filed complaints that Bishop was "a terrorist", resulting in him being interrogated by police.
He then went and found the identity of the school himself and it turned out that the school went from API 3-6 results to the worst possible result, API 1-1 subsequent to the adoption of Boaler's advocated curriculum, something completely the opposite of her claimed findings. If this is true that this is the same school, then she is clearly engaged in fraud, academic misconduct, stalking, and making false police reports, and is not the victim in this at all, but is actually engaging in conduct bordering on the criminal. If on the other hand this is not the school, the school should be identified so that the claims of significant improvement can be verified. The claim that the school needs anonymity can not be taken seriously.