Journal of Urban Mathematics Education December 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1–5 ©JUME. http://education.gsu.edu/JUME DAVID W. STINSON is an associate professor of mathematics education in the Department of Middle-Secondary Education and Instructional Technology in the College of Education, at Geor- gia State University, P.O. Box 3978, Atlanta, GA, 30303; e-mail: dstinson@gsu.edu. His research interests include exploring socio-cultural, -historical, and -political aspects of mathematics and mathematics teaching and learning from a critical postmodern theoretical (and methodological) perspective. He is a co-founder and current editor-in-chief of the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education. EDITORIAL Mathematics Educators and the “Math Wars”: Who Controls the Discourse? David W. Stinson Georgia State University he lead story in the daily online publication Inside Higher Ed on October 15, 2012 was titled “Casualty of the Math Wars” (Jaschik, 2012). It provided a context for Professor Jo Boaler’s 1 actions in posting the essay “Jo Boaler Reveals Attacks by Milgram and Bishop: When Academic Disagreement Becomes Har- assment and Persecution” (Boaler, 2012a) on her Stanford University website. Professor Boaler’s essay chronicles, in detail, the professional and personal at- tacks she has experienced since joining the Stanford faculty in 1998 by two math- ematicians—James Milgram (Stanford University, emeritus) and Wayne Bishop (California State University Los Angeles). As evident by the title of the Inside Higher Ed article, Jaschik (2012) places Professor Boaler’s actions within the larger context of the so called “math wars.” Schoenfeld (2004), in his participant-observer historical review of the wars, states that the underlying issues or questions being contested by two opposing camps are more than a century old: “Is mathematics for the elite or for the masses? Are there tensions between ‘excellence’ and ‘equity’? Should mathematics be seen as a de- mocratizing force or as a vehicle for maintaining the status quo?” (p. 253). Proba- ble responses to these questions are significantly different depending on which camp controls the discourse: the traditionalists or the reformers. The traditional- ists’ camp claims that standards-based, reform curricula are superficial and un- dermine “classical” mathematical values—Milgram and Bishop clearly reside 1 EDITOR’S NOTE: We, the Editorial Team at JUME, support our colleague, Professor Jo Boaler, in her actions of going public with the harassment and persecution (i.e., academic bullying) that she has experienced through the unrestrained professional and personal attacks by James Milgram and Wayne Bishop. Others can show support of Professor Boaler by signing the Change.org petition The Community of Mathematics Educators: Join in Defending Fundamental Values, initiated by University of Georgia Regents Professor Jeremy Kilpatrick. T http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-professor-goes-public-attacks-over-her-math-education-research http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/ http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/ http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/ http://www.change.org/petitions/the-community-of-mathematics-educators-join-in-defending-fundamental-values?utm_campaign=action_box&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition http://www.change.org/petitions/the-community-of-mathematics-educators-join-in-defending-fundamental-values?utm_campaign=action_box&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition Stinson Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 5, No. 2 2 here. Whereas the reformers’ camp claims that reform-oriented curricula such as IMP or CPMP 2 reflect a deeper, richer view of mathematics—this of course is where Professor Boaler resides. My intent here is not to provide a detailed discus- sion of the math wars; it has been done elsewhere (see, e.g., Becker & Jacob, 2000a, 2000b 3 ; Davison & Mitchell, 2008; Herrera & Owens, 2001; Kilpatrick, 2001; O’Brien, 2007; Reys, 2001; Schoen, Fey, Hirsh, & Coxford, 1999; Schoen- feld, 2004). But rather I provide some background (albeit brief) to explain why I believe Jaschik placed Professor Boaler’s recent actions within the larger context of the math wars. It is interesting to note that Jaschik’s (2012) article is not the first time that James Milgram and Wayne Bishop have been named as traditionalist culprits in the math wars who have hindered reform in mathematics teaching and learning. In a March 2000 Phi Delta Kappan article, Becker and Jacob (2000b, also see 2000a) name both Milgram and Bishop among members of “a powerful group of parents and mathematicians who manipulated information and played off of the public’s perception of our ‘failing schools’ to acquire political clout” (p. 530), which, in turn, was used to substantially revise California’s school mathematics policy in the late 1990s. Specifically, Becker and Jacob outline how this unde- served “political clout,” in many ways, silenced mathematics educators and K-12 mathematics teachers during the process of revising California’s school mathe- matics policy. They write: A unique feature of California’s new school mathematics policy is the influential role of university mathematicians. Four Stanford University mathematics professors substantially revised the standards in 1997, and three mathematics professors wrote the sample problems for the framework in 1998. Two math professors wrote key sec- tions of the framework’s discussion for teachers and then, on 22 September 1999, led the department of education presentation for publishers, explaining what was ex- pected of them when they submit materials for adoption in August 2000. Two other mathematics professors judged (and extensively rewrote) the curriculum for the pro- fessional development provided, for which $43 million will be available during 2000–01. To our knowledge, none of these mathematicians ever taught in K-12 schools, and throughout their work on policy, there was never a publicly scheduled session for them to interact with K-12 teachers. Mathematics professors also ran the Math Content Review Panels for the billion-dollar material adoption that was com- peted by the state board during the summer 1999. Through these actions, the state board made it clear whose voice would count and whose would be ignored. (p. 531) In concluding their discussion, Becker and Jacob (2000b) claim that school 2 For information about the Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP), see http://mathimp.org; for information about the Core-Plus Mathematics Project (CPMP), see http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/. 3 See Haimo and Milgram (2000) for a response to Becker and Jacob (2000b). http://mathimp.org/ http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/ Stinson Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 5, No. 2 3 mathematics policy which once held “‘teaching for understanding’ as its center- piece has vanished from the California mathematics education landscape, and mastery of procedure skills is now the order of the day in the state’s standards, framework, standardized assessments, and professional development” (pp. 535– 536). Overall, Becker and Jacob’s purpose in outlining the events that unfolded in the late 1990s is to bring to light their bewilderment of how mathematicians man- aged to replace mathematics educators and classroom teachers in leading the de- velopment and implementation of California’s school mathematics policy. In oth- er words, how did those with expertise in mere mathematics content knowledge replace those with expertise not only in mathematics content knowledge but also in how students come to learn mathematics and how teachers might best teach mathematics? This “replacement” was (is) most problematic. Battista (1999) ar- gues: To perform a reasonable analysis of the quality of mathematics teaching requires an understanding not only of the essence of mathematics but also of current research about how students learn mathematical ideas. Without extensive knowledge of both, judgments made about what mathematics should be taught to schoolchildren and how it should be taught are necessarily naïve and almost always wrong. (p. 433) I believe that most, if not all, mathematics educators and classroom teachers as well as most “mathematically sane” 4 mathematicians would agree with Bat- tista’s (1999) argument. But how did such a replacement happen in California in the late 1990s? Battista claims that traditionalists exploited the “‘talk show/tabloid’ mentality of Americans” and provided them “with hearsay, misin- formation, sensationalism, polarization, and conflict as they attempt[ed] to seize control of school mathematics programs and return them to traditional teaching” (p. 425). A walk through any school today would confirm that traditionalists did indeed win The Battle of the 2000s—both the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act and the Obama administration’s Race to the Top Fund have se- cured a return to traditional practices. Nonetheless, wining the battle is not win- ning the war. New battles always provide for different possibilities. It is within the context of a new battle—The Battle of 2010s—with its dif- ferent possibilities that I like to place Professor Boaler’s recent actions. From a poststructural perspective, I like to think of Professor Boaler’s actions as a coun- 4 Mathematically Sane “has been created to provide insights into the reform of mathematics teaching in the schools by making a compelling case that changes in our nation’s mathematics programs are imperative for our students’ future success and for the economic health of our nation”; see http://mathematicallysane.com for more information. Of particular interest might be web links to two TED Talks: Teaching Kids Real Math with Computers by Conrad Wolfram and Math Class Needs a Makeover by Dan Meyer. http://mathematicallysane.com/ Stinson Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 5, No. 2 4 termove in the math wars, seizing control of the discourse and thus, the power. 5 Professor Boaler (2012b), in her plenary talk at the 34th annual conference of the North America chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathe- matics Education (PME-NA) held recently in Kalamazoo, Michigan, spoke direct- ly about such efforts, providing her own insights of communicating mathematics education research to broader audiences and the importance of leading the dis- course in mathematics education reform. But controlling or leading the discourse does not mean that there is no room for scholarly disagreement. Scholarly disagreement is beneficial (and needed) for intellectual growth. 6 Nonetheless, what Professor Boaler has demonstrated by go- ing public and taking control of the discourse is that she will no longer be bullied. We might all take a cue from Professor Boaler in this regard. When it comes to issues of mathematics teaching and learning, mathematics educators and class- room teachers should not stand for being bullied in our own sandbox. References Battista, M. T. (1999). The mathematical miseducation of America’s youth: Ignoring research and scientific study in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 425–433. Battista, M. T. (2010). Engaging students in meaningful mathematics learning: Different perspec- tives, complementary goals. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 34–46. Re- trieved from http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/115/58. Becker, J. P., & Jacob, B. (2000a). Look at the details: A reply to Deborah Haimo and James Mil- gram. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 147–148. Becker, J. P., & Jacob, B. (2000b). The politics of California school mathematics: The anti-reform of 1997-99. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 529–537. Boaler, J. (2012a). Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop: When academic disagreement becomes harassment and persecution. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/. Boaler, J. (2012b). Scaling up innovation: Using research to make a difference. Plenary talk de- livered at the 34th annual conference of the North America chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Kalamazoo, MI. Confrey, J. (2010). “Both And”—Equity and mathematics: A Response to Martin, Gholson, and Leonard. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 25–33. Retrieved from http://ed- osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/108/53. Davison, D. M., & Mitchell, J. E. (2008). How is mathematics education philosophy reflected in the math wars? The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 5(1), 143–154. Haimo, D. T., & Milgram, R. J. (2000). Professional mathematicians comment on school mathe- matics in California. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 145–146. 5 See Stinson (2009) for a brief discussion of how discourse and power are re-inscribed within poststructural theory. 6 JUME recently played a roll in demonstrating such benefits through the scholarly exchange within its pages regarding the question Where’s the math in mathematics education research? (see Battista, 2010; Confrey, 2010; Martin, Gholson, & Leonard, 2010). http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/115/58 http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/ http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/108/53 http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/108/53 Stinson Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 5, No. 2 5 Herrera, T. A., & Owens, D. T. (2001). The “new new math”?: Two reform movements in mathe- matics education. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 84–92. Jaschik, S. (2012, October 15). Casualty of the math wars, Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-professor-goes-public-attacks- over-her-math-education-research. Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: The contribution of research. Educa- tional Studies in Mathematics, 47, 101–116. Martin, D. B., Gholson, M. L., & Leonard, J. (2010). Mathematics as gatekeeper: Power and privi- lege in the production of knowledge. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 12– 24. Retrieved from http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/95/57. O’Brien, T. C. (2007). The old and the new. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 664–668. Reys, R. E. (2001). Curricular controversy in the math wars: A battle without winners. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 255–258. Schoen, H. L., Fey, J. T., Hirsch, C. R., & Coxford, A. F. (1999). Issues and options in the math wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 444–453. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18, 253–286. Stinson, D. W. (2009). The proliferation of theoretical paradigms quandary: How one novice re- searcher used eclecticism as a solution. The Qualitative Report, 14(3), 498–523. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14-3/stinson.pdf. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-professor-goes-public-attacks-over-her-math-education-research http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-professor-goes-public-attacks-over-her-math-education-research http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/95/57 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14-3/stinson.pdf