Connect with us

California

Complaint defends California Math Framework and Jo Boaler

Published

on

Complaint defends California Math Framework and Jo Boaler


Amid continued debate on California high school math education, an opposing complaint was filed with the University, in response to concerns raised about Jo Boaler’s contributions to a new math framework.

Duane Habecker, California Mathematics Council central section president, filed a complaint with the Office of the Provost against Stanford math professor Brian Conrad. The complaint, which was filed in late April, criticizes Conrad’s “reckless disregard for academic integrity and the safety of fellow Stanford professor, Dr. Jo Boaler,” according to documents obtained by The Daily.

Conrad is one of a number of public critics of the recently revised California Math Framework (CMF), the document that advises K-12 educators in California, which math education professor Jo Boaler helped to write. Especially drawing controversy, Boaler advocates for offering data science as an alternative Algebra II in high school math requirements — an effort she argues would make high school math more equitable. 

Critics like Conrad say that this switch would leave high school students unprepared for college-level math.

Advertisement

In 2023, when the CMF was in the editing process, Conrad created a website to publish comments and concerns with the CMF. The recent complaint delves into some concerns raised by critics on Boaler’s research.

Conrad wrote in an email to The Daily that he was not aware about the complaint lodged against him nor the University’s response. In response to the complaint, he wrote, “Anyone who looks at what I have written or said on these matters can see that I never singled out any specific CMF author, contrary to what is claimed.”

The complaint follows an anonymous complaint filed in March against Boaler, accusing her of citation misrepresentation in both her individual work and her work in helping revise the CMF. According to Habecker, it stems from criticism that moves beyond the research to personal attacks.

The complaint raises twelve examples of Conrad’s critiques paired with Habecker’s response countering these critiques. Habecker wrote that Conrad “has gone beyond critiquing the research and ventured into stochastic terrorism through indirect and vague attacks on Professor Jo Boaler’s work, which has led the public to myopically targeting Dr. Boaler rather than the entire CMF writing team.”

Boaler has received threats to herself and her family due to her involvement in the CMF, she wrote on her Stanford profile.

Advertisement

Neither complaint will receive a formal University investigation. 

“We received this information and believe this matter is one properly resolved through scholarly debate rather than through a formal university process,” wrote University spokesperson Dee Mostofi. “The university does not take a position in these matters.”

The first anonymous complaint against Boaler inspired Habecker to file his own complaint, Habecker said, helping him realize that it was a tool he could use to voice his concerns about the lack of scholarly debate he saw in both the anonymous complaint and Conrad’s public criticisms with the CMF. 

The fact that the original complaint was anonymous “runs against the whole point of conversation and discourse and disagreeing,” Habecker said. “Math is a wonderful topic to disagree about and have real, authentic, meaningful conversations.”

He said that he thinks the CMF is one of the best resources for high school math teachers, and Conrad is “undermining people’s faith in the CMF.”

Advertisement

Habecker’s complaint takes issue not only with Conrad’s website, but also with Conrad’s recent testimony at a California senate hearing about a “math excellence package” that would add six members to the California State Board of Education’s Instructional Quality Commission.

Disagreeing with Habecker’s characterization, Conrad countered that his testimony was not an effort to discredit the math framework. This claim “is contradicted by the fact that I never mentioned the CMF,” Conrad wrote. 

Boaler has continued her support for the CMF, despite its critics. 

“It is my understanding that [Habecker’s] complaint has been filed in defense of everyone who worked on all stages of the CMF, the statutory process and the K-12 educators and students who will be impacted,” she wrote in an email to The Daily. “Insofar as [Habecker’s] submission might apply to my situation, I will be grateful if his viewpoint is considered.”



Source link

Advertisement

California

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly

Published

on

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly


Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM

CA bill to keep police from moonlighting with ICE advances

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.

AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.

The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.

Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.

Advertisement

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.

Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say

Published

on

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say


play

California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.

California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.

Advertisement

It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.

Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.

The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”

Advertisement

During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.

“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.

What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?

In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.

First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”

Advertisement

When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026

California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.  

Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students


The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.

Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school

The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.

Advertisement
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.

Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.

scotus.PNG

Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.

“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.

Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.

Advertisement

Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:

Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.

The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending