Here’s the Link:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2010995832_edit08mathbooks.html

“If the Seattle School Board thinks constructivism is a superior way to teach math, it had better be willing to explain why.”

This shift of the burden of proof should be a rallying cry for parents and taxpayers all over the country. We are the people who must live with the bad results and we should not have been ignored.

Calling a representative of Discovering Math to testify on the merits of their own curriculum is of no value, as it represents a conflict of interest.

You are correct except that now, if the program bombs, the board will not be able to excuse itself by saying that it simply relied on some (idiot) administrator’s recommendations. And the board members tend to want to be re-elected…

Democracy is wonderful when it works.

Which means that if the school board really wants to adopt the curriculum, it can hold a hearing at which a representative of Discovering Math testifies why it would be a good idea to adopt it. They can then officially consider this evidence and vote in favor of adopting Discovery. The representative will be happy to provide suggested language for the board’s justification, language which will purport to show the decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious, and is in fact in the best interest of the students.

The judge made a decision based on the evidence. This judge’s decision was not based on any arbitrary rationale. The judge was not deciding what kind of curricula could be used. The decision of the court sends the issue back to the school district to revisit the textbook adoption–with the adoption process possibly needing to be conducted again. The court is not in the business of making curriculum decisions for the district and clearly did not do so in this case.

I have read a few legal briefs of cases filed against school districts/education systems. I was not impressed with what I read until I read the brief for this case. It made me sit up and take notice. It is good and presents a solid case. It is not easy when you have to make the case that the district’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. It was a strong case backed with a lot of evidence.

I was also there in court. The plaintiffs’ lawyer did an excellent job of presenting the case. The lawyer for the school district had a weak defense and while she responded to the judge’ questions, she didn’t answer the questions that were asked.

Read the legal documents for yourselves. It may be enlightening. The brief is a good clean read that lays the case out well The legal documents can be downloaded from the links on the left hand side of the seattle math group website.

http://seattlemathgroup.blogspot.com/

Look for Legal Documents in Textbook Appeal

Come see other top popular articles surfaced by Education experts!…

Very true. I would add that with Investigations, CMP and a good teacher, the good teacher will supplant the material with more effective texts. While it is true that there are good and bad ways to teach lessons employing discovery, the structure and content of Investigations and CMP is such that it is inherently bad. In the case of the Discovering Math series in Seattle, the books were almost devoid of significant content.

By the way, the lawsuit did not result in the court selecting a textbook or curriculum. The court ruled only on the procedure used to select the textbook, not on its merits. They have asked the district to revisit their selection.

I’d be willing to bet that an “essential component” is that teachers not use any other Math curriculum.