Here's an item from a listserve I'm on about a very interesting court case south of the border. This is currently highly pertinent to BC, in my opinion.

We're seeing a number of battles going on around here. We have the BCTF vs. the provincial government about the FSA tests. We have the BCCT vs the BCTF. We have the BCTF (or its fan club) vs. the BC School Trustees Association. We have, or will soon have, the UBC education faculty vs. the BCCT, and if that goes as I think it will, we'll soon have the SFU education faculty up to bat as well.

What should never be forgotten is that the key issue in all these battles is the pedagogy (the teaching method). In each case, at least one party (and sometimes both - many of these battles are just for show and turf but not really for educational outcomes) has a vested interest in keeping ineffective methods of teaching dominant in schools. Specifically, the unions and the universities benefit when students fail, because a high failure rate is fertile ground for arguments to keep classes small and thus keep more teachers training and working, to keep teachers going back for more training, and to keep seeming to need tons of research to be done and books to be written about how to ameliorate this failure. Lots of work to do, in other words. And a nice big tribe is equivalent to lots of political power, when the tribe can be carefully groomed to think a certain way.

This is not the fault of teachers, but of the organizations that teachers trust. These organizations are actually willing to handicap teachers by withholding from them the tools for effective teaching while burdening them with obstacles to good teaching, such as integrated classrooms, beliefs about their responsibilities to be socially just, perpetually happy and loved, and politically correct, and a toxic work environment marked by battles such as the constant FSA campaigns and job actions of one sort or another. Rarely is this dreadful set-up the fault of the people in these nefarious organizations either. Organizations simply are what they are and they do what they do: they grow and seek to own and defend territory. Even the people in them can no more deviate the organization from its primal urge than the rest of us can.

What we see below is a case in which the central issue in education battles - the pedagogy - has been put before the courts, and the outcome is as clear as any education reformer has ever found it to be. Simply put, the pedagogy stinks. And furthermore, that trustees have a clear responsibility to be a line of defense against failure, not facilitators of this devious and frankly evil agenda (my words, not the judge's).

Finally, another lesson is embodied in this court case because again, it is brought forward by a citizen. As has come up more than once in conversation on Janet Steffenhagen's blog, in a democracy it is the job of citizens to hold politicians accountable through the courts. But our schtick in modern times, when we see mismanagement, conflict of interest, or other abominations such as the promotion of student failure taking place in public office is usually (a) to whine and wish that someone would "do something" and (b) to hope we can convince others to share our disgust and vote them out next time. We are so stupid about democracy; we just don't seem to get that all the freedom we have comes with a responsibility to act on what we see, not just to whine about it. We fall so easily for the lie that our vote is what holds politicians accountable. Our BC champion for teaching that this is not the case remains Cornelius Wynja. It seems he has a counterpart south of the border.



http://seattlemathgroup.blogspot.com/
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2010
Looking at the decision
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Martha McLaren
mmcl@pugetridge.net
206 762 2350

Decision Favors Plaintiffs in Court Challenge of Seattle High School Math Text Adoption

Seattle, Washington – February 4, 2010 – Judge Julie Spector today announced her finding of “arbitrary and capricious” in the Seattle School Board's May 6 vote to adopt the Discovering Math series of high school texts despite insufficient evidence of the series' effectiveness.

Judge Spector's decision states, “The court finds, based upon a review of the entire administrative record, that there is insufficient evidence for any reasonable Board member to approve the selection of the Discovering series.”

Plaintiffs DaZanne Porter, an African American and mother of a 9th-grade student in Seattle Public Schools, Martha McLaren, retired Seattle math teacher and grandparent of a Seattle Public Schools fifth grader, and Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington, had filed their appeal of the Board's controversial decision on June 5th, 2009. The hearing was held on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010.

Declared plaintiff Martha McLaren, “This is a sweet victory for the parents and students of Seattle Public Schools. It announces to Seattle that in this instance, the School District's practice of ignoring evidence, in favor of preconceived decisions, is arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The judge's finding may, hopefully, be a step towards improving high school math education through replacing confusing textbooks with coherent ones. However, students at all levels, not just in high school, badly need clear, understandable materials. In addition, it is essential that teachers, especially elementary teachers, understand fundamental math much more deeply than is now the norm. There is much work to be done to bring improvement; this decision is an encouraging development.

We are hopeful that the District will move forward responsibly, putting the students first, and will decline to appeal Judge Spector's decision. If the Board revisits its vote, as ordered by the court, and this time refuses to adopt Discovering, it seems possible that the textbook rated 2nd by the adoption committee, a series by Prentice Hall publishers which is well-regarded by critics of reform texts, might instead be recommended by Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson. The Seattle Public Schools could then begin undoing the long-term decline in math education that has been extended by this disastrous mistake.”

According to the plaintiffs' initial brief, Seattle Public Schools began eliminating "traditional" math texts in the 1990s, moving toward an approach called "reform," "discovery learning," or "constructivism," among other names. Reform texts rely heavily on written language, presenting complicated, “real-life” problems. Memorization and skills practice is de-emphasized, and calculator work is encouraged from kindergarten on. Students generally work in small groups to devise their own approaches and solutions. With traditional "explicit" texts, however, students are given the opportunity to master key topics through examples, practice and extensive teacher feedback.

The initial brief had stated that the district committee chosen to review mathematics textbooks was biased toward reform, and that the textbook criteria were similarly biased, so that the resulting recommendation would be a reform textbook. The plaintiffs also asserted that the board voted to adopt the Discovering textbook series in contradiction of information presented from community members prior to the vote.

Citizens testifying to the board prior to the May 6 vote emphasized that the Discovering textbook series had been rated “unsound” in a review conducted by the Washington State Board of Education, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction had passed over the Discovering program, instead recommending Holt Mathematics, a balanced textbook series featuring increased explicit instruction.

In Seattle, the movement toward reform texts has culminated in the adoption of the Everyday Math K-5 texts in 2007, Connected Mathematics Project (CMP2) texts for grades 6 – 8 in 2006, and the Discovering texts for high school in 2009 .

Attorney Keith Scully of Gendler and Mann, LLP, represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Even before the decision was announced, the plaintiffs voiced their unanimous admiration for his presentation of the appeal; his handling of the case was clearly crucial to the success of the project

>
>Da-Zanne Porter, Martha McLaren and Clifford >Mass v. Seattle School District #1 in King >County, State of WA, Board of Directors of >Seattle School District #1 and Maria >Goodloe-Johnson, Superintendent and Secretary of >the Board
>February 4, 2010
>
>
>Seattle School Board's May 2009 decision to >adopt Discovering Series inquiry-based math >textbooks for its high schools viewed by >Washington State Superior Court as both >arbitrary and capricious: "There is >insufficient evidence for any reasonable Board >member to approve the selection of the >Discovering Series."
>
>Among plaintiff's claims:
>
>- "Committee and board were predisposed towards >inquiry-based curriculum, regardless of evidence >of its failures."
>- WA State Constitution imposes an affirmative >duty not to discriminate (Article IX, Section 1 >"paramount duty of the [S]tate to make ample >provision for the education of all children >residing within its borders, without distinction >or preference on account of race, color, caste >or sex."
>- Selection committee's criteria was biased in favor of the Discovering Series
>- Committee's report "is rife with opinion and >conclusions [including statements that materials >supported gifted, ELL, special ed and education >gap students] but bereft of any analysis of data"
>
>Evidence court based its ruling on:
>
>1. District texbook selection committee's March 2009 recommendation
>2. WA State Board of Education's March 2009 >finding that the program was "mathematically >unsound" (plaintiffs claimed was that the school >board was aware of this)
>3. Superintendent's April report asking the board to adopt the series
>4. WA State Office of Public Instruction initial >ranking of it as #2, but subsequently (May 4th) >the WA State Superintendent of Public >Instruction recommended only one series (Holt, >not Discovering)
>
>[School board 4-3 vote was May 6, 2009.]
>
>5. National Math Panel Report
>
>6. Standardized test scores showing racial >achievement gap (plaintiffs claimed that nowhere >in the record was there any indication that the >district weighed standardized scores or the >achievement gap in considering which math texts >to choose)
>7. Standardized test scores from an experiment >with different inquiry-based math text books at >2 high schools showing standardized test scores >declining using inquiry-based math texts, >especially for English Language Learners, >including a 0% pass rate at one high school
>
>8. Citizen comments and expert reports >criticizing the effectiveness of inquiry-based >math and the Discovering Series
>9. Parent reports of difficulty teaching their >children using the Discovering Series and >inquiry-based math
>
>10. One board member considered the ability of >her own child to learn math using Discovering >Series (plaintiffs claimed that the child was >not a minority and gifted in math and based >his/her decision on her child's experiences with >the text rather than looking at standardized >test scores and other objective data for other >groups of students compared to other board >member who expressed concern about the impact >the series would have on ELL and students of >differing math abilities)
>
>_