New math books will help all students succeed

GUEST columnist Cliff Mass misrepresented the process by which Seattle Public Schools made textbook selections for mathematics as well as the makeup and function of the committee itself ["Seattle's shortsighted math curriculum," Opinion, May 31]. As a member of this committee whose decisions and credentials have become a popular target of columnists and talk-radio announcers, I would like to respond.

Mass states that no mathematicians or community members in mathematical careers were selected for this committee. He may not consider people involved in mathematics instruction to be mathematicians, but as a calculus and chemistry teacher, I consider myself to be one. Certainly he would consider the Seattle Pacific University mathematics professor who served on the committee on her own time a mathematician. Although she was not on the subcommittee that recommended the "Discovering" series of books for the core math classes, she did serve on the advanced committee that chose the precalculus and calculus texts by the same publisher, which follow a similar format to the "Discovering" books.

Furthermore, both committees participated jointly in the development of the selection criteria for these books. The district employees who served on the committee were all experienced math educators whose job requires they possess a combination of mathematics knowledge as well as the skills to be able to present it in a way that makes sense to adolescents.

The committee chair Mass mentions as not having a degree in mathematics was not involved in the actual textbook-selection decisions.

Her role was in making certain the process was followed correctly and fairly. She did an admirable job in guiding a group of mathematicians and community members with diverse opinions on math instruction through this process to a near consensus on all of the adoption decisions.

As for the books themselves, one has to wonder whether Mass or Times editorial writers or the various radio announcers predicting the impending "tragedy" in Seattle high schools have actually looked at these books beyond reading the word "Discovering" in their titles. If they had taken the trouble to review these books, they would see that the key curriculum "Discovering" books as well as the precalculus and calculus books that were selected were actually a combination of a traditional math textbook, with examples and ample practice problems, as well as some very well-designed and effective learning activities. I have used the calculus text in this series with great success over the past three years.

I applied to be on this selection committee because I share Mass's concerns that a mathematics curriculum that relies exclusively on inquiry learning would be adopted. The failure of the Interactive Mathematics Program curriculum (a genuine "Discovery" math curriculum) at a nearby district attests to the ineffectiveness of relying exclusively on this teaching strategy. I do not believe that a curriculum that teaches to any one learning style, be it inquiry learning or the traditional lecture/drill routine, is a good choice in a classroom where the goal is for all students to succeed.

The books that were chosen as the final candidates were available for public review for at least a month before the committee's recommendation. Anyone who followed this process, had the opportunity to view and make comments on these books. Certainly, all of these people who are now expressing their concerns should have done this during the review process.

As a Seattle mathematics educator, I am thankful the School Board made a decision to adopt new math textbooks. We can now dispense with the 20-year-old books that we rely on for many of our math courses. By choosing a book that is "middle of the road" rather than adopting a book that focuses on either of the two extremes of math-teaching philosophies was the correct decision in achieving our goal of all students succeeding in mathematics.