"This is a kind of judicial activism, and as a method of selecting or rejecting math books it makes us uneasy. Normally a judge would defer to the School Board. But the four members on the School Board who voted for the books were deferring as well.
In the crucial School Board meeting last May, none of the four members voting for Discovering — Cheryl Chow, Steve Sundquist, Peter Maier and Sherry Carr — argued that the constructivist method of teaching is superior. They accepted a decision presented to them."
I don't see this as judicial activism because it wasn't selecting or judging the quality of the math materials. It was judging the quality of the process used to select them. That the Times felt the Board deferred to staff on the the selection is more to the point.
Interestingly, here's why the Times support this ruling:
The Seattle Times is not in the business of choosing math books. We do have an ear to the ground — and what we hear when we publish articles critical of reform math is unmistakable. Parents loathe reform math. The letters we receive from math tutors and Boeing engineers, in particular, are almost 100 percent against this curriculum.
Don't appeal the ruling. Review the decision and vote again.
Will wonders never cease?