Court of Appeals Reverses Previous Math Adoption Ruling
The Court of Appeals for Washington State has ruled that the School Board's adoption of Discovery math was not "arbitrary capricious or contrary to law."
From the ruling:
Those challenging the Board decision bear a heavy burden, particularly because it was based on complex and technical factual matters at the heart of the Board's Arbitrary and capricious agency action is "wilful and unreasoning action, action without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case. Action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration where there is room for two opinions, however much it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion was reached.
The Court found that the Board did not fail to give honest consideration to the "alleged deficiencies of the Discovering series". It went through, item by item, of the plaintiffs issues with the decision. One interesting item:
The challengers believe the supporters of the Discovering series lack credibility. But it is not the role of a reviewing court to weigh the credibility of experts.
A point I find lacking:
They argue that the evidence of declining test scores proves that ample education is not being provided for all students and that racial minorities are disproportionately damaged by inquiry-based math
But article 9, by its express language, places a duty only on the State, not on school districts.
Well, that's a little tortured, no? The districts exist because of the State and its laws about education.
I appreciate the effort that the plantiffs put into this challenge. The Court points out that there is evidence for both sides that the Discovering math series could hurt or help student achievement in math. Time will tell.
From the ruling:
Those challenging the Board decision bear a heavy burden, particularly because it was based on complex and technical factual matters at the heart of the Board's Arbitrary and capricious agency action is "wilful and unreasoning action, action without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case. Action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration where there is room for two opinions, however much it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion was reached.
The Court found that the Board did not fail to give honest consideration to the "alleged deficiencies of the Discovering series". It went through, item by item, of the plaintiffs issues with the decision. One interesting item:
The challengers believe the supporters of the Discovering series lack credibility. But it is not the role of a reviewing court to weigh the credibility of experts.
A point I find lacking:
They argue that the evidence of declining test scores proves that ample education is not being provided for all students and that racial minorities are disproportionately damaged by inquiry-based math
But article 9, by its express language, places a duty only on the State, not on school districts.
Well, that's a little tortured, no? The districts exist because of the State and its laws about education.
I appreciate the effort that the plantiffs put into this challenge. The Court points out that there is evidence for both sides that the Discovering math series could hurt or help student achievement in math. Time will tell.
Comments
Adding to what you noted in the ruling Melissa, it strikes me as odd that, as discussed on page 10, the Appeals Court considers the Board being "aware" of strong negative evidence on the effectiveness of Discovery Math as being the same as giving that evidence "due consideration" before acting.
Here is the section of the ruling for that:
Arbitrary and capricious agency action is "wilful and unreasoning action, action without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case. Action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration where there is room for two opinions, however much it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion was reached." Sweitzer v. Indus. Ins. Comm'n, 116 Wash. 398, 401, 199 P. 724 (1921).
Applying this standard to the record before us, we cannot find that the Board failed to give honest consideration to the alleged deficiencies of the Discovering series. The Board was aware that Harel and Wilson viewed the books as "mathematically unsound." The Board was aware that the state superintendent did not select the Discovering series as its final recommendation. And the Board was aware of anecdotal evidence that many teachers and parents have difficulty using inquiry-based math and find its methods ineffective. But the Board was also aware that other mathematicians viewed the books favorably. The adoption committee, including experienced high school math teachers among the district's own staff, recommended the Discovering series because it supported flexibility in instruction methods, including explicit mathematics instruction for struggling students.
LawDawg
Right Melissa, the judge adequately addressed the issue of declining test scores. You can't just point to a book and say, "Aha!There it is, the problem! That's whose fault it is."
Same with the teachers, right? Some would blame the teachers, others would blame the books. The point is, it's a huge burden of proof, and one Dan didn't make.
From the case:
The challengers also contend that given the evidence in the record of declining math test scores, the Board had no reasonable alternative except to disapprove the Discovering series. But the evidence was not that compelling. It was based on a different series of textbooks and did not attempt to rule out other variables. The record provides some support for the argument that the Discovering series will perpetuate and worsen the gaps in math achievement between high and low performing groups of students, but it also provides some support for the argument that it will help Seattle schools overcome those gaps.
On this record, there was ample room for two opinions.
Obviously right.
And no Melissa, time will not tell. No matter what happens with math test scores, or math achievement gap, time will NOT just tell the answer. It still will NOR be easy to ferret out which factors contribute to the future changes in performance. Somebody else could say it was all because of TFA, or any of a myriad of other issues.
-Get a move on.
Black Student pass rate in math at grade 10 declined to 12.5%
Limited English Speaking Student pass rate in math at grade 10 declined by 4.5% in a year when the state rate for ELL rose by 1%.
There is very little done in education by intelligently applying relevant data.
Great of the Court to confirm this fact for us all.
WA State Constitution Article IX section 1:
"It is the paramount duty of the state 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."
Meaningless!!
========
It seems the first action of all levels of government is to protect the government from the people. This ruling is great evidence of that.
" but it also provides some support for the argument that it will help Seattle schools overcome those gaps. "
I seem to have missed that..... apparently the high schools missed it as well ... check the 2010 data.
RBHS Black pass rate 3.9%
Cleveland Black pass rate 5.7%
==========
Law Dawg is correct ...
Oligarchs win again ... no surprise ...
Republic still remains scoreless.
State Constitution remains a meaningless document for educationally disadvantaged learners.
Welcome to NSAP ... the next version of separate and increasingly unequal.
Vern Williams the only k-12 teacher on the National Math Advisory Panel has a few well chosen thoughts on Math teachers and where this is headed.
Appropriately titled "Let Us Teach".
"Studies have shown that it is not the race of the students that is significant, but rather the improved all-around environment of schools with better teachers, fewer classroom disruptions, pupils who are more engaged academically, parents who are more involved, and so on. The poorer students benefit from the more affluent environment. “It’s a much more effective way of closing the achievement gap,” said Mr. Kahlenberg."
Seattle has decided to use inappropriate instructional math materials and confine students to in many cases high poverty environments. The Courts tell us these are legal practices. I think the School Board hardly deserves congratulations on their recent legal victory. This victory will continue to allow them to inadequately serve educationally disadvantaged learners. The State Constitution is a complete Joke for the educationally disadvantaged student.
Any thoughts on the coming "NEWS" appeal?
Network for Excellence in Washington Schools.
It is the state's paramount duty 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"
...and equally comforted to learn that the schools themselves labor under no such burden.
/So; after we finish re-segregating schools, do we put all the girls back in home-ec classes and the poor kids in shop classes?
Observer
The essence of the decision is that it is trivially easy for the Board to perform its role in any decision-making process, almost any level of effort would suffice.
In that case, it would seem that the decision of this appeals court was made from the start.
"NSAP isn't making most schools resegregated as Seattle's neighborhoods are diverse.
You might want to check the latest census. Not so much in the north end except in the far north.
One question I have - is this the Sherry Carr daughter who went to KUMON? If she is somehow held up as the test case for whether the damn book works or not (which is silly because Sherry has a white affluent family paying for KUMON), we should definitely note whether sher daughter built her math skills through explicit instruction at KUMON. In lieu of KUMON I recommend folks check out edhelper.com Just $25 a year and you can help your kids build their mastery of basic math skills through explicit instruction without the high cost of a tutor or KUMON.
Observer
The court found the (and so have I) that the math materials support several ways to teach math. Teachers and experts testified that it was possible to teach using a variety of methods, and that that possibility was indeed a reason for it's selection in the first place. The court didn't have to decide why there was an acheivement gap. That wasn't the issue before the court. The issue was about the materials selection process. If there is a disagreement, it isn't capricious, or willful neglect, when there is a decision that may have had a different outcome.
If somebody wants to sue the district on behalf of underacheiving students, because they haven't gotten necessary instruction or remediation, that would be fine and great. Unfortunately, that wasn't this case.
Get A Move On
The data might show, in the end, that the choice of textbook was wrong, but it can't show that it was "arbitrary and capricious." It's a relief that the court didn't set standards that would cripple the ability of administrative bodies to make any decisions at all (even about a textbook, which isn't a huge one, as far as I'm concerned).
I also thought the court decision was very well written, cogent, coherent, and thorough. I'd love to know who wrote it (do these judges have clerks?).
The court listed the lengthy debate that went into the decision. The district did pick an actual curriculum. It didn't suggest that kids or teachers do something that had NO research backing it. Research isn't always conclusive. It didn't go with some fly by night thing, or decide on something that has never been used by many other districts.
But you are right. It is a very high bar to prove that a decision is arbitrary or capricious. That is exactly the high bar we want. We don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry second guessing every decision the district makes because he didn't get to make it. Notable that the challenger ran for school board and was rejected because we, the voters, do not want him making those decisions.
The challengers have not met their heavy burden of showing that the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law.
Get A Move On
Likewise, the Court ruled that the Board only needs to have heard about the opposition to the texts to be regarded by the Court as having considered those facts and arguments. No lower bar can be imagined. It seems that be getting up and making the argument against the books, the opponents put this Court decision out of reach.
In the Weird Upside-Down Wonderland of this law, it is possible that the opponents of the adoption might have had a case if they had kept their mouths shut about the reasons to oppose the textbooks. Then they could argue that the Board never heard - or considered - the reason to oppose the adoption and therefore didn't consider them.
Or have I fallen through the looking glass?
Well of course!!!! If you're going to sue somebody, you don't go blabbing about all your reasons why. Even a nit wit knows that. And the endless blabbing itself meant that everybody had to consider the point, which obviated the challengers case in the first place.
Another Parent
More recently, during the annual disclosure of possible conflicts of interest, she announced that both her daughters have after school jobs at Kumon.
Dan, I think the NEWS case won't be over until it reaches the Supreme Court. Hope that the NEWS folks keep winning.
Law Dawg
ZB, I agree it was a well-written decision in that for once, the average person could read it and clearly understand the issues and the arguments and the Court's decision.