Critics are suing over a curriculum that stresses math “investigations” For decades, critics of “new math”–as it’s been variously interpreted over the years–have generated heated controversy over the right way to teach a subject that perpetually confounds many students. Usually that debate takes place in the press, at school board meetings and over parent and teacher coffee klatches–not in the courtroom. At a hearing tomorrow morning, however, opponents of Seattle Public Schools’ math curriculum will ask a King County Superior Court judge to throw out the district’s choice for teaching high school students. Even the plaintiffs’ lawyer admits that it’s a long shot. “No judge wants to second guess the school board,” says Keith Scully, who represents the critics, including University of Washington atmospheric science professor Cliff Mass. Mass says he and fellow plaintiffs nevertheless decided to pursue the matter in court out of “desperation. We did everything else we could,” says the UW professor, adding critics testified at school board hearings and tried to get on curriculum committees. The district picked the “Discovery” series anyway last May. Those textbooks, like others used in elementary and middle schools, downplay traditional math formulas in favor of student “investigations” that explore different ways of solving a problem. A state Board of Education study criticized that approach, saying that it dispenses with the practical notion that one method is better than any other. (See pdf of study here.) Photo by Steven DewallMass makes a stand.Mass says simply that students aren’t learning with that approach, as evidenced by the abysmal math skills of his own students. Legally, the plaintiffs’ case rests on two arguments. One is that the district’s pick of the “Discovery” series–was “arbitrary and capricious.” The law sets that standard as the bar for court intervention in school affairs. To meet it, Scully says, the judge must determine that “no reasonable person could have made the same decision.” That seems unlikely.Plaintiffs are also arguing that the curriculum violates the state constitution’s guarantee of equal education. Their evidence rests in voluminous information testifying to a dismal achievement gap in math among whites and students of color. But this law has usually been applied to obviously relevant issues like bussing–not a particular math curriculum.Still, Scully maintains that his clients have a chance at the hearing, will rely on records rather than testimony of witnesses. “The advantage to us is that there’s not a lot in the record supporting the pick of this series,” he says. District spokesperson Patti Spencer-Watkins said she had no comment at this time on the case.