Everyday Math?

Published: 01-04-08

Gary Scharrer's Dec. 13 article in the Houston Chronicle, “Math publisher appeals state's rejection of textbook,” needs clarification.

Nothing that the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) did was in secret.

The SBOE debated Everyday Math (Grade 3) for two days, Thursday and Friday, Nov. 15 and 16, 2007. Reasons were given as to why the majority of those SBOE members present and voting (which is the legal requirement) rejected the textbook.

Any member of the public who would like to listen to those deliberations may do so by going to the Texas Education Agency web site (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/audio_archived.html) where the audio tapes for board meetings are archived.

Further, most parents and educators agree that math is not a Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative issue. It is an issue of teaching all elementary children how to perform well the four math functions (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) so that they can be successful once they get to more advanced math courses.

Mrs. Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, a member of the SBOE, has been quoted saying that the majority of the SBOE members broke or blatantly ignored the law by rejecting the Everyday Math (Grade 3) textbook: “I do feel that a law was broken or blatantly ignored.

Ms. Miller's memory may need to be prompted.

On Nov. 9, 2001, Miller herself voted with the SBOE majority 10-5 to reject an environmental science textbook written by Daniel D. Chiras. She felt rightly that this textbook was unsuitable for Texas public schools.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice sued the SBOE on behalf of Daniel Chiras in a case that became known as Chiras v. Miller. Ms. Miller is the "Miller" in the legal citation.

This case was upheld in favor of the SBOE by the lower court, and then was appealed to the federal court. Three federal judges in Chiras v. Miller 432 F. 3d. 606 (5th Cir. 2005) issued an opinion which reconfirmed the SBOE's authority to reject a textbook:

Designing the curriculum and selecting textbooks is a core function of the SBOE. It is necessary for the Board to exercise editorial judgment over the content of the instructional materials it selects for use in the public school classrooms, and the exercise of that discretion will necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Board members.

The purpose of the Board is not to establish a forum for the expression of the views the various authors of textbooks and other instructional materials might want to interject into the classroom. Further, the Board has a statutory obligation under Texas law to exercise that discretion in order to promote the state’s chosen message through the Board’s educational policy.

Ms. Miller cannot have it both ways. Either she agrees with the Chiras v. Miller ruling which states that the SBOE has the authority to reject a textbook, or she does not.

Also as a point of clarification, while Ms. Miller was chair, she sought an opinion from the Attorney General's office on the definition of “majority.” The AG said that a majority is composed of those members who are present and voting -- not a majority of the total number of elected SBOE members.

Lest Ms. Miller and other people doubt the SBOE's authority to reject a textbook, the Texas Education Code (TEC) clearly states that it is the duty of the SBOE members to exercise their authority in determining both the curriculum and textbooks for Texas public schools.

“And” means “and.” Lawyers understand the impact of this language.

This is the reason that the Texas Education Agency lawyers did not attempt to intervene in the SBOE's decision to reject the math textbook in question.

§ 31.023. TEXTBOOK LISTS. (a) For each subject and grade level, the State Board of Education shall adopt two lists of textbooks. The conforming list includes each textbook submitted for the subject and grade level that meets applicable physical specifications adopted by the State Board of Education and contains material covering each element of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level as determined by the State Board of Education under Section 28.002 and adopted under Section 31.024. The nonconforming list includes each textbook submitted for the subject and grade level that:

(1) meets applicable physical specifications adopted by the State Board of Education;
(2) contains material covering at least half, but not all, of the elements of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level; and
(3) is adopted under Section 31.024.
(b) Each textbook on a conforming or nonconforming list must be free from factual errors.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, § 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

§ 31.024. ADOPTION BY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION. (a) By majority vote, the State Board of Education shall:

(1) place each submitted textbook on a conforming or nonconforming list; or
(2) reject a textbook submitted for placement on a conforming or nonconforming list.
(b) Not later than December 1 of the year preceding the school year for which the textbooks for a particular subject and grade level will be purchased under the cycle adopted by the board under Section 31.022, the board shall provide the lists of adopted textbooks to each school district. Each nonconforming list must include the reasons an adopted textbook is not eligible for the conforming list.

In summary, SBOE members did present publicly their objections to Everyday Math (Grade 3), the 5th Circuit Court has ruled that the SBOE does have the authority to reject a textbook, the AG has clarified the definition of “majority”, and the TEC makes it very clear that the SBOE has the right to reject a textbook.