From a Publisher's Perspective: Restrictive Curriculum Adoption Policy Adds Fuel to California's Math and Science Teacher Shortage

I am Steven Rasmussen, a Founder and President of Key Curriculum Press and Key College Publishing. Based in California, since 1971 we have published textbooks, software, and supplementary materials used by schools and universities around the world. Some of you may be familiar with our products including The Geometer's Sketchpad, Fathom, Discovering Geometry, or Teaching and Learning Middle Grades Mathematics, College Algebra. As a business, Key Curriculum Press is affiliated with Springer, the world's largest publisher of scientific books and the second largest publisher of scientific journals. I have consulted with Ministries of Education in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, China, and Brunei on the use of discovery-based technology in mathematics education.

Like others, for many years I have sounded the alarm regarding the critical shortage of mathematics and science teachers, especially in our urban schools.

As a publisher specializing in mathematics, statistics, mathematics education, and recently science, my recurring nightmare is that as we learn to produce better and better materials and tools for educating our children in these critical disciplines, we find ourselves with fewer and fewer adults equipped or allowed to use them.

Last week I was invited to testify before the California Assembly Committee on Education regarding the adoption process for instructional materials in California. In my testimony I said:

I have come to tell you today, that from this publisher's perspective, based on all of my experience, California's textbook adoption requirements and processes are the most restrictive and political in the nation . . . Only California, however, prescribes the specific form of presentation, pedagogy of instruction, textbook format, use of technology . . . which publishers can use in state-adopted texts. No other adoption state in the nation has a document like California's Mathematics Framework Chapter 10: Criteria for Evaluating Mathematics Instructional Materials. No other state in the country surpasses California in discouraging the use of instructional technology. With its techno-phobic Mathematics Framework Chapter 9: The Use of Technology, California essentially forces publishers to write widely used school technology out of adopted texts. No other state in the nation has forced publishers to strip, at substantial cost, references to the Principles and Standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, a professional organization of 100,000 mathematics educators, from the pages of its teachers' editions.

In the area of mathematics and science, for almost a decade, the policies of our California State Board of Education have amounted to open season on inquiry-based, hands-on, minds-on science. Many in this room have shared my frustration at this illogical and tragic turn.

On Monday and Tuesday of this week I participated in the National Science Foundations' 2006 Math, Science and Technology Developers Conference, a gathering of over 200 academics and scientists representing virtually every active group funded by NSF in the area of K-12 curriculum development. Wonderful scientists from several CSU campuses were among those gathered. By my calculation, in attendance at the conference were the authors and developers of the mathematics and science curricula currently used by approximately 30 percent of the nation's children. Fresh from my experience before the California Assembly, I polled those in attendance regarding their experiences in California schools. The responses were predictable- virtually every group that had an opportunity to submit materials for adoption in California passed on the state. Typical was the statement of Dr, Robert Tinker, physicist, former President of TERC, now President of The Concord Consortium:

The adoption process in California is a major barrier to getting innovative, tested, research-based curricula into schools nationwide. It accomplishes exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do, which is to ensure that California children get quality educational resources. Instead, it bars all but the richest students from gaining access to such materials. There are materials in mathematics and science that, with appropriate teacher professional development, could significantly improve student performance in mathematics and science. The adoption process prevents those materials from being used in California.

Incidentally, Bob is the inventor of educational probes and probeware like those sold by Texas Instruments and PASCO Scientific, used today in science classrooms around the world.

Perhaps some are wondering: Why do I raise these issues at this summit?

From my perspective, as the President of one of only a handful of U.S. companies that publish adopted mathematics textbooks for schools, the connection is simple: We will never succeed in attracting and retaining young people to teach in California schools, if we don't offer them exciting and engaging tools to use with their students. We will never encourage their development as professionals and educational leaders unless we allow them to select from the entire range of K-12 instructional materials and empower them to make the best curricular decisions for their students. And CSU will waste the talents, energy, and enthusiasm of its incredible teaching faculty if our state continues to shackle the prize products of our institutions of higher education by sending young science and mathematics teachers into schools forbidden to use 21st century, inquiry-based, materials, technology, and pedagogies. Is it any wonder that the attrition rate of new teachers is so frightening? By shackling our young math and science teachers to curriculum that does not address their students' needs (and often preventing them from teaching real science), we guarantee a level of frustration that will continue to drive the committed young people to other professions. Schools, students, and teachers need more flexibility in choosing curriculum.

At a summit of the Alameda County Workforce Investment Board several years ago, I learned that California ranked second from the bottom in the nation (ahead of Idaho) in the percentage of secondary mathematics teachers with a major or a minor in the discipline (49 percent). By the estimates of leading professional organizations, 50 percent of the young people who enter the teaching professions in urban schools quit after their first year, 75 percent within three years. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that in LA 61 percent of ninth graders received a D or an F in algebra 2004. Of the students who retook the course the next spring, only 25 percent passed. Faced with this situation, there are those who justify the use of prescriptive education-for both teachers and their students-as the only rational solution. But from my perspective, it guarantees that we will continue on our downward spiral. When we should be igniting an intellectual spark in young minds, we drive kids and teachers from school with mind-numbing routine.

Recently, I've helped found Business for Science, Mathematics and Related Technologies Education, or "B SMARTE," a new non-profit organization formed to educate and advocate for education policy change in Sacramento. I encourage my fellow business leaders at this summit to consider joining us in this initiative. I encourage all others here, especially the CSU Presidents, to lobby for changes in California's instructional materials adoption process. As we meet, the staff of the Assembly Education Committee is considering alternatives to the present system. They need to hear from you.

If you would like to get in touch with me regarding issues I've raised or to learn more about my company or B SMARTE, my email address is srasmussen@keypress.com.

Thank you.

Remarks prepared by Steven Rasmussen, President of Key Curriculum Press, for the California State University Mathematics and Science Teacher Summit on March 2, 2006.