California Schools to Open New Chapter on Reading, Math Books

Call it a classic cart-before-the-horse tale.

California’s vaunted new standards for reading and math have been on the books for a year and a half, but educators do not yet have classroom materials for teaching them. Nevertheless, the state’s standardized exam--the Stanford 9--tested students on the guidelines in recent weeks.

Those materials could soon be on the way.

The California Board of Education plans to decide this week which of hundreds of reading and math textbooks submitted by publishers merit approval for use in kindergarten through eighth grade.

School districts will then be free to begin spending the $1 billion--or $43 per pupil annually for the next four years--that state legislators authorized for standards-based instructional materials intended to pull California students out of the academic cellar.

The selection process involved an unusually rigorous review of content, which has gotten short shrift in the past. As a result, many publishers’ submissions, especially in the math category, did not pass muster.

Hung Hsi-Wu, a UC Berkeley mathematics professor who reviewed two dozen entries, said he found the math in most of them to be deplorable. Jim Milgram, a Stanford professor on the panel, said it was difficult to find any acceptable books in the algebra sequence.

In addition to errors in arithmetic, mathematicians said, some textbooks wrongly or vaguely defined basic terms such as “parallel.”

“The ones I rejected were so bad I felt like tearing them to pieces,” Wu said.

Some publishers complained that the accelerated approval schedule left too little time to pore over the standards and tailor new materials to them. A handful of publishers proposed materials that had recently been approved in Texas, with few if any changes for California.

Other publishers, however, spotted an opportunity to go after a sizable textbook pot. Houghton Mifflin retooled its existing MathSteps program, creating a link between materials already in classrooms and the new standards.

“It’s an $8 book that fills in the gap instead of a $40 book,” said Ray A. Shepard, editor-in-chief of math and science in the Boston-based publisher’s school division.

Filling in the gaps was largely what legislators had in mind when they voted in September to speed the process of replacing textbooks so teachers could push ahead with the new standards. Publishers had only until March to prepare their submissions.

For the first time in decades, legislators authorized the state education board to select partial courses of study to help schools shore up weak spots in existing lessons. For example, school districts will be able to buy programs focused on basic skills such as phonics or spelling.

The decision to allow adoption of partial courses attracted myriad additional publishers and drove up the number of offerings. In language arts, publishers made 213 submissions; there were 87 in math.

Previously, the largest number of submissions in language arts was 22, all of them comprehensive programs, said Greg Geeting, a consultant to the state Department of Education.

Materials went through three levels of scrutiny. First, they were reviewed by panels composed mostly of current classroom teachers and a few parents, appointed by the state board. For only the second time, materials also were judged by a content review panel made up of university professors, handpicked by the board, who looked for accuracy, clarity and consistency with the standards.

Relatively few of the submissions, which included everything from computer software to song tapes and magnetic letters, got the nod from both groups. In math, for example, only four got a straight yes, with 18 others approved on the condition that numerous changes be made. Sixty-five submissions were rejected.

The offerings then went before the state Curriculum Commission, which recommended approval of many more items. Among math materials, 15 were approved outright, with 18 winning a conditional OK; decisions on eight others were postponed until later this month, and the number of rejected offerings shrank to 46.

The board, which approves materials for kindergarten through eighth grade, need not follow the commission’s recommendations. It’s a good bet that some items upgraded by the Curriculum Commission will fail to win support.

“I feel safe in saying that if the [content review panel] CRP said no, the math is definitely unacceptable,” said Wu, the Berkeley mathematics professor who is a panel member. “If we say no, I would guess in most cases the state board would agree with us.”

Janet Nicholas, a member of the state board who is particularly passionate about improving math instruction, would not speculate on how closely the board is likely to follow the commission’s recommendations.

However, she said, given the enormous amount of money at stake, the board has a great responsibility to ensure that whatever is adopted complies with standards and “is scholarly and does not have errors.”

“We have a profound fiduciary responsibility for 5 million schoolchildren,” she added.

In some ways, it is not surprising that many publishers failed to knock themselves out to fashion new offerings, despite California’s importance as a market. It can cost anywhere from $30 million to $65 million and take many months to develop a full-scale math or reading program.

Publishers also will soon have another chance. California plans adoptions of comprehensive programs in 2001 for math and 2002 for reading.

Moreover, publishers have had a rocky history with California, which many observers contend has itself to blame for much of the academic degradation in recent years. The state tends to be out in front on big swings in education reform. Publishers, as a result, have found themselves whipsawed by shifts.

In the past, California has gained a reputation for giving more weight to a book’s looks than to its content.

The last time math books were adopted, when California set out to make math more entertaining for children, many big publishers got shut out because their books weren’t “soft” enough. Now many of those same publishers are being squeezed out for not being oriented enough toward basic skills.

Two adoption cycles ago in language arts, when whole language was all the rage, Houghton Mifflin took much of the market and later was blamed when the method fell out of favor. On the next go-round, whole-language texts were tossed out in favor of books skewed toward phonics and other reading basics.

Some publishers made the most of this new opportunity and saw the gamble pay off. Hampton-Brown, a small Carmel house best known for supplemental materials for English learners, spotted the trend back toward phonics in California and nationally.

After scrutinizing California’s standards, it made major modifications in its phonics program for kindergarten through second grade. The program was endorsed by all involved and is expected to be approved by the board.

After the board votes on this current adoption, probably Thursday, it is unclear how quickly districts will act.

“Many districts have delayed [textbook purchases],” consultant Geeting said. “There’s a real pent-up demand to buy materials.”

Still, Nicholas noted, many will have to wrestle with how best to spend their funds. Should they embrace partial programs as a stopgap, or go for a complete program that they might use for a short time? Or does it make more sense to wait and apply the funds toward science books when new ones get adopted next March?

Regardless of what they decide, Nicholas said this round of textbook adoptions is a significant first step on the road to education based on first-class standards. But her optimism is tempered.

“I have high hopes,” she said, “but the reason I’m cautious is that there are very few materials that really provide a total package that is up to the standards and are what students need and deserve.”

*

Times staff writer Duke Helfand contributed to this story.