Basics Included in Supplements:

The Quest 2000 basic textbook had to be supplemented by Addison-Wesley to fill in the basics such as computations, repetitive drills, introduction to basic concepts and procedures like division, fractions, etc. The first supplemental workbook has hand-out sheets that a teacher can use to provide the students computation drills, but the problems tend to be easy and there is a general lack sufficient examples to help students. These supplemental books have the look of an after-thought as they are many times inconsistent with concepts required to support the basic textbook problems. Many teachers have complained that the curriculum is not very cohesive and is difficult to coordinate between the basic textbook and the supplemental materials. In fact, many teachers have dropped the Addison-Wesley supplements altogether and have either gone back to last years traditional textbooks for basic skills, or their own supplements from previous years. The basic textbooks only provide the Problems of the Week (POWs), which are oriented for cooperative learning techniques where groups of 2-4 students work together. The textbooks average about one word problem a page (although it should be noted the pages have lots of illustrations - in fact there are way more illustrations than problems!). However, it seems that with all the illustrations that the publisher did not have room for all the staples of a traditional textbook, such as explanations to important concepts that are required to solve the POWs.

Strengths of The Curriculum:

The basic textbook is organized into units that parallel the 8 mathematics strands identified in the Framework. Most of the material is well organized and certainly made bright and colorful through the liberal use of illustrations. There are also good units on important concepts like mean, modes and averages and pre-algebraic and probability concepts that are among its strong points. It should be noted that the pre-algebra and probability concepts are introduced starting at much earlier grades than the previous traditional curriculum. For example, in the 5th grade textbook there are problems where the student is introduced to the concept of equations with a single unknown variable. There are also units that contain problems that require ratios and percentages and introduce students to basic probability concepts. These more advanced topics are started earlier and strengthened each year with a little more depth. This approach is referred to as the spiral method where students are introduced to more advanced concepts earlier and the goal is to strengthen this foundation each year. It also provides additional chances for a student who does not pick up a concept initially more of an opportunity to grasp the knowledge.

Weaknesses of The Curriculum:

A few of the units do not seem very relevant to mathematics. For example, the 5th grade textbook has a whole unit on tessellation, which is mostly a cute but relatively pointless activity where students work with geometric patterns. Some of the basic flaws that many parents have pointed out are as follows: no definition of terms, no introduction to concepts, no similar problems or use of examples, no basic algorithms, facts, theorems, etc. that might help a child or parent solve the word problems. There were lots of complaints during the New Math nights the district held at each elementary school last year from parents stating they could not help their kids with these problems, since there was not even a definition of terms and concepts preceding each problem, much less examples that showed how to work similar problems. The district's solution to this problem was offered at the last New Math night held at my sons' school, where they provided a "special 2 week" offer that parents could sign-up to pay $15 for an Addison-Wesley supplemental book that was intended to help teachers. Seems kind of strange the publisher would think that only teachers needed to be provided this type of critical information!

My wife and I have privately talked to 6 teachers we know in the district about the Quest 2000 curriculum (either friends or past teachers of our older son) and all of them have reservations about this New Math curriculum and methodology changes. They either dislike it altogether, or think Quest 2000 would make good supplemental material to a traditional curriculum. However, we have found these teachers unwilling to take a public stand for fear of a number of perceived or real reactions. A recent issue of the Brea teacher’s newsletter warned teachers some dissension has surfaced in the community on the New Math curriculum, and that given the current climate of school voucher initiatives and school bashing they had better close ranks and not discuss problems with parents.

How to Fight Adoption of This Curriculum:

There may be some good concepts and techniques included in the Addison-Wesley Quest 2000 curriculum, but the negatives far outweigh the positives. It is an immature curriculum with substantial weaknesses that many teachers have had to supplement with basics from other traditional curriculum. The best tact to fight the adoption of this curriculum is to get hold of bill AB-170 that was signed into law in October, 1995 by Pete Wilson. Bill AB-170 mandates that school districts for grades 1-8 adopt text books that have basics (not just supplements that have basics) for both mathematics and reading. It specifically calls out for a direct and systematic teaching of phonics (including usage of phonemes, decoding and blending skills) and spelling that may come as a shock to some recalcitrant districts that have not gotten the word that Whole Language is dead and are scratching their heads over why many of their students can not read proficiently by 3rd-4th grade (we have a school district right next door to Brea that falls in this category).

AB-170 also states that math computation and repetitive drill must be included in the textbooks. There is a provision for state supplied money for districts that bought material that conformed to the maligned 1992 Framework, so that new textbooks that meet AB-170 requirements can be bought (we are looking into how a district gets these funds, but do not have details yet). Bottom line is that the 1992 Framework problems have finally been acknowledged by the California School Board of Education and the Board Superintendent, Delaine Eastin, who went as far as requesting a special out-of-cycle revision. Addison-Wesley Quest 2000 was written expressly to meet the 1992 Framework, and is weak in presenting basic skills that have been mandated by bill AB-170 and strongly expressed by Delaine Eastin as one of the main reasons she requested the Framework revision. Although it appears that Eastin may not get her requested Math Framework revision, she did write a letter that was sent on Dec-5-1995 to every district in California to stress they maintain a curriculum that contains a balanced approach of directed and cooperative learning, along with strong foundation of basics (e.g. computations, repetitive drills, memorization of addition, times tables, etc.) in conjunction with complex/analytic thought problems. There is a more detailed letter that Eastin is following up with more specific recommendations that should be distributed by March. The Addison-Wesley Quest 2000 curriculum decidedly does meet Eastin’s recommendations.

This bill is part of the shift back to basics that has built further momentum in December with Delaine Eastin calling for a revision of the 1992 Math Framework, not to mention the special attention basics warranted in Pete Wilson's State of the State address. Unfortunately, the Curriculum Committee decided in late January that the Language/Arts Framework is a larger disaster and requires an immediate rewrite, and that Eastin’s Board of Education does not have the resources to support two major efforts concurrently. One would be hard pressed to argue this point given the job they did on the 1985 Language/Arts and 1992 Mathematics’ Framework that did not overlap. The Curriculum Committee also took into account the schedule for the on-going state-wide hearings on NCTM standards that provide input for the Frameworks, and determined the results could best be factored into the Mathematics Framework if the current 1998 revision date was retained. Steve Baldwin, the Chairman of the House Education Committee, in early February requested that districts that are currently up for mathematics adoption hold off on purchasing math curriculum until his committee holds a special hearing on the Mathematics Framework in March. This hearings could result in recommendations that affect how mathematics curriculum is selected and he cautioned districts to wait until the findings of this hearing are released before making new math textbook selections.

If your school district is contemplating adopting this or similar curriculum, you should impress upon them how premature it would be to adopt curriculum that does not meet current law, and probably will not meet the recommendations of Baldwin’s special hearing on the subject scheduled for March. Impress upon them that the School Board of Education is trying hard to prevent the Whole Language disaster caused by the 1987 Language/Art Framework that discouraged phonics and spelling at all grades, and has resulted in California sinking to a tie for dead last in reading skills with Louisiana. This is based upon results from the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test given to 8th graders nation-wide by 39 states. Fight this adoption before the decision is made and money spent - after this point the district has a vested interest and it is much tougher to make changes.