There’s something missing from Seattle classrooms, says the UW’s own celebrity atmospheric-sciences professor, Cliff Mass. Mass is a member of Where’s the Math?, a coalition of concerned parents and community members who oppose the currently used math curriculum in Seattle public high schools. Where’s the Math? struck a major victory Thursday when a King County Superior Court judge ruled that the Seattle School Board should take another look at its decision to use the controversial Discovering series of texts.

Sound familiar? Another local uproar leading to a fairly toothless result that’s blown wildly out of proportion? I think it’s time we had a nonbinding, tax-funded special election regarding whether we should recommend a non-renewal of the current policy of indecisive politics. Or at least, we should pay for a panel of experts to discuss the possibility of such a vote.

In reading the judge’s decision — decision might be too strong a word — one might mistake it for actual politics.

“The Board’s selection of the Discovering series was arbitrary,” the decision reads. “The Board’s selection of the Discovering series was capricious.”

Holy cow, these seem like some terse political findings. Unfortunately, “arbitrary” and “capricious,” although apt words to describe the Discovering series, are selected more for their legal significance than their loaded connotations.

The decision also notes that “the court has jurisdiction under RCW 28A.645.010 to evaluate the board’s decision for whether it is arbitrary or capricious.”

Oh. So, what some newspapers are flashing as political name calling is actually just a necessary step in proving that the court has jurisdiction to even say whatever it is that is said. How … feckless.

Mass’ question is, “Where’s the math?” My question is, “Where’s the wrath?” It’s been maligned frequently in light of the proposed budget cuts to the UW, but Seattle’s hallmark passivity has left us unable to say anything about anything.

So here’s what you need to know about the Discovering series. It’s been deemed “mathematically unsound” by a Washington State Board of Education report. It’s a curriculum based on “inquiry,” which means that it obscures math behind language, putting students who are also learning English at a severe disadvantage. It also hinders the teacher’s ability to effectively intervene on behalf of the student, since so much of the emphasis is placed upon “personal discovery.”

In effect, it takes the math out of the curriculum, but equally hazardous, it removes the math instructor. It’s like sending a student home with a heuristic worksheet and a nonbinding recommendation to review their previous understanding.

So, do I think that the Discovering series should be abandoned in favor of a math-based curriculum? Absolutely. Or, at least, I think that we should think about leading a group of education experts along a discovering-based exploration to the conclusion we already know.

Reach columnist Zachary Gussin at opinion@dailuw.com.