Loading...
Title : Science Adoption Work Session
link : Science Adoption Work Session
Science Adoption Work Session
Below is my email to the Board about the Work Session. I was quite surprised at the finger-wagging and hostility exhibited by some members of the different committees.This email covers most of the highlights. I note that it did not seem like Board directors had sufficient time to ask questions but maybe that was by design when you have 130 pages of documentation to cover.
Text of email
As I told my readers, in my long, long experience in the district I thought I had heard and seen it all. Yesterday's Work Session marks a new experience. It marks the time that I have seen the most hostility towards and lecturing to Board members at a Work Session.
I would first say that:
1) No one is saying that science adoptions aren't long overdue and
2) That staff and the adoption committees haven't work very, very hard.
But I also want to state that it is long overdue for the Board to take back what are called "Board Work Sessions." Why does staff run them, control them, and decide how much time there is for questions? Astonishing.
Where to start with that Work Session?
- Kyle Kinoshita, in acknowledging the tsunami of information before you, says they might not have time to answer all the questions but are available afterwards. Isn't that what the Work Session is for?
- Ms. DeBacker says this is an "airtight" process but she hasn't been here that long. Given that initially staff was trying to push this thru as an "alignment" to cut you out of the decision, I'm not sure that's actually true.
- Ms. Toner says they didn't intend for you "to memorize this (the documentation) now." That's good because again, a tsunami of info. What's interesting is that some of you actually asked for information that was not there like benchmarking.
- The SPS 9-12 Adoption RFI Vendor page looked completely different from the K-8 page. Why was that?
- Brad Shigenaka actually said that he and he alone managed "the data" including arranging the RFPs, the committee applications and the ballots for votes. Is that SOP at SPS? Because that's a lot for one person to make decisions about. (I know he didn't mean overseeing the RFPs.)
I also note that Brad is co-chair with me of ITAC. He mentioned when he ran as co-chair that he was on the Adoption committee but not the scope.
For the future, I ask that, except for staff, no one serves on more than one committee especially not in high-level capacities. No wonder he has missed 2-3 ITAC meetings.
- It did not appear that Director Harris really got Mr. Kinoshita's explanation of why there was not bias towards Amplify. I myself queried Amplify today on a couple of issues and they refused to answer, citing the ongoing RFP. However, I did ask them this question which I also put out to you:
Is Seattle Schools part of the SRI Efficacy study of Amplify for grades 6-8?
That has nothing to do with the RFP and I resubmitted this question to them. The study occurred last year and is happening again this year. I will circle back to this issue in a minute.
- It seems odd that Amplify has been used in many schools and yet the assessment data isn't valid to use to judge it by? (This was pushback from Director Geary.)
- That was an interesting observation by Director Pinkham about there being no members on any committee with Native American background. While it was great that Gail Morris was consulted, as he said, he works at UW and knows people who are scientists. Odd that didn't occur to staff to ask him.
- About the lecture you received from the one teacher (white blouse I did not catch her name - it would have been helpful since Ms. Welch knew exactly who would be speaking to have provided a list).
She said that the U.S. was a laughing stock in world sciences. That is not true. It was disrespectful to the higher ed and businesses that are in the sciences to say that. If that were true, how is it that foreign students are clamoring to get into our universities? That the U.S. leads in computer science and medicine?
It was also disrespectful to you to be lectured about the need to help more kids become science-fluent. It was disrespectful to accuse you of being "scared" to make a decision. It felt like that teacher felt she had carte blanche to speak on and on to put you, as a Board, in your places.
It is true that you are not science experts. But you ARE the people who are elected to decide the vision for SPS and how the money is spent.
- To the issue of Ms. Welch's explanation about who paid for the subscriptions to Amplify for the pilot period. (Editor's note; Welch says she attended a conference where she gave a talk. Afterwards she was speaking with some "tech people" about the difficulty of trying new curriculum. Apparently, one of them took it to heart and paid the subscription fees to Amplify. No money went thru SPS.)
1. It will be interesting to learn more about the conference she attended and who she spoke to. Surely, she can tell you that.
2. She said she didn't ask anyone for any help. But, since that donor made the donation to Amplify, she must have made it clear in that conversation she had with the tech people, WHO the company was that she was seeking to work with. Again, we see the idea of giving Amplify push after push.
3. Circling back to the Amplify study that I linked above, could it be there was no donation and that the district was part of this study and got the materials for free? You might consider asking.
- Ms. Welch actually said, "No collusion." That's a mighty weird phrase to use in the time and place our country sits in. I told Carri Campbell that maybe she might coach staff in the future to avoid that kind of talking point.
- I appreciate that Superintendent Juneau is circling the wagons for the staff and the committees. It's fine if she thinks my blog is just a rumor mill. Ditto on Facebook.
But that science teachers have publicly named themselves at my blog as have parents to tell of their experiences with Amplify speaks volumes for their courage. Is the Superintendent discounting those voices? Or is that because the only time the district will listen is thru their carefully-structured channels?
It feels VERY much as if you were supposed to have rubber-stamped this long ago. But again, is that really your job?
I urge you to consider two things.
One, you can approve a partial adoption.
Two, if this process does not pass the sniff test, you shouldn't approve any adoption.
thus Article Science Adoption Work Session
that is all articles Science Adoption Work Session This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Science Adoption Work Session with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2019/04/science-adoption-work-session.html
0 Response to "Science Adoption Work Session"
Post a Comment