Loading...
Title : Final Science Adoption Thoughts
link : Final Science Adoption Thoughts
Final Science Adoption Thoughts
There is quite the volume of information on all sides of the Science Adoption debate.I'll tell you the vote I believe this Science adoption merits.
K-5 Elementary - Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s Science Dimensions. The rubric by the actual Adoption Committee supports this and I'll just take the recommendation instead of Amplify as just a mistake. I hope to see the amendment by Burke/Pinkham pass and then probably a 5-2 vote for HMH.
6-8 - Whatever the Board does, it must reject Amplify Science. This part of the adoption has more holes than Swiss cheese. The ever-changing, morphing story of how Amplify came to be used in so many middle schools as a (non)pilot is just ridiculous at this point. And has no ring of authenticity to it. As well, we don't even know how much that cost the district. I look to see this being the closest vote but not passing at 4-3.
High School - It's a variety of materials because of the specificity of the classes but I look to this one passing, 7-0. While I know some teachers are very unhappy over the sequencing of the classes (and some also don't Carbon Time for Biology), I think this is one that should go thru.
Let me boil down my arguments and then expand via the new FAQs on the adoption.
1) I want to throw one argument straight out the window - "we have to do something." Ever heard of "penny-wise, pound foolish?" The Board better damn know what they are spending taxpayer dollars on and not just to "do something."
2) Speaking of spending, I will absolutely defer to the experts on curriculum.
But you know what the Board's role is? Not being experts on curriculum. No, their job in this particular instance is to get the best bang for the buck AND make sure that all district policies are followed...to the letter.
They need to know the TOTAL costs of each and every adoption proposed. If staff is buying a more computer-based curriculum, then ALL the costs of computers, PD to use the curriculum on those computers AND supports to keep all those computers running have GOT to be included.
Where is that accounting? We're still waiting. And now, at the eleventh hour, it's too late.
3) A real effort - per Board policy - to listen to input from teachers, students, parents and the public. See below for the count of the number of inputs allowed.
A reader put forth the FAQs on the adoption that have been put up at the district's webpage. Items of note:
- In response to the lack of updated, standards-aligned science curricula, schools with heavy PTSA financial involvement have been able to purchase supplemental materials for their schools. Schools with this level of PTSA investment tend to also have fewer students experiencing poverty and lower teacher turnover. Some schools have also been able to purchase from their building-based budget, but not all schools.
I would like to see the actual data about how many PTAs spend their dollars on science supplemental materials because I don't think there are many. Also, that last sentence in the paragraph? Who's fault is it that schools cannot buy the materials they need? Not PTSAs. It's the district's fault.
A word about equity- staff seems hell-bent on blaming all the inequities in the district on PTAs that raise a lot of money and HCC. That's myopic and, of course, impossible.
But it is hypocritical for the district to point the finger at PTAs for inequities and then, quietly, accept PTA funding for staff at schools (about 23 FTE at last count), playground rebuilds, computers, etc. As well, I know many teachers who fund most materials in their classrooms and it's out of their own pockets.
Pointing at PTAs deflects the responsibility - like providing a baseline of science materials - that are rightly the district's to fund.
- The test is entirely computer-based and all test items are digitally interactive. I assume this sentence is in the FAQs to hint that students who learn science on a computer will be better prepared than those who use book-based science curriculum. So we pick a curriculum based on training kids to use a computer?
-What is a science curriculum adoption process?
It is part of SPS Policy No. 2015, “Selection & Adoption of Instructional Materials.” An Instructional Materials Committee creates a representative Adoption Committee for each specific adoption (e.g. elementary science). In the case of science, the three adoption committees consisted of teachers, professors, scientists, and families. It is a thorough process that solicits input from the community on their opinions and values about instructional materials.
Yes, the policy as written is "a thorough process" but did the adoption follow the policy? It did not in the area of community input.
From former director Sue Peters on how much input was allowed by staff via only their methodology:
feedback from 12 people for the elementary school materials
from 10 people for the middle school materials
from 0 to 2 people, depending on the materials in question, for the high school materials.
(CarbonTime (BIO A) – 2 people filled out the form; District development curric Bio B– zero people; District development curric Chem A – 1 person; STEMScopes CHEM A – Zero; STEMScopes CHEM B – Zero; PEER A (PHYS A & B) – 1 person.)
That means that all the emails or calls that parents, students, teachers or other community members sent this last year to Ms. Welch, the Board, Superintendent Juneau or other staff about science materials were apparently withheld from the adoption committees.
- It is the adoption committee, not the SPS Science Manager or staff, that determines which curriculum candidate is selected for recommendation of approval for adoption by the School Board, as outlined in Board Policy 2015.
Okay, if that's true, then how did Amplify, with a lower overall score than HMH, come in first in the K-5 adoption? Hence, the need for the amendment by Director Burke and Director Pinkham that rectifies that error.
- How did SPS obtain Amplify for use as instructional waiver materials?
Amplify provided the program subscriptions (the digital portion) for free to SPS. SPS used existing resources to provide schools with the workbooks and kits (labs).
Seriously? This is the THIRD in a series of explanations from Mary Margaret Welch, head of Science.
One story was told at the April 3rd Work Session about some mysterious donor who overheard MMW bemoaning not being able to pilot a new curriculum because of the costs and the donor gave the money to Amplify for SPS to have their curriculum.
Then, KUOW was told another story by staff:
Welch said she had told Amplify that the district had approved the waivers, but couldn’t afford the curriculum, and the company said it would look for a donor.
Now , in the FAQs, we have Amplify - sans donor - directly giving the materials to SPS? Because if you are going to put out an FAQ, you better tell the complete and whole story.
But all this talk about schools piloting Amplify and the money involved circles back to one central question - broken out by waiver schools and then all schools - is HOW MUCH WILL THIS ALL COST?
And by "cost", I mean everything including supplemental materials, computers (remember, the FAQs tell us Amplify is computer-based) and support (including PD and computer-based help)?
That figure is nowhere to be seen.
And how much did the district spend to implement Amplify in waiver schools? Supplemental materials AND technology? What was that cost?
That figure is nowhere to be seen.
- Beginning in 2017, Amplify was requested in the Instructional Waiver process by several SPS schools to be used as an alternative to the current instructional materials adopted in 2001-2002. At this time, SPS Science had not yet been informed of the decision to proceed with an official science instructional materials adoption process for grades K-12 at all SPS schools.
More stuff and nonsense. Why? Because staff tried to do an end run around the Board AND not have to go thru a formal adoption. So in the FAQs we see staff trying to turn that lack of official adoption to their advantage now.
- Amplify for grades 6-8 has recently been rated as “fully-aligned” by EdReports.
Great and who is EdReports? From Ed Week:
EdReports is a nonprofit that tries to gauge whether published learning materials align to states' expectations for students, including the NGSS and the Common Core State Standards. It's mostly been supported by philanthropies, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has given the group more than $15 million over the past decade.
Oh yeah, the Gates Foundation.
What does the other SPS science contender, HMH, think of EdReports?
HMH's assessment was even harsher. The rating, the company said, "does not reflect errors or problems with alignment on HMH's part, but rather reveals the EdReports' rubric's lack of depth of engagement with NGSS and a philosophical difference in approach to the standards integration.
"We believe the rubric is limited by a disconnection from the research base of NGSS, its writers, and the community of teacher practitioners implementing the standards," it concluded.
Publishers also pointed out that the grading framework changed midway through the process, though EdReports officials said they rescored everything when those revisions were made.
A few years back here's what the National Council of Mathematics Teachers had to say about EdReports work around math:
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics wholeheartedly support the goals of EdReports. However, its reviews are leading educators who are analyzing how instructional materials support implementation of CCSSM to make decisions that will do a disservice to our students and will squander the potential of the standards to improve mathematics education.
- At grades 6-8, students may directly access the online portal, however the classroom teacher is still responsible for instructing the lesson and motivating each learning activity within the lesson.
The teacher "instructs" the lesson - you note they don't say "teach." This is VERY much the pathway to having fewer teachers as rolled out by the "personalized learning" crowd. If teachers are not "teaching," Then you need fewer of them and they can be replaced by facilitators who will cost far less than teachers. Clever, no?
One oddity on the agenda is that all of the Science adoptions are under "Introduction" and yet they were introduced at the last Board meeting. I assume that's an error.
thus Article Final Science Adoption Thoughts
that is all articles Final Science Adoption Thoughts This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Final Science Adoption Thoughts with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2019/05/final-science-adoption-thoughts.html
0 Response to "Final Science Adoption Thoughts"
Post a Comment