Ballard's Science Department Uses Logic on the District; Will It Work?

Update - a Q&A with Ballard and the district on this topic:

1.      Do ALL schools have to do this sequence?  Is this “recommended”?
As the scope and sequence will create student capacity to take the newly-required 3^rd year of science, the sequences are required. All schools are expected to follow the common sequence our High School Alignment Team has outlined. The Alignment Team, represented by all comprehensive Seattle high schools (driven by feedback from individual science departments), was commissioned to create a standards-aligned common scope and sequence that would meet new graduation requirements for current 9^th graders and all students that follow. 

2.       What happens when parents (still) want their students to start Ballard in Biology?
It is the obligation of our district to provide all students with standards-aligned courses required for graduation. The first two years provide the core requirements for all students. Selections can be made by students and their parents during the 3^rd year with guidance from teachers and counselors. 

3.       What about HCC students? (if exceptions for them, why not others?)
HCC students have been tested in to a highly capable (Advanced Learning) program and have alternative pathways in many subjects, including science. Currently HCC students are on a two-year accelerated pathway and as they have learned required high school standards, can opt for different alternative courses since they have already taken year-1 and year-2 courses.

4.       What about Biotech academy students?
Curriculum and Instruction would welcome working with Ballard’s Biotech academy to determine the best pathway for these students. 

5.       Does any of this stop us from offering a FULL year of Chemistry and FULL year of Physics?
During the 3^rd year, a full year of Chemistry or Physics is an option. 

6.       What happens if we do not do this?
Students will not be prepared for taking a third year of science, interfering with students’ ability to graduate. Principals have committed to supporting the changes recommended by the Alignment Team.

7.       How did the district circumvent the building-based decision making for offering new courses?  Were there waivers to the CBA written for every school?
The defining of standards-aligned scope and sequence in core courses required to meet graduation requirements from Seattle Public Schools is the obligation of the district (as well as a part of graduation requirements outlined by Washington State legislation) and not a building-based decision.  The course content is not new, but has been rearranged to ensure students can meet graduation requirements in 3 years. Elective courses offered by buildings continue to be a site-based decision.

8.       Was this presented to the IC or BLT?
See # 7.  Presentation to IC or BLT is not required.

 

9.       Do we have any choice at all? (on whether to accept it or follow it to the T)
See #1, #6, & #7.

10.   Was the expressed reason for this change because of the test? (I really would like to know)
There are many reasons for making changes, these reasons include:

·         We are moving from a 2-year science credit requirement to 3.

·         OSPI expects current 9^th grade students to pass the Washington Comprehensive Assessment of Science (the test) to graduate.

·         The rearranged course content ensures that many standards for earth and space, as well as engineering, are accessible for all students in the first two years of science courses. All standards are accessible in three years of the scope & sequence.

·         The new standards are research-based and offer equitable opportunities for all students to build science literacy by working with teachers to develop quality learning opportunities to align with the Washington State Science Standards’ 3-Dimensions of learning (DCI, CCC, and SEP). 

·         To prepare teachers with the pedagogical tools to ensure all students can access and meet standards in chemistry, physics, biology, earth and space, and related engineering standards.

end of update

From the Ballard High School Science Department (and good for them):

A group of science teachers headed by Ms. Welch has been working diligently to develop a rollout plan for the district’s need to address the state’s adoption of the NGSS.  It has been made clear to us recently that this rollout plan is already underway.  

Despite the professional efforts on the part of the transition team this curriculum adoption plan is so fundamentally flawed that we feel we must protest.  If this adoption goes forward as proposed we fear it will generate many more problems than it is attempting to address.  We will detail our logic below.

First, as to the specifics offered by the NGSS transition team within the last few weeks on this curriculum adoption: over the past year we and several colleagues in our department (collectively with nearly 100 years of teaching experience) voiced strong opposition to the draft proposals.  We believe these fact-based objections and suggested alternative approaches were not adequately addressed.  

 Faced with the challenges of the Core-24 transition, this is not the time to launch the proposed profound alterations to the scope, sequence and very titles of established science courses.  

No evidence has been produced to verify that the curriculum changes proposed are fully formed and fully vetted, despite the samples provided on the Science Wiki pages.  

Furthermore, no evidence has been substantiated that there is district funding to support the facility impacts, the textbook needs or the teaching material requirements, not to mention the STEM components of NGSS that haven’t been addressed. 

No concrete and verifiable proof has been offered to establish that the course name changes, content alterations and profound sequence shuffling will be accepted without question by colleges and universities nationwide.  Telling an application acceptance office at Dartmouth University that 9^th grade chemistry or physics is college preparatory is a very risky path that is wholly unnecessary at this time.  

Tangentially, most of our 9^th graders will be academically challenged by “Physics A” and “Chemistry A”, unless the content of these courses is reduced to non-algebraic thinking.  

Furthermore, separating the course content over more than a year to a year and a half is folly, necessitating vast losses of time in re-teaching forgotten concepts.  

Most critically, there is absolutely no evidence that parents have been advised of these plans - not after the fact, but before the plan is formed.  There are no details on how we, the teachers in the trenches, will deal with the new science demands on our special education students.

Second, as to the process of the recently presented curriculum adoption plan, there was no guidance sought at the IC level, and more egregiously, no apparent advice or consent was solicited from our Building Leadership Team for such a profound transformation within our building.  

To add insult to injury, the parents - as mentioned - of the impacted students would not be brought in for consultation until well into the adoption process.  The Race and Equity tool created by the District puts great import on having community input before any significant change is made and to date this input has not been sought. 

Finally, there has been no mention of School Board approval for such a vast curriculum change.  This current adoption process can only be described as alteration of a 100+ year-old platform by fiat. 

Fortunately, it is not too late to address these issues and delay this transformation to give it time to be developed more cautiously. 

We and our colleagues have repeatedly suggested that many of the NGSS changes sought can be addressed by adapting the curriculum of the current Physical Science/Biology/Chemistry/Physics sequence.  At present, this is the pathway the entire state of California is adopting.   

We propose layering needed content into the existing courses and sequences that will enable a more thorough vetting of the deliberate morphogenesis by all involved parties in a more manageable period of time that will, quite importantly, not put us in conflict with Core-24 changes nor leave our Special Education students at risk.

Sincerely,

India Carlson

Dewey J. Moody, Ph.D.

Science Department Co-Heads, Ballard