Curriculum&Instruction Committee Discussion on Science Adoption
Instructional Materials Update (Science Adoption)
Head of Science, Mary Margaret Welch, said she wanted to frame the discussion around "gratitudes" to the three committees of 90 people who had given their time to this effort. She said there would be five BARs - Chemistry, Physics, Elementary, Middle and High School - for the sciences.
She said there was an FAQ on this work but the link appears to be dead.
Mack said that she was wondering if teachers were providing input on all possible curriculum. She said she was speaking to a science teacher in another district who said that she had heard nothing good about Carbon Time from other colleagues.
Welch said that in the field test teachers have a unit of study and report back their thoughts on Survey Monkey. Mack asked about what they are asked about. Welch said it was asking if this worked on behalf of students and if it is aligned with standards. Mack persisted, asking, "Do you ask if they like the curriculum and working with it?" Welsh said that happened in panel discussions.
Burke said that there are not multiple testings in school so how do they do a comparison? Welsh said using a rubric.
Mack said, "That's an up or down vote."
Geary said that "it would be nice to have two but you would have an up or down vote anyway." She went on, "It may not be the best one that we want but the one that does the job." I was quite surprised that a director would want a curriculum that just does the job rather than one a teacher can feel enthused about.
Welch got a bit agitated saying that the committee did an analysis of 7-8 programs and that many vendores did not come forward "with materials aligned to the NGSS" and none were "worthy of moving forward." To note, for high school, there are 5 separate adoption categories being considered and only one of them (CHEM A) has more than one finalist.
This set off my radar because I find it difficult to believe there could only be one high school science curriculum that met the NGSS. Here's what Oregon's committee found. Ms. Welch may have a favorite but that can't mean she gets away with saying there are no other candidates that are viable.
Geary wistfully said she wished there were more vendors. She also said she was surprised that math wasn't better aligned to standards. Mack confessed concern over this as well.
Welch then said districts were "on their own" and then went on about the process.
Geary then said that "This is what is before us."
Mack said she was "deeply disturbed" by the process.
Kinoshita said staff just wanted to get thru the process for approval but that the purchase is the real question. He said vendors were slow to catch up to standards and especially in the higher grades.
Mack said she needed confidence in this and felt like she didn't have the info she needs.
It was mentioned that there would be a Work Session on this issue on April 2nd with a BAR before the Board on April 23rd.
I have also heard that there was a meeting by MMW with heads of science departments in the high schools. I was told this (but have not been able to verify yet):
She told them that PEER high school adoption was official and going ahead without funding. As teaching will use school discretionary budget funds, materials and equipment already in schools.
Anyone?
I also hear this:
Bullying teachers into silence, and retaliating against teachers who do speak out, has been going on for decades in Seattle Public Schools.
I don't know for sure if it is bullying going on but I know that many teachers simply cannot speak out or comment publicly for fear of retaliation at their schools.
Head of Science, Mary Margaret Welch, said she wanted to frame the discussion around "gratitudes" to the three committees of 90 people who had given their time to this effort. She said there would be five BARs - Chemistry, Physics, Elementary, Middle and High School - for the sciences.
She said there was an FAQ on this work but the link appears to be dead.
Mack said that she was wondering if teachers were providing input on all possible curriculum. She said she was speaking to a science teacher in another district who said that she had heard nothing good about Carbon Time from other colleagues.
Welch said that in the field test teachers have a unit of study and report back their thoughts on Survey Monkey. Mack asked about what they are asked about. Welch said it was asking if this worked on behalf of students and if it is aligned with standards. Mack persisted, asking, "Do you ask if they like the curriculum and working with it?" Welsh said that happened in panel discussions.
Burke said that there are not multiple testings in school so how do they do a comparison? Welsh said using a rubric.
Mack said, "That's an up or down vote."
Geary said that "it would be nice to have two but you would have an up or down vote anyway." She went on, "It may not be the best one that we want but the one that does the job." I was quite surprised that a director would want a curriculum that just does the job rather than one a teacher can feel enthused about.
Welch got a bit agitated saying that the committee did an analysis of 7-8 programs and that many vendores did not come forward "with materials aligned to the NGSS" and none were "worthy of moving forward." To note, for high school, there are 5 separate adoption categories being considered and only one of them (CHEM A) has more than one finalist.
This set off my radar because I find it difficult to believe there could only be one high school science curriculum that met the NGSS. Here's what Oregon's committee found. Ms. Welch may have a favorite but that can't mean she gets away with saying there are no other candidates that are viable.
Geary wistfully said she wished there were more vendors. She also said she was surprised that math wasn't better aligned to standards. Mack confessed concern over this as well.
Welch then said districts were "on their own" and then went on about the process.
Geary then said that "This is what is before us."
Mack said she was "deeply disturbed" by the process.
Kinoshita said staff just wanted to get thru the process for approval but that the purchase is the real question. He said vendors were slow to catch up to standards and especially in the higher grades.
Mack said she needed confidence in this and felt like she didn't have the info she needs.
It was mentioned that there would be a Work Session on this issue on April 2nd with a BAR before the Board on April 23rd.
I have also heard that there was a meeting by MMW with heads of science departments in the high schools. I was told this (but have not been able to verify yet):
She told them that PEER high school adoption was official and going ahead without funding. As teaching will use school discretionary budget funds, materials and equipment already in schools.
Anyone?
I also hear this:
Bullying teachers into silence, and retaliating against teachers who do speak out, has been going on for decades in Seattle Public Schools.
I don't know for sure if it is bullying going on but I know that many teachers simply cannot speak out or comment publicly for fear of retaliation at their schools.
Comments
I don't get what's up with Geary, thogh. She seems to have some version of senioritis where she's all busy with personal passion projects but seems increasingly out of touch with trends in education and with her constituents. It's going to be a rough final year with her.
MTR
I had thought she would be the Special Education champion from both her stated personal and professional background. Not so much.
Given she had a child in HCC, I thought she might bring some of that knowledge to the work around Advanced Learning. Not so much and, in fact, she brought downright hostility.
She has a favorite line "Well, what else can we do?" As if the only solutions are the ones staff present. She is increasingly supportive of staff over other Board members.
Apparently, she has real issues with PTA funding and yet has done nothing to examine this situation and offer solutions.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I had heard that she might be going for the seat on City Council of the departing Rob Johnson.
Follow up with other Board members?
Report to SPS Ethics Officer?
Report to State Auditor?
nn
Amplify can simply be rejected. We all know there are hundreds of available science curricula to choose from. When a few more are presented with a more neutral selection criteria, then we can have a discussion about choosing something new.
In the meantime, our professional science teachers can handle the teaching. They can develop appropriate lesson plans to meet changing standards. They always have. We just need to avoid cutting professional teachers from the budget.
West
Selection Criteria
And yet nothing is set to change. MMW still has a firm control of the science adoption committee and Amplify is still the only option being presented to move forward.
Has SPS become completely unresponsive to the needs of children and the voices of their parents? Is there anything that can be done to change anything that is happening at SPS? Or do the admins downtown have absolute power?
-So Frustrated
Concerned parent
FNH
https://bsd405.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MS-Science-IMC-small.pdf
SciHead
Salut
OuttaSeattle
and ps I have tried to speak out and have been disciplined for it. And yet, I will continue to push for what is best for our students.
A Parent
https://education.uw.edu/news/partnership-brings-‘next-generation’-science-seattle-classrooms
Seattle Parent
https://www1.nsd.org/n/~board/district-news/post/new-science-curriculum-approved-for-grades-1-8
The one exception to Northshore's tendencies lately is they hired Michael Tolley, although he's only "East Region Assistant Superintendent," a clear demotion from his previous post:
https://www1.nsd.org/n/~board/district-news/post/michael-tolley-selected-as-new-east-region-assistant-superintendent
My guess is he needed a job to reach retirement pension requirements, so he's biding his time until retirement. I can't imagine Michelle Reid (superintendent) wants a lot of his baggage, so here's hoping she can keep his "innovations" in check.
Concerned Parent
It is the experienced teachers, who were once leaders in the district, who have been cut out of the process, spoken down to and intimidated. In the past, the district use to offer training and professional development to support newer teachers on how to best teach the curriculum to meet new standards. In the last 3 years the only training have been on how to teach Amplify. Tens of thousands dollars of training. The majority of the adoption committee are teachers who have been teaching middle school science less than 5 years and only teaching Amplify. Skewing any true data.
Also, TCI was one of the programs offered and from what I have heard from a few pilot teachers they feel it to be a far superior program.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/amplify-assets/pdf/science/AmplifyScience_NGSSLessonsLearnedGuide.pdf?submissionGuid=8e79f025-cf7b-40fe-b153-b1bbfabb4e35
Head Shaking
https://bsd405.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2017-04-20-K-5-Science-for-IMC.pdf
Reject Amplify
-sad seattlite
Seattle Parent
I sent emails to the superintendent, asst. superintendent and the CAO, demanding they look into her behavior.
I do not know how responsive they will be - but this is no longer simply a disagreement about curriculum. This is indicative of a deeply flawed and possibly corrupt department that needs to be thoroughly investigated.
-Just WOW
Many of those on the Alignment Team told me that they had never opened the Carolina kits that we have. Instead they would say things like "We have no curriculum". When I pointed out that we did have curriculum, they would say things like "That is old school or a traditional teaching" They would say it, like that was a bad thing. As one who teaches that way, I will proudly say I'm a traditional science teacher. I think middle school students learn best by DOING not by READING. MMW would also say things like that-in district paid trainings which is why some teachers were afraid to speak out.
Yes, we did delve a little into IQWEST because the people at the University of Washington loved it. However, it wasn't very good, so no one was excited about it. Then in the last hour, of the last day that the Alignment Team met, Amplify was brought up. We didn't really talk about it, we were just told "We have this great opportunity" and that was it. Schools decided then whether to sign on to Amplify or not. Eckstein, where I work, was one of the only ones who did not. This is because as experienced science teachers, we do not think that having students on computers or using hand outs (which has happened because the district cannot give schools computers for every student) is the best way to get our students excited about science. We have paid the price by becoming outcasts in the district middle school science.
I have decided to go out on a limb here and just sign my name. I would like to publicly state that these are my views and not those of my department.
Teresa Alsept
Eckstein Middle School
Department Chair.
Grateful Parent
Seattlelifer
Furthermore, the students who fared the very worst with Amplify were low-income students.
One outlier was Eckstein Middle School (a non-Amplify school), where low-income student pass rates actually improved on the new WCAS Next Gen Test over the previous year's test.
In contrast, in South end schools like Mercer Intl Middle School that used Amplify Science, pass rates dropped significantly overall and were especially pronounced among its low-income students.
Based on this data, Amplify is not delivering what was promised by MaryMargaret Welch, the vendor and others who lobbied for it and used this rationale to justify the mass (ab)use of waivers in SPS middle schools to use Amplify. There is no evidence that Amplify is preparing students for the Next Generation Science Standards after all.
Existing district curriculum and what teachers are doing in the non-Amplify schools, by and large, is proving to be more effective.
This science curriculum decision will be a real test of how "data driven" the district is and how truly committed it is to equity.
If the district adopts a weak and controversial curriculum like Amplify, the data shows that the students who will suffer the most are the ones the superintendent and board just made a targeted commitment to serve in their Strategic Plan.
It comes as no surprise to many parents like myself that an engaging, hands-on science curriculum presented by engaging, conscientious teachers will inspire students of all backgrounds.
The Seattle School District would save itself and its students a lot of grief and expense if it were to simply look at what's already working in the district, and replicate it.
SPS should commission successful and respected teachers to create curricula for the district -- instead of spending millions on commercial, pre-packaged, expensive, often untested (or else tested on SPS kids without consent, for someone's research project) and often, tech-dependent curricula like Amplify, which has already cost the district at least $1 million, even though it has never been authorized by the Board.
The answers to Seattle's needs are right here. We have brilliant, creative and committed teachers. They should be encouraged, supported and given the opportunity to create curricula, not shunned and bullied.
-- Sue Peters
"One outlier was Eckstein Middle School (a non-Amplify school), where low-income student pass rates actually improved on the new WCAS Next Gen Test over the previous year's test."
Sue Peters zeros in on one key issue in adoption - what works? New and shiny (and tech-based) mean little if the district is not going to get better outcomes. Amplify is piloting at a number of schools and..? I hope the Board says no if the outcomes are not better especially for kids in low-performing schools.
This would require all of the overpaid bureaucrats to admit they aren't the real experts in the district. Don't hold your breath. Their very existence depends on the facade of being the smartest person in the room. Admitting that the actual teachers doing the teaching are the real experts would eliminate their need to have such jobs/high salaries.
Also, this ties into the Melissa's retort about "loving teachers" but not always loving the union.
You can't have it both ways. Unions, with their obvious flaws, are why teachers like Teresa can speak out and still have a job next week.
Making continual jabs at the union are destructive in the long run. MW has a history of doing this.
Teresa UGoGirl
As for the union, I support unions. Always have, always will. My father was in a union.
And yes, teachers are the union.
Except when you take the union as an entity, well, the picture gets muddied. So many teachers over the years have told me that votes were scheduled before materials were ready to be read/not enough time to read and discuss. So many teachers have said, "Well, they head the union but I don't know them or why they say the things they do."
And, when unions, especially ones in the public good like police and teachers, protect ineffective members, yes, I do have a problem with that. It's fine to have a process to allow those teachers to regain their abilities/train them to be better but there must be a full-proof way to exit those who should not be in the profession.
People who are professionals know it is folly to protect those that hurt the profession.
We all know the shortcomings of unions. Many parents of people over 50 were in unions because there were many unions then. Not now, as we all know. Union busting has been happening for decades. Many people who had parents in unions were part of dismantling them, in fact. My point: Your background as a child of a union member doesn't give you a pass for your present practice of disparaging the teacher's union.
There's one thing worse than a union, and that's no union.
Protecting someone by giving them due process is part of the union's job. No one who is a teacher wants ineffective colleagues. However, most teachers I know (including myself) want due process. Keeps an outspoken master teacher from being canned when speaking out (you go, girl). Keeps this type of teacher from being on the chopping block when a district's finances go south and a new hire would be cheaper.
The "ineffective members protected by the union" meme was, and continues to be, a big part of the Charter School movement. They throw that one around like holy water.
Making regular stabs jabs at the union has consequences. You can't "love teachers" in public schools, then be against Charters vehemently, and then keep making cutting comments against the union all in one mouthful.
Doesn't pass the smell test. Doesn't help teachers.
Teresa UGoGirl
There are unions now. (And good luck to any presidential candidate who forgets that.)
I said I want due process but somehow you missed that.
You clearly don't know my work because if you did, you'd know I ran one of the No on 1240 campaigns. I go to the WA Charter Commission meetings. I'm one of the few in the public who does.
As for not helping teachers, you can certainly have your opinion. But go back in this blog and see how many times I have stood up for teachers, over and over and over.