Science Adoption Work Session on Tuesday, April 2nd
Update 3: So, a new "purpose" has now added to the "reasoning" for the second Work Session on the Board policies on selection/adoption AND on waivers - to approve the revisions of the both policies. Tonight.
What?! It seems incomprehensible that the Board would just summarily change those policies without real input from parents and teachers. This was brought up - not truly discussed - at the C&I committee meeting but that meant it would goes on to Intro at a Board meeting - then, two weeks of discussion - and THEN a vote.
Juneau may be, with senior staff backing, trying to flex some muscle. The Board should say no.
end of update
Update 2: the district's website is back up; here's the agenda for the Work Sessions. The agenda comes in at 181 pages which is, of course, complete BS. The Science adoption section is from page 1-129, with the Adoption policy from 130-181. I think the latter Session is worthy, for sure.
I am having a problem deciding whether to go or not because I predict a lot of blather and it get old.
end of update
Update: unfortunately the district's website has been down all day so I cannot provide an agenda. The Tuesday Work Sessions start at 4:30 with the Science Adoption, followed by discussion of the selection/adoption policy 2015. The Work Sessions end at 7 pm.
end of update
The Board will be having a final Work Session on the Science adoption for curriculum for middle and high school, tomorrow, April 2nd. (I will be putting up further details but I am having troubling connecting to the district. I saw on Facebook some students were having issues this weekend as well.) I do know there are two Sessions: one about the process and one about different possible choices.
I also want to make available a document about the results of 8th grade testing of schools that do and don't use the Amplify curriculum. It looks like students who didn't use it did better. It has good detail that makes it an important read.
Again, I will add the agenda and other details of the Work Session as I get them.
What?! It seems incomprehensible that the Board would just summarily change those policies without real input from parents and teachers. This was brought up - not truly discussed - at the C&I committee meeting but that meant it would goes on to Intro at a Board meeting - then, two weeks of discussion - and THEN a vote.
Juneau may be, with senior staff backing, trying to flex some muscle. The Board should say no.
end of update
Update 2: the district's website is back up; here's the agenda for the Work Sessions. The agenda comes in at 181 pages which is, of course, complete BS. The Science adoption section is from page 1-129, with the Adoption policy from 130-181. I think the latter Session is worthy, for sure.
I am having a problem deciding whether to go or not because I predict a lot of blather and it get old.
end of update
Update: unfortunately the district's website has been down all day so I cannot provide an agenda. The Tuesday Work Sessions start at 4:30 with the Science Adoption, followed by discussion of the selection/adoption policy 2015. The Work Sessions end at 7 pm.
end of update
The Board will be having a final Work Session on the Science adoption for curriculum for middle and high school, tomorrow, April 2nd. (I will be putting up further details but I am having troubling connecting to the district. I saw on Facebook some students were having issues this weekend as well.) I do know there are two Sessions: one about the process and one about different possible choices.
I also want to make available a document about the results of 8th grade testing of schools that do and don't use the Amplify curriculum. It looks like students who didn't use it did better. It has good detail that makes it an important read.
Again, I will add the agenda and other details of the Work Session as I get them.
Comments
“Before, when students were challenged to answer a question or
solve a problem, there was always a big day with the REVEAL. Now we never actually tell them the answer..."
West
Especially considering a school like Broadview Thompson has over 60% FRL students, 20% bilingual & 20% with an IEP.
I have been volunteering at BT twice a week since last fall and I am very impressed with the school and their staff, especially the principal.
Concerned Parent
-Assessment Guru
solve a problem, there was always a big day with the REVEAL. Now we never actually tell them the answer..."
That may have been the way the Carolina curriculum was written, however as one of the teachers who at one time taught the curriculum to new teachers in the district (back when the district thought these trainings were important), I have NEVER actually taught it that way, nor did I teach others to either.
There was no big day of reveal. Unless there was problems with the data that students collected-which can always happen in a middle school setting-the students will usually tell me the answer as we have groups or whole class discussions. This is just part of the big lie about "traditional science teaching".
Teresa Alsept
My 6th grade daughter is at Hazel Wolf. Her class is doing Amplify with zero supplementation. No hands-on labs. She hates it.
Divamom
-Curious
-Scientist
Concerned Parent
-Data from Star Trek
Concerned Parent
-Assessment Guru
-SPS Mom
-Storytime
According to OSPI's charts and timetable for assessments, the WCAS officially replaced the MSP science test in 2017-18, so that data is official and part of the public record, and the only benchmark data available.
From: http://www.k12.wa.us/Assessment/StateTesting/default.aspx
Washington Comprehensive Assessment of Science
The 5th, 8th, and 11th grade Washington Comprehensive Assessment of Science (WCAS) was administered for the first time in spring 2018. These tests fulfill the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirement that students be tested in science once at each level: elementary, middle, and high school.
The WCAS measures the level of proficiency that Washington students have achieved based on the Washington State 2013 K-12 Science Learning Standards, which are the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The standards were adopted in October 2013.
Also see: http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/pubdocs/AssessmentTimeline.xlsx
@SPS Mom -- If you can verify that Hazel Wolf 8th graders were not using Amplify, the document can be updated. The "Amplify schools" were determined by those that submitted waivers. Hazel Wolf was among the 19 that did. Thanks.
@ Data -- as the PowerPoint states, the source of the data is OSPI.
- Sue Peters
(The other things we teach - equally important to our lives.)
Applying these confusing techniques to science will hold students behind. Is Rick Burke behind this curriculum? He certainly knew that direct math instruction was better than discovery methods.
S parent
@Storytime, I wonder if this has anything to do with Christine Benita’s allegiance to Mary Margaret Welch --- "Our 2017 Summer in Kenya"
https://seavuria.org/2017/11/16/our-2017-summer-in-kenya/
Benita went to Kenya with Welch in summer 2017 to teach science.
She was later selected for the 6-8 science curriculum adoption committee.
- Reject Amplify
Science lite
At this stage, a lot of this seems late for the party and that they didn’t build in time for questions is quite striking.
My money is in Amplify being adopted and staff getting every single thing they want. Yet again.
Oversight Now
If this is true, one person managed a LOT of the process. (He’s my co-chair on ITAC so Brad is a busy guy.)
He also said “all who applied was invited to join and actively pursued people and asked them to join committee. Final roster was approved by Instructional Materials Committee.” (This is choppy as I am typing quickly.)
Now we have the elementary lead reading her statement. I cannot believe what I am seeing.
Also, there seems to be a vendor list for 9-12 but not for K-8. Maybe my packet is missing it.
Teresa
Trying to sell this curriculum by putting it into the "oh, look how poorly" the US is doing also classic reform ed-speak.
Don't they know how old those sales pitches are by now?
Weak
-So scared
(PhD in science and 100% American public school educated)
You cannot make this stuff up.
The current Adoption policy doesn't specifically address purchasing from non-commercial university partners or teacher modified materials from non-commercial university partners. Although SPS unofficially adopted Carbon TIME (a partnership between SPS, Michigan State U, etc) many years ago, the Adoption policy needs to be revised for the Science Adoption process to be in compliance prior to the official adoption of Carbon TIME and any other teacher modified materials.
The Adoption policy edits are eye opening as they specify different adoption processes for commercial vs. non-commercial materials including that there only needs to be one stage of review for non-commercial vs. multiple review stages for commercial:
p.158 of Agenda: "Depending on the type of instructional materials being considered for adoption, there may be multiple stages in the Adoption Timeline. For an adoption of core instructional materials from noncommercial sources, there may only be one stage of review: selection criteria review and engagement. A pilot could also be conducted as a second stage. For an adoption of core instructional materials from commercial sources, there may be multiple stages of review to narrow the selection from multiple options to one in addition to a stage to pilot the instructional materials."
nn
It seems very unprofessional to not fully review all core curricula. The source of the core curriculum isn’t what’s important—it’s the content that matters.
Also, this “one stage of review” for “core materials from non commercial sources” is total BS. The “review” is a review of the selection criteria,” not the actual curriculum.
If the Board passes this, they are abdicating their responsibility.
C’mon, Board
-Embarrassing
I don't buy the argument that somehow SPS is choosing the wrong curriculum because of ideology or corruption or whatever else- several curricula were extensively field tested and community input was taken and new curricula is needed. Any choice made is going to be flawed and will need to be modified. Doing nothing is a really bad move given how stale and broken the current curriculum is, and second guessing the choices that have been made is just pointlessly destructive at this point in the process.
-Embarrassing
"Focusing on a gradual rollout and curriculum modifications, not the choice itself, is how to constructively direct all the concerns I see voiced here. Too often SPS belabors a choice so much and so long that once a choice is made they rush things so as to lock it in. A gradual rollout would allow the curriculum to be supplemented as needed and for software and training to be streamlined for later adoptions. Worried about needing more hands on content or more advanced curricula or more social justice stuff or whatever? Work with teachers to modify and supplement the content. This isn't like a textbook adoption- everything can be tweaked and changed for the district as a whole.
I don't buy the argument that somehow SPS is choosing the wrong curriculum because of ideology or corruption or whatever else- several curricula were extensively field tested and community input was taken and new curricula is needed. Any choice made is going to be flawed and will need to be modified. Doing nothing is a really bad move given how stale and broken the current curriculum is, and second guessing the choices that have been made is just pointlessly destructive at this point in the process."
Embarrassing, asking questions is "derailing it?" Allowing input at the blog from named teachers and parents is "derailing it?" You have some interesting ideas about the democratic process.
It is not against the law to speak out or give input on public entity decisions. Let me know where that law is.
And "anti-science?" Me. I was married to a scientist and many of our friends our scientists. One sib is a nuclear engineer and one is the medical profession. I am not anti-science.
I have to wonder if you are one of the sour-faced teachers sitting before the Board yesterday. I'll have a write -up of the meeting but it surely was not the right way to try to get the Board to listen.
Science curricula should be chosen based on facts:
What do the test scores show?
How do all of the students and teachers like the new curriculum? Surveys are needed, not testimonials.
What are the strengths AND weaknesses of the new curriculum?
There seem to be a distinct lack of facts in this new adoption process - thrown out in favor of a handful of testimonials and a few buzz words.
We should all be suspicious of any efforts to distract us from the facts.
-NW
Per the "Legislative Update" section of these budget materials, the Senate budget provides "No levy increase." The "Update" makes it look like SPS would only get $2.7 million more under the Senate budget. The Senate budget includes SB 5313, lifting the levy lid to $3,500 per kid from $2,500 per kid! I think that means $1,000 more per student, or more than $50 million. How could they be unaware of SB 5313? It is all over Twitter!
Under the House budget, SPS claims the increase in the levy lid from $2,500 to $3,000 equals only $13 million in additional revenue. How does that pencil out? If you have over 50,000 students and $500 more per kid, doesn't that equal over $25 million in additional revenue?
Does no one in SPS look at any news? Or proofread? Bueller, Bueller, anyone????
WS Parent
It is beyond crystal clear that the Alignment Committee vastly overstepped their charter (as often happens in a committee) and migrated from "alignment" to "adoption". Everyone remember that last year they were going to push this same exact decision through via the non-existent building budgets.
Only when push came to pretty serious shove, did anyone admit that the board is in charge of curriculum adoptions and the board were legally required to approve the money as well as legally required to follow all of steps outlined by the State of Washington regarding curriculum adoption. It sounds like one year later, nothing has changed. And staff is doing another attempt to avoid the entire public process and public oversight.
Who can really blame them. Doesn't everything think that their boss should just leave them alone and let them go about doing the excellent work that would be doing anyway?????
But even if anyone was inclined to follow such a ridiculous management policy, that entire notion is illegal. Public schools have some very serious, but very well known, management challenges.
The entire structure of the public school system is that you have an "elected board" whose entire purpose is to ensure that the public is included in governance and that publicly elected officials, are are REQUIRED to approve a very limited number of items, that have direct impact on the quality of the services paid for by tax dollars - the budget, curriculum and assignment plans, etc.
The structure of board oversight was designed to be at least slightly is not completely adversarial. Organizations naturally devolve into group think and the entire structure of an ELECTED, not appointed, board is to challenge that group think.
It seems like the simple fact that this is Juneau's first Superintendent job, may mean that she is missing that point. Again, I hope to be proven wrong, but it sounds like once again, there was a work session designed to gaslight the board and convince the board that is somehow not required to do the job that they were elected to do. Seriously?? Again??
Yes, the work of public schools system is incredibly hard. There are lot of hoops to jump through. That said, this work is just too important to play games like this. Once curriculum is adopted, it becomes institutionalized for at least a decade. That is the reason why oversight is required. Even if it just takes way too long.
Staff's failure to respect the legal and public process is not a reason for the the board to hurry. And it certainly is not a reason for the board to willingly hand over authority that they are required to exercise.
The fact is, the current board and the one I belonged to made curriculum adoptions a priority. We made a point of budgeting for them, made them a line item on the budget, and fought to hold onto the allocations when some tried to bargain curriculum dollars away.
It was staff and district leadership -- not the board -- that did not seem to consider curriculum adoptions a priority. But the board majority did and have multiple adoptions on their watches to show for it. During the four years I was a board member (2013-17) and since, SPS has adopted materials for: K-5 math, middle school math, middle school social studies, K-5 ELA, we also passed a resolution in support of Ethnic Studies and spoke often of the need to invest further in Since Time Immemorial.
By the way, the specific schedule for curriculum adoptions is determined by staff, not the board.
Yes, the fact that science is now finally being addressed is good news. But that doesn’t mean the board should approve something, anything, rather than materials that are genuinely sound, engaging and effective. And they should not approve something whose selection is under a cloud of questions.
In this latest episode involving Amplify Science, staff effectively did an end run round the Board, in violation of policies 2015 and 2020, by orchestrating a mass use of waivers -- in 19 schools -- all for the same product. This was a de facto curriculum adoption. The fact that it was funded by an anonymous donor raises a red flag and is in potential violation of policy and law.
The board can't do its job if its oversight is circumvented by staff.
-- Sue Peters
LAST NIGHT AT A LINCOLN MEETING, THE COUNSELOR ANNOUNCED THAT THE DISTRICT ALREADY ADOPTED THE MASSIVE SCIENCE OVERHAUL THAT SPLIT APART CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS AND MANGLED THEM SEMI-TOGETHER AND PUSHED THEM EARLIER BUT YET WITHOUT PROPER MATH FOUNDATIONS AND THAT THIS WAS DONE 2 YEARS AGO.
He was speaking to 8th graders. He told them if they are in Biology now, the course they took previously, even though it was called “Physical Sciences” was actually their cockamamie chemA/physicsA goulash. Yup, and that was in Amplify. So it was already done more than 2 years ago!
So let’s be clear. The science department has gone rogue and did a curriculum adoption without a committee or process and did an entire course reengineering without oversight and without board approval.
Oh yeah, and by the way, they completely drained science education during their coup.
We have some strong board members, I hope to god they show courage and do right by children and education and the enlightenment . And I really hope they don’t give any weight to the inevitable mindless, groundless BS name calling that the Seatttle times will likely fling on them. They need clear minds, good hearts, political courage, and thick skins.
You know as a parent when you have a poorly behaving teenager and you call them on it and you tell them “no” and then they turn around and scream at you and say you’re micromanaging and that you don’t understand and that you’re the problem? But as a parent, you recognize that for what it is and keep parenting? Yeah. Board members have to take care of education and make sure the kids in the system are actually learning. So as District Staff do these MASSIVE end runs around them, the Board MUST stop them in their tracks. Of course, having a Superintendent calling the staff on the carpet when they’ve completely lost their minds would also be nice, but that’s never going to happen, the last 10 years have proven that . Nyland, Banda, they just took our money and did nothing in return for it. Juneau is doing the same. It all comes down to the Board. The Board has to put their foot down, especially on the classic staff maneuver of running down the clock and then saying you have to pass this. NO!!! It’s more important to get it right then to just get it done.
Thank goodness Eden Mack is on it, she is taking the heat but not succumbing to staff bulls*t. Rock on, Mack! Rick & Leslie better get behind her and keep protecting actual education before our overall enrollment slips even worse.
Sci-for-all
Keep throwing Truth on this SPS Dumpster-Fire!
Stunned
Stunned, yes, the district accepted Amplify curriculum based on an anonymous donor who paid Amplify for the subscriptions for the schools involved. It is unclear to me if MMW actually knows who that was.
And yes, the continuing party line from staff is that there was no favortism given to Amplify. Even as Amplify gave both MMW and Kyle Kinoshita awards. Hmmm.
I will have a fuller thread on this soon.
With all due respect: Using family members for street cred, whether it is about unions or science, doesn't mean a hill of beans.
I'm in agreement with you on the Amplify debate, but your habit of invoking random relatives to prove your merit on issues is straw man territory.
Your own experience would be relevant. Cousin Bobby's?
Notatall
And I have no idea of what your cryptic last sentence means so do be clearer.
I spoke to some of the science teachers at the Lincoln Open House in January. They told me that the problem is that for kids who took the old course, Physical Science, in 7th grade (mainly HCC students), many of the topics that were covered are now covered in Phys B/Chem B, which those same students are supposed to take in 9th grade (after taking Biology in 8th grade). My understanding is that those students did not cover some of the topics that are now covered in Phys A/Chem A.
I followed up by emailing the Lincoln counselor and asking how the school would accommodate these students so they don't have to cover material in 9th grade that they already learned in 7th grade. At first, he didn't seem to know what I was talking about, but then he talked to the science teachers and acknowledged the issue. He (and the teachers) told me they were aware of the issue and would be working on it. I suggested that students who had taken the old Physical Science class in 7th grade should be grouped together in 9th grade so their curriculum could be adjusted to make sure it wasn't repetitive. Indeed, my kid who falls into this group has autism and the issue that triggers the most problems for him is boredom and repetition in school.
The Lincoln counselor did not seem to like my suggestion, but promised they were working on it. That's the last I knew or heard about how this issue will be handled at Lincoln. Since Lincoln is an HCC pathway school, and since this particular problem appears to impact kids in HCC who just took the classes they were told to take in middle school, it seemed to me that Lincoln should be able to address the issue for these kids. Your description sounds like there has been some back tracking since my email exchange with them. In the meantime, my kid has decided to go to a different high school.
Science Mess
Sci-for-All, I read your piece too quickly. The alignment of the courses was approved so that is a done deal. (I thought you were speaking of curriculum.) That alignment is not universally approved by teachers and drove one of the finest science teachers in SPS out.