Slogging Through the Board Meeting; Science Adoption K-5

As you may well imagine, anyone in the room that night was exhausted (and they had a huge list of Intro items to get thru).  But they had to finish the Science Adoption and the last item was K-5.

President Harris inquired of legal counsel, Ronald Boy, if they needed to read into the minutes the amendment that had previously been enacted by the vote on Amplify middle school science (given both middle and elementary schools will be using Amplify).

Director Burke wanted to highlight that the amendment that he and Director Scott Pinkham had created before the meeting (that appeared in the agenda) had been withdrawn before the meeting.

Director Jill Geary stated that it should be amended per the previous amendment, with a check-in at year four with Research & Evaluation using various assessments.

That amendment passed 5-2, with Pinkham and Burke once again voting no.

On the Main Motion to Adopt Amplify for K-5
Director Eden Mack pointed out that - again - the BAR was different from other documents and she found the costs to be very high with no identified funding source.  (That lack of funding discussion happened during the middle school adoption and was noted by head of Budget, JoLynn Berge.)  Mack said she would find it hard to vote yes on this one.

Burke stated that he had concerns about elementary students in front of screens, "It doesn't build relationships."

DeWolf asked Burke what kinds of "tangible things" he was looking for.  He said this isn't "perfect but a pathway to get there."  He claimed it was micromanaging to worry about screens. He said we were "a city of tech" and our students need to be engaged with tech.  He also said parents should not be putting their kids in front of screens "but that's not something I can say." (And yet he did.)  He said at schools, "we need to involve (students) deeply."  

In tech? At elementary?  Not sure I know a shred of research that backs up that statement but as DeWolf pointed out, he has no children.

I want to interject here something I wrote about elsewhere because you should note the shot across the bow from DeWolf's statement above about "screentime."  (See bottom of this thread for my reprint - I tell you now this is coming like a freight train.  You, as parents, are going to get criticized for how much screentime happens at home and you will be told that tech use in the classroom doesn't count in your kid's day.)

Harris pointed out that there was no Board policy on the use of tech nor for "personalized learning." She asked if it was the cart before the horse.  (I think so and it may come back to haunt them.) She said there is a need for "profound conversations. "

Geary stated that for Amplify K-5, there is no screen time in grades K-1, only 10% for grade 2 and grades 3-5 they work in pairs, all "under the supervision of a teacher."

I highlight that key phrase because, while Geary will be gone, I can guarantee that SPS, like many districts using more technology-based curriculums, will start eyeing costs, realizing that for most of the digital learning that they don't need a teacher all the time.  They only need "a facilitator."  That facilitator does NOT have to be a credentialed teacher and could save a lot of money.  The California charter school group, Rockship, has this model.

I does make me wonder why the SEA didn't consider this issue.

Then, another odd thing happened that rarely happens.  The head of Technology, John Krull, came to the podium unbidden to read the OSPI  ed tech standards.  No matter that it was late, no matter that he was basically just reading and reading, not explaining, and the Board sat mutely and allowed it.  Very weird.

Geary said that the standards are basic education as are teachers.  She said that kids using tech at home to "watch stupid YouTube videos" and that kids need to be taught at school that at home tech is "a toy but at school, it's a tool."

Pinkham asked about what was listed as "in-house PD."  Mary Margaret Welch said, "That would be me."  

Harris seemed worried about how the K-5 would be phased in and how to prioritize among all the priorities in the district.

Berge said they have $1M available for 2019-2020 but they don't know what the financial situation will be in 2020-2021.  But, she said, this was about curriculum and not funding.  (Well, if you choose an expensive curriculum, it is about funding.)

Harris countered saying that the Board was "getting attacked, 24-7 and we need answers for these folks."  She said they could not "make a promise their wallet can't cash."

Then there was some discussion about the actual costs which, at this late date, was just astonishing.  How is it that each of the BARs for the science adoption had factual and "scribner" errors in them?

Burke said, "These are cash-strapped times for the district."  He also pointed out that there are other high-level academic considerations like the Spanish curriculum, Time Immemorial (Native American curriculum) and Ethnic Studies, saying verbal commitments had been made.

Berge said that those were funded in 2019-2020.  Burke pressed on, "Ethnics Studies and PD for $5M?"  Kyle Kinoshita, head of Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction, then came to the podium and said an odd thing.  He said that Ethnics Studies and Time Immemorial were getting $100K (unclear if that is each or together) and that amount of money met the capacity that they "said they can do now."  

I would love to call up those two departments and ask if more money might not help their expand their efforts to more schools. That statement did not ring true to me.

More discussion on costs which, again, seemed a little late.

The vote was taken and this time Mack joined Burke and Pinkham to vote no but the motion passed 4-3.

Excerpt from my previous thread:

What I am not clear about is two-fold.  What is the learning plan about the use of technology?  And, what about health and screen time.  I include this story from Arlington, Virginia school district where it was stated (bold theirs, color mine):

“Screen time” is an often misunderstood and misused phrase. It is important to understand to what we refer when we say “screen time,” if we use the phrase at all, and empower ourselves with current facts.

In October of 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics revised its guidelines to drop a hard-and-fast rule about length of time children of any age should be using a digital device. Previous guidelines did not control for important variables, and were therefore overly restrictive. The current state of the literature helps us better understand what does or may cause harm, and what does not.

The phrase “screen time,” as used by academics, refers to using digital media for “entertainment purposes.” Using a digital device for learning is not considered “screen time.”

Remember this information because I'll bet it will be coming to a school near you.  Basically, if "screen time" doesn't occur at school, then the school is saying if your kid is getting too much of it, that's on you.