posted by:
|
Gail Paulin
on August 16, 1999
at 11:19AM
|
subject:
|
MS discussion
|
In response to my starting statements, Scott Hayes had the following question
How was the district-wide adoption conducted? Since we in LASERS work across seven different districts, I am looking for ways to direct (facilitate?) a similar adoption by all seven districts.
Our last K-12 Science adoption was preceeded by a series of meetings (we had release time in those days) to review our state essestial skills and create CORE standards. There was a representative from each middle school as part of this team ( each HS had reps, elementary schools... a certain % of the 74 schools were invited.I can't recall exactly, worked with HS and MS at the time. ) THEN this group of MS teachers met to reveiw the materials submitted from various publishers. They used a checklist to review materails which had our standards, and various criterion related to equity and methodology. WE had to adpot materials that were in Spanish and in English! Some of these teachers actually tried out units of the materials. In the final stages , we voted ( the decision came down to Sceince Plus, Glencoe... it was split nearly 50/50. The deciding points were 1) we could do a better job of support (PD) if we chose one program, 2) The Science Plus was less a text, more a guide and therefore would encourage more student investigation than readiong about science.3) This approach seemd more in step with the kit based adoption that the elementary was choosing ( FOSS) . The main concern was lack of print reference materia ( CONTENT), we proposed that supplimental resource libraries be provided for each classroom. the problem was... there were insufficient funds to support this recomendation, consequently to this day, many MS teachers feel shorted in terms of print materials. Some schools bought supplimental texts from their own funds, but the resource collection concept never got district central support. They went "on" to another subject adoption. ( Incidentally the 92 adooption was the LAST time we will consent to adopting a program K-12. To do it properly required WAY more than the state $ allocation and we were spread very thinly in terms of adequately facilitating these choices at all levels simutaneously) Now we are doing a grade level or content area at a time. We are also NOT having to necessarily throwing out what we had but in the best instances, we a building on what we selected previously. This is particulalry true at the elementary level.
What we find with Science Plus is that as a rule 6th grade teacher ( who tend to be elementary trained) and those new to science teaching are more willing to use the Science Plus program provided their school has maintained adequate materials to support it. There are a number of secondary trained MS teachers who are annoyed that they have no text, becuse they are used to having a text as a given. Other expereinced teachers who are" lab" or inquiry oriented are doing some Sci Plus but are supplimenting with their own developed or adapated units. they do not find the program "compelling" enough to switch
One dilemma I see is that we need to have a program that can be adaptive enough that new teachers with limited or no science background can implement AND that will accomodate the adaptation that expereinced teachers want to provide. A program that serves either one exclusively will jeopardize students serverly. This is why, at this time, before we adopt again, we must clearly identify what the needs of our teachers are and how we can build concensus to implement an equitable program which encourages students to understand and apply the science they are doing.
Scott asked: " I suspect that a single adoption -- whether one series adopted by all districts or different series adopted by each district -- will not provide the support for inquiry/investigation and it will need to be supplemented, as seems to be the case here with CHEM and GEMS. Was there a process by which teachers at each grade level were made aware of the possible supplemental sources . . . ? Gail's response ...yes, supplimental GEMS were adopted at the same time as SP . CHEM was introduiced as a result of our work with the IEOSL porject at Lawrence Hall. It was well likes by the participants and added to the supplimental list which adresse your s HOw to use them
how to use them . . . . the advantages of using them . . . . consensus on which parts should be used when and how. We did conduct inservices the first and second year after adoption they were voluntary, some teachers came some could or would not. (etc) OR did each teacher or each school come to its own decisions? At the time., each site was allowed to choose what 4 untis of the 8 they woudl use at each grade level. This was done to help teachers apply their particualr content comfort/expertise. In retrospect, it would have been better to decide this. Now that we have new state standards, this wasone of the first tasks our porject is undertaking. linking specific units and GEMS to the standards and suggesting waht should be taught. We will then ask teachers for feedback as to how this can work their sites and make necessary adjustments
Whoasks the teachers to select 4 units from SP our ditsrict MS science Specialist , and in what ways are teachers held accountable for doing that? this was lacking, we are now gaining principal support which should be helpful . We will alos look at assessment.
Even more important, since this is probably the vehicle we will use to generate a need for inquiry and to try to drive a single, cross-district adoption, what process(es) did you use to develop the Scope and Sequence to which you refer. I will refer you r question to Jonathan Bekcer hwo had been working with this this past year.
Gotta go now
This is likely way more than Scott wanted in terms of reply. I am very interested in learning about what other folks are thinking and doing. Gail
Gail Paulin TUSD Science Resource Center
|
|