From a colleague.
The district science supervisor displayed total disregard for the recommendations of the district physics and chemistry teachers in selecting the district’s next textbook adoption.
In the fall of 2010 I and 4 other High School Chemistry teachers agreed to serve on the districts Instructional Materials Committee. The 5 of us and the District Science Supervisor met and discussed the criteria used in the evaluation of 7 or more text book series.
She explained that the Honors Chemistry, Pre-IB Chemistry, Pre-AICE Chemistry and Standard Chemistry would all use the same series despite the varying goals of each course.
Later that year we met and picked up the materials and listened to the sales pitches from the sales representatives from all the publishers. I performed my due diligence reading each text, correlating the materials to the state curriculum standards. I analyzed the development and continuity of chemistry concepts, their presentation and assessment materials. This task involved countless hours and thousands of pages of review throughout the school year as well as over the summer and all for no financial compensation. I did it for the well being of the students, and the good of the district and profession.
When I returned this fall, I attended the Pre-Planning High School Science teachers meeting at Mandarin High School. All the district chemistry teachers in attendance were invited to evaluate the chemistry text book submissions. They quickly reviewed the possible series, filled out the forms and submitted them.
Later this year, I was informed of the final meeting to discuss and finalize the text selection. When I arrived I was shocked to find that I was the only chemistry teacher from the committee that was still employed by the district, the others left, seeking employment or a career change elsewhere in the midst of worse employment situation since the great depression. What does that tell you about the confidence level teachers have with respect to district leadership and where it is taking the schools and how it treats its faculty? But that’s another story.
I dutifully submitted my recommendations and listened to the comments and recommendations of the district’s chemistry faculty. Ninety percent of the evaluations did not recommend the series selected by the district science supervisor. In fact there was a resounding discontent with the scope and sequence of the objectives as well as the development and continuity of these objectives. I can remember one of the statements clearly as it was read aloud, “Please, whatever you do, do not pick this book”. The deficiencies of this series were obvious to anyone who is certified to teach the class and has experience teaching it.
The Science Supervisor, her assistant and I discussed and ranked the text series. My personal selection consisted of 3 text book series. These 3 series provided the most clear, concise, contiguous, logical progression of the concepts of chemistry as a quantifiable discipline. Other rational in my selection included the general use of the adoption. The selected text must serve a multitude of purposes. With that in mind, it is easier for any new teacher to omit selective accelerated material, than to secure additional material to augment the some of the other text series or references. This would serve both worlds of accelerated and standard programs.
When we concluded it was clear what the selection was to be. I handed the synopsis of the adopted text book material contents in which I compiled, its strengths and weaknesses to the Director of Instructional Materials in the presence of the Science Supervisor to be submitted to the board for approval. As far as I was concerned, it was a done deal. I could not be farther from the truth. My decision with the support of my colleagues was clear and convincing. A clear ranking order was undoubtedly established. I expected to receive the text in the fall per our last meeting.
During lunch, I was in a conversation with a physics teacher that served on the committee for the physics selection. He informed me that although the physics teachers in the district overwhelmingly selected one physics text, thought it was a done deal and the district science supervisor selected another, a much weaker series as was mine.
I received his copy of the email detailing the selection of the district. As I read the email, I noticed the chemistry selection was the antithesis of the selection of not just me, a 28 year class room teacher, chemistry certificated, advanced degree holding high performing teacher, but the over whelming majority of the district chemistry faculty as well. And people wonder why teachers do not want to serve on committees or join discussion panels or even stay with the district for that matter.
I had the same experience 6 years ago. I served on the same committee with other highly regarded senior veteran chemistry teachers. We produced a collective decision with regard to chemistry text book selection only to have it negated. The decision was based solely on style over substance. This is apparent since the district supervisor has not been in a class room as a teacher since the early 1990s and never held credentials or had experience in teaching chemistry or physics.
I find this course of action a wanton disregard of the professional opinions and expertise of the district science faculty and an insult to any professional in any professional venue.
Why did we have a committee when a decision was apparently been made prior to the input of the committee? Was this an attempt to lend legitimacy to the decision? This decision mirrored a decision of the district math supervisor a few of years ago against the recommendations of district math teachers when she made a decision to change the elementary math curriculum to the Math Investigations Program. This led to disastrous results in the ability of children to master basic math skills such as long division and other basic math skills which are taking years to rectify. We used to let it roll off our back, now 50 percent of our evaluation is based on student performance and poor choices do not lead to the science supervisor’s negative evaluation, only the teachers which are forced to follow a clearly flawed plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment