Angie Griffith, I decided to start a new post based on your previous comments about the Springboard curriculum adoption. I went back and watched the video from last May 13 when the board voted to approve. The staff presentation (not included in the clip below) was almost as if a salesperson from Springboard was giving it. All plusses, no minuses (obviously youd expect the plusses to outweigh the minuses if youre recommending the board adopt it, but in my opinion its important to outline the imperfections and present at least a preliminary outline of how to deal with them). Lots of online support, lots of opportunities for professional development, and, of course, complete connect-the-dots alignment with the rubric of the Common Core State Standards. The video posted here starts with the boards Q&A. Ted Wenta starts by asking what is actually a very responsible question of whether any critics have come forward since the previous presentation and what are they saying. Supt. Cohn then takes it upon himself to rephrase the question (another bad habit of his) and then lead the staff to defuse it. Near the three-minute mark former student rep Brittni Burgess remarks that a lot of students dont like it because its harder and requires a lot more writing than what HS students in Everett are used to, but once they adjust itll be a good thing. Then Traci Mitchell bounces back with essentially Teds question, since it really didnt get answered: What *have* people with concerns about Springboard been saying? (Hey, at least shes asking questions!) The audio is poor and its hard to hear Tony Byrds answers, but, no matter. Where it gets really interesting is at the 5:30 mark when Supt. Cohn starts chastising the board for coming what I guess is too close to seriously considering public input (random anecdotes is how he puts it) over his time-and-labor-intensive committees recommendation. Even more bizarre, Pam LeSesne then chimes in with a detailed description of how involved the selection committee process is, as if the other directors didnt already know. The point seems to be: dont you dare think about voting no on this recommendation. At the end of things, Ted practically apologizes for even bringing it up. I mean no disrespect for the people who serve on these adoption committees and devote their time and energy in earnest to evaluate materials and make a sincere recommendation. Im not even ragging on Springboard, since I dont have any personal evidence so far not to like it. (My own 7th grader -- honors English -- says he uses it every day and likes it just fine. I also hope Springboard works out, because otherwise were just going to be back at the drawing board in five years looking for a replacement.) But I dont think honoring the process should take precedence over getting it right. At the end of the day, if the board feels that, despite all the diagrams, post-its, and lines drawn between the standards, strategic plan goals, and all the other rubrics out there, if it still seems wrong, they should not vote to adopt it.
Posted on: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 21:51:20 +0000