ERIC EJ886174: A School District's Adoption of an Elementary Science Curriculum

2008·0.29 MB·English

by  ERIC

Anthony W. Lorsbach
A School District’s Adoption of an
Elementary Science Curriculum
The author describes how case study methods were used to understand the
intricacies of curriculum adoption in one school district and the context in
which an adoption decision was made. As data collection and interpretation
commenced, understanding of the perceptions of the district stakeholders of
their process of curriculum adoption became an emerging concern.
What is the process a school district school district’s elementary science
uses to choose an elementary science curriculum adoption process and the
“At the local level, textbook
curriculum? The process as stated context in which an adoption decision
adoptions are the primary
on paper seems straightforward and was made.
routine in most districts for
objective. For example, agreed-upon
criteria are used to evaluate textbook updating curriculum.” Methods
series. Many resources are available Case study methods were used
to assist in such a process: The “the stuff of lessons and units, of to understand the intricacies of
National Academy of Sciences and what teachers and students do” and curriculum adoption in one school
National Science Foundation both describe curriculum materials as “part district. This study developed from an
offer resources to aid in the selection of of the routine of schools” and “at the initial inquiry that sought reasons for
curriculum materials, not to mention the local level, textbook adoptions are River Valley’s rejection of National
National Science Education Standards the primary routine in most districts Science Foundation-sponsored
and Project 206 Benchmarks. for updating curriculum,” yet “the curricula in favor of a more traditional
However, many schools continue to relationship between textbooks and text-based curriculum. However, as
choose curriculum materials that are teachers has rarely been taken up data collection and interpretation
considered dubious? with much care or imagination” (p.6). commenced, understanding of the
Tyson and Woodword (989) report Stein, Stuen, Carnine & Long (200) perceptions of the district stakeholders
that “textbooks structure 75- 90 percent examined statewide adoption practices of their process of curriculum adoption
of classroom instruction,” (p.4) yet and found that most research about became an emerging concern. The
few studies describe elementary the adoption process was published district curriculum adoption process
science adoption processes by schools. in the 980s. Studies do exist which became the “bounded system” (Stake,
Kelly and Staver (2005) assert that examine the quality of textbooks 997) of this case study. As such the
“there exists a dearth of curriculum (e.g., Kesidou & Roseman, 2002), but focus of this study is the adoption of
adoption and implementation studies recent research in elementary science an elementary science curriculum.
in the literature; consequently, far too adoption processes is limited, focusing It is not a “search for what is
little is known about what happens as instead on the implementation of common, pervasive and lawful” but for
science programs are implemented in new curricula (Cannon & Crowther, “understanding of the particular case,
schools” (p.27). Ball & Cohen (996) 997; Kelly & Staver, 2005). This in its idiosyncrasy, in its complexity
described curriculum materials as case study set out to examine one (Stake, 997, p.405).
Fall 2008 Vol. 17, No. 2 65
analyzed by a series of coding. Initial Terminology
The committee developed coding was used to develop common The interchangeable use of the
elements across the data. Subsequent terms curriculum adoption and
curriculum maps for each
coding led to provisional themes which textbook adoption is deliberate and
grade level.
guided further data collection. Themes is consistent with the use of the terms
reported here were central to many by the participants. It can be argued
of the categories developed through that a formal curriculum can differ
Data Sources
coding and may have implications for substantially from an implemented
Interviews. a more general theory of curriculum curriculum or the instructional
Interviews were conducted with adoption processes. The data are procedures of classroom teachers;
members of the Elementary Science reported here in the form of a case moreover, participants made no such
Committee, including the two study with a discussion of the emergent distinctions. Similarly, River Valley
co-chairs of the committee. The themes at the end of the chronological came to see curriculum planning
Director of Elementary Education, the narrative. To the degree possible, as akin to the textbook adoption
administrator in charge of the curriculum participant quotes are used to tell process.
the story; however, the story told
adoption, was also interviewed. Finally
here is my own, based upon my own The Process
classroom teachers were interviewed
to understand their perceptions of the interpretations of the data. River Valley School District is
adoption process. These interviews Setting located in Illinois, a state where
were transcribed for analysis. curriculum adoption is entirely a local
River Valley School District
decision. The State of Illinois only
Observations. (pseudonym) is a K-2 school district
regulates prices to be paid by districts
Observations of a textbook publisher’s with approximately 2,000 students
by demanding curriculum developers
presentation was recorded in the form employing over 600 teachers and
file a sworn statement with the state
of field notes to gain an understanding support staff with an approximate
indicating they are bonded and will
of the decision-making process. yearly budget of $90 million. The
not charge Illinois school districts
district has a student body which
Documents more than other districts nationwide
is approximately 75% White, 2%
(Illinois School Code 05 ILCS
All documents pertaining to the
Black, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander and
5/28-) – requirements easily met by
adoption process were made available
5% Native American. The low-income
scores and scores of companies selling
and became part of the data set.
rate of approximately 24% is based
instructional materials.
Documents included results from the
upon students from families who
Curriculum adoption, at the el-
Science Committee’s own evaluation
receive public aid, live in institutions
ementary level, was overseen by
forms and feedback from teachers
for neglected or delinquent children,
River Valley’s Director of Elementary
on the final two proposed curricula.
are supported in foster homes with
Education – an administrator from
Teachers’ feedback was in the form
public funds, or are eligible to receive
the central office who reports to
of tabular results from a survey and
free or reduced lunches (State of
the Assistant Superintendent for
open-ended questions. District grade-
Illinois definition). The district has
Curriculum and Instruction. The typi-
level curriculum maps developed
been growing for several years.
cal curriculum cycle in River Valley
by the Science Committee were
Between 2006 and 200 enrollment
is 0 years. The process of adopting
also examined, as were publicly
is projected to continue to increase
a new curriculum takes two years.
available documents relating to district
at a rate of nearly 3% per year. Three
Barbara, the Director of Elementary
demographics.
new elementary schools and one
Education during the science curricu-
Data Analysis new middle school are currently in
lum adoption process, described the
the planning stages. Most district
A grounded theory approach as typical adoption of a curriculum as one
challenges relate to the growth of the
described by Strauss and Corbin (998) year to discuss best practices, articula-
district in recent years.
was used for data analysis. Data were tion and curriculum mapping and one
66 ScieNce educator
year to choose the curriculum. Jean, it is a miniscule amount of money to select a manageable number of
a veteran third-grade teacher and one and they don’t get release time so curricula to be presented to teachers.
of the elementary science committee they are still full-time classroom The basic commitment of the
co-chairs, described the process for teachers and they just have more committee, from the beginning of
choosing the science curriculum: work to do and a small amount the program, was the idea of “more
This is usually a 10 year process of money for doing it. But they depth, less breadth.” As Barbara
where you have a textbook, like are also extremely knowledgeable described it:
in the area of science because
our last science books we had One of the things that really
I will be the first to admit that
for 10 years. Two years before, came out [of school-level science
science is not my area and the
in the eighth year of the series … meetings] was we were skimming
committee did look to those
you get a task force together and lots and lots of topics and not
ladies for guidance in terms
they try to have each grade level giving depth and that was the
of: is this good material, is this
K-5 represented. They [central other thing the elementary
grade appropriate, and they did
administration] try to have equal science curriculum can include
a wonderful job of leading and
representation. They try to get the more depth rather than breadth.
guiding our committee.
schools represented; they try to That was a key issue.
get the grades represented. Filling out the rest of the committee
And Abby, a science committee co-
was also charged to Barbara:
I think we met 4 times the first chair:
year where you are getting some We sent out a call for volunteers
We had originally thought that
ideas for series and then you and in some buildings we had
we wanted something that really
start to look at some of those more volunteers than we could
went deep into one subject area
series, you get a few samples use and in other buildings we
at a time and we would really
sent in and then you narrow it had to shake the bushes a little
focus on that.
down to maybe 2 or 3 and then bit and so I was allowed, with
those companies come, they have the permission of the Assistant
presenters come show you all the Superintendent of Curriculum
Barbara did not want
different stuff like they are selling and Instruction, to cull the list
their product. in those buildings where we had teachers to see components
more than we needed and I was of the curriculum they were
Abby, a veteran kindergarten
teacher and the other elementary allowed to shake the bushes I not going to receive.
wanted to shake in those building
science committee co-chair recalled
where we needed more people,
spending time during the first year
and I did so.
of the adoption process examining Standards and Testing
the standards to be better prepared to While ‘less breadth, more depth’
Criteria for Choosing
select a curriculum. was a consideration, participants’
the Curriculum –
discussion of the criteria for choosing
Choosing the Committee
Narrowing the Choices the curriculum was dominated by how
Barbara had primary responsibility well the new curriculum addressed,
More Depth – Less Breadth
for forming the elementary science and used the language of the Illinois
The first year, the committee
committee and was pleased that Learning Standards. Abby described
developed curriculum maps and
Abby and Jean would co-chair the her perceptions of the influence of
planned the adoption process; it was
committee. state standards and tests:
the job of the committee to narrow the
We are fortunate in this district They [teachers] wanted to
possible choices of curricula to two
we do have curriculum chairs hit some of those topics they
or three before seeking input from
at the elementary level. Two know are on the ISATs [Illinois
all teachers. Barbara and the Science
curriculum chairs for the whole Standards Achievement Test]
Committee used the following criteria
district. It is a paid position but and these tests, that was a big
Fall 2008 Vol. 17, No. 2 67
concern and that was one of to make sure the standards were interesting to me that they knew
the things that as a task force right there for the teachers that. It goes to show how test
that we looked through to see. because that’s been such an issue aware our teachers have become.
So we would look at the series - our teachers teaching to the Not just of ISAT but of Stanford
to make sure that those things standards. We really wanted to Achievement Test as well. It’s
were covered for the student, to get away from those lessons that gotten out of control.
make sure they had been exposed teachers just were doing because
Copyright Date
to those things before they took they like to do them, which is still
the test. So that was a big, big a problem, you know, it really The data revealed other criteria that
concern. isn’t in their curriculum at all were important to the committee at this
anymore, and so, that is really not juncture of the process. The adopted
We first tried to talk about the
following the standards at all, so curriculum would have a ten-year
standards and what we would
we wanted something that really lifespan. Given that lifespan, Barbara
look for in a new series. We really
you could not not teach to the would only consider curricula with a
just wanted to make sure we hit
standards. copyright date of no more than two
all the standards and this one
years from the time of adoption.
had textbooks directly written for
Illinois state standards, which We eliminated things that had
was really a big plus for that At the beginning of the a copyright date that were two
and I think that was why it was school year all teachers years out. Again, knowing that we
chosen. were required to attend had ten years that we were going
to keep this, then we were down
But we wanted to make sure training sessions.
to five. That made it relatively
… and we were … you know
easy.
originally we were saying we
Barbara, Jean and Sharon (a Science
have to make sure we cover Professional Development
Committee member) confirmed in
the standards so let’s write this
Since many teachers in the district
their interviews the primacy of the state
[curriculum maps to outline the
were not “content comfortable” in
standards and tests for the selection
standards]. But then when we
science the committee felt that ongoing
of the science curriculum. Barbara, a
found that they had the standards
professional development for the life
longtime administrator was surprised
already in it we didn’t need to
of the text series in the district (0
at how standards- and test-savvy her
do it that way. It was a lot easier
years) was important and something
teachers had become:
to do. Nobody wanted it to be a
that Barbara wanted in writing from
unit that just followed a book, And the teachers were more
the publishers.
you know, we want to create aware than I realized of even the
… there also had to be
our own curriculum and then kinds of questions on the Stanford
a component of ongoing
find something to support it but Achievement … not the kinds
professional development. That
we felt that this series really of questions but the topics that
was promised to our teachers.
did incorporate all the different were addressed on the Stanford
Not just for the first year, but for
things we were looking for. Achievement Test and, again, I
the life of the series because the
have been out of the classroom
(Tony: Your text series was other thing the teachers told our
long enough that I couldn’t
chosen over the others because committee was we always get
tell you that in second grade
of this standards issue?) It really professional development the
they were asking these kinds of
seemed that most of the teachers year that a series is adopted but
questions. In sixth grade these
felt that that was the easiest as new folks come on they never
kinds of questions and in our
way. You know there were a lot get that and it is “figure it out
series now we don’t even get to
of appealing features to it but on your own” and traditionally
this topic until this grade. We at
the standards were really a main we have a series for 10 years.
least need a series that addresses
focus for this. We really wanted And when we are hiring 100 new
it at the right time. And that was
68 ScieNce educator
teachers a year, you have a lot Absence of Research and Outside committee in that area—though
of people who don’t know how to Influences again, we had passionate science
use the materials. people on the committee so they
None of the participants mentioned
know what they were talking
A teacher hired seven or eight years any reliance on research or resources
about and in that area I looked
from the adoption year was entitled related to science curriculum adoption
to them for direction. My role
to free professional development or best practices. The participants
was really keeping the group
from the publisher. The professional said that Barbara had given them a
moving forward and then doing
development is best described as notebook with articles to be read;
the negotiation to make sure the
an introduction to the curriculum however, when I asked Abby if she had
teachers got what they needed.
materials. Only publishers willing any professional development related
to guarantee such professional to curriculum adoption she said However other task force members
development would be considered There wasn’t any formal training, characterize Barbara as very much in
finalists for curriculum adoption. [Barbara] just would say, okay, control of the process:
this is our goal, this is what Barbara met with us, when we
Influence of Social Studies
we need to do, this is where we first started, she told us what we
Curriculum Adoption
are headed, you know today we needed to look for. We had the
Finally, only textbook series were
are going to do this. She really Illinois Standards, we had the
considered for adoption. Kit curricula
step-by-step led us through criteria that we had come up
such as Full Option Science System that process. She didn’t lead us with that we thought would be a
(FOSS), Insights, and Science and through the answers but what do valid checklist, so as far as that
Technology for Children (STC) were we want to look for. training goes, yes. Outside people
eliminated early on (Barbara). The last
Taking into consideration these coming in and training us? No,
curriculum adopted in social studies
main ideas—“more depth/less but Barbara did. (Jean)
was a kit curricula and implementation
breadth,” alignment of curricula to the
I was on the task force and the
of those materials did not go well. As
Illinois Learning Standards, a copy-
chair but she really did all that
Barbara put it:
right of no more than two years old,
behind the scenes and talking
We went the non-text route with on-going professional development
to the different companies and
social studies and it turned
for new teachers, and no kit-based
kind of leading us in the right
into a veritable nightmare and
curricula—the committee narrowed direction. (Abby)
our curriculum committee said
the choice to two textbook series to
we are not going down that I didn’t really head the task force,
present to all teachers for their input.
street. We are not going to be she [Barbara] did that. (Abby)
held responsible for a non-text Making a Decision
Barbara had it narrowed down
curriculum. We are not going to
to four or five before she brought
Who’s in Charge?
get beat up the way those poor
it to the task force … We didn’t
social studies people did. Barbara, as Director of Elementary
go out there and search as a
Education at River Valley, was the
As we narrowed things down and task force. Barbara brought
administrator charged with curriculum
knowing what their [the Science just, I think there were five,
adoption in all content areas at
Committee] colleagues would in the beginning and the task
the elementary level. As such, the
and wouldn’t use, they eliminated force limited it to three and let
adoption of a science curriculum was
some things right off the bat and the teachers choose among the
her responsibility. She was hesitant to
FOSS was one. three but it ended up being that
take too much credit for the process
no one wanted the third, which
Jean concurred: and decision:
I don’t even remember what it
I am a firm believer anymore They [the science curriculum was anymore, she just, we just
in textbooks after seeing what co-chairs] did a wonderful job presented two to the teachers.
happened with the social studies. of leading and guiding our (Abby)
Fall 2008 Vol. 17, No. 2 69
Barbara narrowed down the The committee did not use resources then find something to support it
curriculum choices and I don’t from professional organizations or the but we felt that this series really
know what criteria she used. I research literature to become better did incorporate all the different
imagine she would be helpful for informed about making curricular things we were looking for.
you to talk to. (Sharon) decisions. For example, Project 206
And Jean:
No one seemed willing to take has a curriculum evaluation tool
We didn’t really go and fill that
responsibility for the curriculum (Roseman, Kesidou, S. and Stern,
in until we figured out which
adopted. Barbara described herself 997) for choosing curricula that
series because we wanted it to
as a facilitator, while committee is aligned to AAAS Benchmarks
obviously match the series. It [the
members described her as making most (American Association for the
curriculum maps] really states
decisions. All participants do agree Advancement of Science, 993) and
what you’re going to teach and
that Barbara narrowed the curricular National Science Education Standards
what resources you have, so the
choices for the committee to examine (National Research Council, 996). It
curriculum really was written
by excluding for consideration any appeared that River Valley felt it had
after the fact of the adoption.
curriculum that had a copyright two enough information about elementary
Originally we thought it would be
years or older, lacked professional science curricula to proceed.
the other way around—we would
development or was kit-based. This There was preparation for evaluating
write the curriculum and then
effectively narrowed the choices to the curricula. The committee developed
find a series that matched it.
five similar textbook-based curricula. curriculum maps for each grade level.
Barbara also provided the training the These maps outlined what concepts The Publishers
committee members received. would be taught at each grade level Five publishers met with Barbara
and what learning standards were
and the Science Committee initially
Preparations for Making the
addressed. The maps were to be used
to present their textbook series (by
Decision
to assist in the curriculum decision
this time a kit-based curriculum was
There was little professional making by finding which curricula
out of the question). The publisher’s
development provided to the committee most closely matched the curriculum
presentation I attended, which
about science curriculum adoption. maps. However, when the committee
participants concurred was very
When asked about resources used and compared the initial drafts of their
similar to the presentations of all the
training provided Barbara replied, maps to the final two curriculum
publishers, took place in a classroom
We also really looked at the choices, neither curriculum matched
that had been prepared by the sales
resources we had in place and up very well to the curriculum maps.
staff. Rich-red tablecloths covered
talked about what’s good about So, the committee changed the
the classroom tables. Three tables on
what we have, what’s bad about curriculum maps. As Abby related,
the periphery of the classroom held
what we have, what are the Nothing matches something that displays of the text and teacher resource
practices currently in place you just create so we ended up materials, science equipment, and
and what are we missing. The doing it the other way around consumables that could be purchased
committee talked about what and it was a lot easier. But we and a display of the technology
they were doing and then they wanted to make sure … and we resources available. On a middle
went back and held meetings were originally saying we have to table was the fully-catered meal the
with their staff to provide input. make sure we cover the standards
publisher was providing the science
We garnered some really good so let’s write this now. But then
committee: salads, sandwiches,
information from the staff in when we found that they had the
bagels, muffins, cookies and drinks.
terms of what is good about standards already in it we didn’t
While the teachers entered the
science in River Valley and what need to do it that way. It was a
three sales staff engaged in small
is bad about science in River lot easier to do. Nobody wanted
talk, primarily about the food. After
Valley. And that also helped in it to be a unit that just followed
the teachers filled their plates the
terms of giving us a little bit of a book, you know, we want to
projector was turned on and the sales
direction of what we needed. create our own curriculum and
presentation commenced.
70 ScieNce educator
A Problem I may go in depth on one subject
that has been touched upon in
Without any significant After presentations from the
K, 1, 2. Fourth grade will go in
publishers the committee narrowed the
professional development or
depth on a different subject that
selection to two text series that would
curriculum guidance from
has been touched on 2, 3 you
be presented to all elementary teachers
the district for a number of know? Fifth grade may go really
in the district. However, there was a
years, a laissez-faire system in depth on something that they
problem: none of the curricula met
evolved for elementary the goal set by the committee that the had in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. So in
that respect, yes, everything that
science: Teachers did as new curriculum should represent more
we are teaching is not in depth
they pleased. conceptual depth and less breadth. The
but it is almost like a whet your
eventual chosen publisher provided
appetite, so by the time, like, by
an answer. They told the committee
the time kindergartners get up
The sales staff began by telling that their curriculum was a spiraling
here, by the time they are doing
the committee how the text series curriculum—every topic was covered
the butterflies, they are like ‘we
was based upon the professional at every grade level and as students
saw that one’ … well now we
literature, national standards and the spiraled up the curriculum their
are learning that you need a
research conducted in the development understanding would increase.
male and a female butterfly and
of the curriculum. The committee Tony: Did the publisher say,
there’s no way without a male
was then shown how the Illinois basically, here’s this spiraling
and a female that the eggs can be
Learning Standards were integrated idea?
fertile. They are not learning that
into the curriculum, which included
Barbara: Yes. Yes. in kindergarten, you get more
the text, teacher resources, and online
added to it each year.
materials. How the publishers dealt Tony: Is there a research base
with the reading abilities of students that the publisher used … And Abby:
was discussed; not only the text The curriculum that we adopted
Barbara: Oh my gosh. They
series but the leveled readers that really does not do that. It is the
provided that information for us
supplemented the text. In this case, same topics year after year after
and again our teachers on the
small paperback books summarizing year and don’t go as deep. You go
committee did their own research
material in the text were available for … you know it’s a spiral, so we
and brought it in …
students reading above, at and below just keep going around. So really,
grade level. Supplemental materials And Jean: if we did it again, I don’t think we
and technology resources were then Tony: You know that’s interesting should spend a whole lot of time
presented. The committee was shown because that really is not the way talking about … we spent almost
equipment tubs with place mats that the National Science Standards a year talking about what we
had lined drawings of the equipment to talk about things. They’re still were looking for and then when
be laid on them for an activity; audio saying it’s a problem when it’s we saw the different series, none
readings of the text; parent resources; an inch deep and a mile wide. of these were exactly what we had
and technology resources such as We want fewer subjects taught talked about so we kind of had to
an online text, test bank (including in more depth and you have this readjust what we were thinking.
questions formatted to the style of curriculum not necessarily doing
The committee did have to explain
the Illinois Standards Achievement that?
to teachers why the two text series
Test), and movie clips. Finally, the
Jean: The National Standards chosen did not match the district goals
teachers left with a tote bag full of
want depth taught but no, this is of more depth:
gifts and preview materials from the
not … it’s following standards but In the beginning there was some
sales staff.
it’s not in depth from everything discussion of a few teachers,
that I’m seeing. It’s not in depth. especially in the second grade,
Fall 2008 Vol. 17, No. 2 7
that didn’t like that there was so Committee members’ anxiety was a vote. And, again, that was
much to cover and they thought further eased by how informed the because of past practice where
we agreed that we were going sales staff were. they didn’t have to attend both
to go deeper and do fewer they would attend only one and
Tony: So the idea going in was
topics. I told them the knowledge vote for the one, which seemed
that the curriculum would be
would get in depth but that you ludicrous to me. Though I have
in depth, more a mile deep and
needed the knowledge here to to tell you that created a furor
inch across than the other way
get to there. I think it is more within the district because it’s the
around?
developmentally appropriate as first time anyone said “you’re
Abby: Right and then as we got
far as the depth goes. (Sharon) not voting unless you’re there for
more into it the different series
both. This was an after school
A Problem Solved were really not doing that as
activity so they were giving up
much and we put our trust that
The publishers did ease the minds their own time to attend and
they [the publishers] knew what
of the committee members by relating they weren’t paid to attend and
long-term was more effective
the spiraling curriculum to the state we’re a pretty union strong
with the kids. We figured they had
testing. district but we held fast on that
studied it.
issue and attendance was taken
This is the first time ever that
and your evaluation had to have
3rd grade has ever had simple District-Wide Teacher Input
your name on it and, um, we
machines. Now, simple machines
Having narrowed the curriculum
were very secure in the fact that
were always massively in-
choices to two text series the
only people who attended both
depth done in 5th grade. Okay,
committee was ready to gather input
of the showcases were allowed
ISAT had simple machines on
from teachers. Barbara asked the
to provide input into which was
it and 4th grade takes it [the
publishers to make presentations to all
actually the best series for our
ISAT science test]. Now simple
elementary teachers, being adamant
machines are in 3rd grade, it’s district. (Barbara)
that the publishers only include in their
in 4th grade, it’s in 5th grade.
Teachers were upset that their opinions
presentation that which the district
But it is enough in 4th grade
did not count unless they attended
agreed to purchase. Barbara did not
… we just touch upon it a little
both presentations. It also meant that
want teachers to see components of
bit, they go into it deeper in 4th
the committee had much less teacher
the curriculum they were not going
grade but they go into it deeper
participation.
to receive.
in 5th but they’ve got enough to
The committee developed an The problem was when we put the
… you know, answer the [ISAT]
instrument for teachers to use in survey out, it went after school
questions. It’s exposed them
evaluating the final curriculum and not very many people went.
enough so that they can figure out
choices. Teachers would attend So there wasn’t as big of a turn
the answers on the ISAT. So, is
sessions and fill out the survey; the out for that and then later people
the curriculum developed around
committee would tally responses of were upset that they didn’t get to
the ISAT? (Barbara)
the surveys and use this data in their vote. (Abby)
Sharon concurred:
deliberations to choose a curriculum.
Less than 30 teachers of a population of
That was something Jean No operational definitions were given
more than 260 elementary classroom
mentioned, that we were taking a for terms listed on the form. For
teachers attended both presentations
chance before when the kids were example, “appropriate resources,”
and whose evaluation data was tallied.
taking their test in fourth grade “hands-on involvement” or “rubrics
There were 9 open-ended comments
they may not have had something, that are easily accessible” were not
from the teachers. Most positive
but this curriculum where you explained. There also was a proviso
comments focused on two main
hit everything a little bit at least to teacher participation:
topics: reading level, particularly the
you are assured that everything is
The teachers had to attend both leveled readers and vocabulary (5
getting hit.
[presentations] in order to give responses), and the equipment tubs for
72 ScieNce educator
the activities (5 responses). Only one including CDs with worksheets and it says you are to cover unit
of the comments mentioned standards assessments; supplementary (leveled) A—chapters one, two, three and
alignment but negative comments readers for students reading above, at four in the first nine weeks. Unit
about both curricula included overly and below grade level; each classroom B the second nine weeks and we
simplistic activities (2 responses), gets a cart with tubs of materials to mapped it out because if kids
the number of topics to be covered (5 complete activities in the textbook; move they are not going to totally
responses). One second grade teacher and a technology component which miss out and have an empty space
did remind the committee that the includes online access to the text by because they didn’t get plants and
curricula presented strayed from their students and parents. animals or something like that.
original intent:
I’m laughing to myself because
Curriculum Implementation
I have concerns about both sets this is going back to twenty years
The committee was pleased to
of science materials. First, I was ago when a child moved from one
have a curriculum that specifically
under the impression that we had school to another we used to have
addressed the Illinois Learning
a goal to teach fewer science to know what page students were
Standards. After all,
topics, but more in depth. Both on in each subject, what book,
of the science series we looked You know you couldn’t not you know and then we got away
at include a little information teach to the standards. So a from it because everyone was
about a lot of topics. I recall new teacher or something like doing their own thing and now
hearing about recent research on that, rather than them looking it’s sort of like going back to that.
science education that supported at the standards and saying am
The idea is that with the new
the concept of fewer topics, I doing that and then looking at
curriculum there are no excuses for not
more study in depth. Second, I their lesson plans and trying to
teaching science or for not keeping up.
know that our guiding principles correlate, it was already done for
Barbara explains the new policy:
for curriculum are to align our them. If you taught the series you
There is now a mandate in River
curriculum to state standards were teaching to the standards
Valley that you teach for the
for our grade level, and to and you didn’t really have to
required number of minutes and
use resources that support the constantly be checking that and
before that was not the case.
standards. With a science series writing it in your plan book
Before it was ‘I teach science for
that is so highly structured and which ones you were covering
6 weeks, I teach social studies for
”basalized” it will be almost because it was right there for
6 weeks’.
impossible to avoid teaching you, which we felt might be more
lessons that are straight from the effective in making sure those We have principals who were
textbook, beginning to end. This standards were covered on a also inserviced on the teaching
gives me the sense of teaching regular basis.(Abby) of science by our committee.
the text, as opposed to teaching Here are the resources, here is
A New Mandate to Teach Science
science and teaching children. the grade articulation and here
I appreciate the work of the We’re telling them resistance is are the things you should be
committee, and I appreciate the futile. (Barbara) seeing in the classroom, and here
opportunity for all teachers to are the things you shouldn’t be
After adopting the new text
see the materials. I do wish there seeing in the classroom. And so
series the committee went back and
had been more opportunities our principals went out better
completed their curriculum maps.
for dialogue with all teachers armed than they had been before
The maps also include what topics
throughout the process. Thank in terms of: these are the best
should be completed every grading
you. practices in science and this is
period. Jean:
the inservice and these are the
The new text series was chosen Our science committee went
resources. The principals have
shortly thereafter. The series includes through and did a curriculum
gone back to their buildings and
student textbooks; teachers’ guides, guide, a curriculum map, and
said, honestly folks, I expect
Fall 2008 Vol. 17, No. 2 73
to see this happening in my What we are finding already is We have principals who were
building. We spent the money so that our teachers respond better also inserviced on the teaching
that you could do this, so that our to professional development of science by our committee.
students could experience this, I done by our teachers than they Here are the resources, here is
want to see it happen. do by outside people. They want the grade articulation and here
the outside people to come in are the things you should be
They have the resources. They
and give them that first flush of seeing in the classroom, and here
have the texts. The materials
information because they know are the things you shouldn’t be
that they have are unbelievable.
we don’t know that, but once seeing in the classroom. And so
They have tubs for every single
that happens they really want it our principals went out better
chapter. The tubs literally have
to be our people providing the armed than they had been before
little trays that have every single
professional development. They in terms of: these are the best
thing that a student is supposed
would rather us provide release practices in science and this is
to get. The kids from kindergarten
time for our curriculum chairs or the inservice and these are the
on can go to their tub, lift out
our technology people to really resources.
their tray, take it. It’s there.
figure out the technology pieces
No excuses for not doing the Jean described what her message to
or figure out what resources we
activities. the principals was during the inservice
have available in River Valley
sessions:
to supplement what’s available
The other K-2 curriculum
through the series or the timing
chair and I are showing, in the
The notion that a mandate of the series or how best to use
principal’s forum, what they
the series and then have them put
from the district insisting
should look for when they are
on the professional development
science be taught regularly
in a classroom observing and
than have somebody come in and
to the point of keeping up evaluating a teacher on science.
say this is the way you should be
with a timeline for covering doing it in River Valley. Abby and And number one is they shouldn’t
chapters in the district Jean are looking at that piece and have lessons going on for a
month. If teachers spend more
curriculum maps may seeing how feasible it is. They
than a day or two on a topic they
do have two classrooms of their
have hardened teachers’
aren’t doing it right.
own and only so many days, and
resistance to the curriculum.
I know they really have people In essence River Valley believed that
pulling at them. (Barbara) the new curriculum was standards-
Eventually Abby and Jean did proof and an introduction to the
Professional Development
provide more inservice opportunities materials was sufficient for teachers
The publisher provided inservice during the district institute days. These and principals to begin implementing
sessions during the spring subsequent sessions were offered on a voluntary not only the new science curriculum,
to the adoption. At these sessions basis so many teachers did not have but the mandate that science would be
teachers did receive their teachers’ any professional development beyond taught every day and teachers would
guides but it was months before what the publisher delivered the prior keep up with the pacing outlined in the
teachers received their other materials. spring. curriculum maps. It also was believed
At the beginning of the school year that these actions and policies would
Principal Inservice
all teachers were required to attend be sufficient to ensure not only that
training sessions. The publisher Barbara felt that in order for the science was being taught but that
returned with more inservice in the implementation of the new curriculum activities in the text would be done
fall, providing sessions for each grade to work, and to ensure that science in classrooms because the materials
level. After these publisher sessions was actually going to be taught that were readily available. Further, all
the Science Committee decided that principals also needed inservice. these actions and policies would be
more needed to be done. policed by principals.
74 ScieNce educator