Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
November 12, 2007
I attended my first State Board meeting yesterday to
complete the CMC 2007 Math Text book observation
process. I didn’t know quite what to expect from the
Board, but was hoping to see some of the same spirit
that was evident through out the IMAP process. Alas,
when I saw the consent agenda, which included all of
the programs that the IMAP and Curriculum Commission
(CC) agreed to either accept or reject, I knew things
would be pretty much anticlimactic. There were,
however, a few points that I found curious.
Concerning the textbook adoption on Nov. 8, the Board
scheduled four public hearings. Hearing number 1
dealt with the consent agenda. Before this Tom Adams
from CDE and Curriculum Commissioner Charles Munger
gave reports on the adoption process. Tom Adams
reported that this was the largest primary adoption
in state history. 33 publishers initially submitted
54 programs for consideration, most of which ended up
on the adopted list. Final versions of texts with all
edits and corrections duly taken care of, are
supposed to be available by Feb. 6, 2008. The Board
voted unanimously to approve those 22 Basic, 8
Intervention, and 11 Algebra Readiness programs on
the consent agenda. (The complete list was on the
blog Nov. 8, immediately after it was approved!)
Before the vote the audience was given a chance for public comment. Publishers were given five minutes to speak and all of us other non-publisher types were given two minutes to speak. An ASCA representative requested that the Board share with the governor the actual cost of these programs with the urging that they be fully funded. A parent requested that Teacher’s Editions rather than student texts be made available on line for review. A representative for CTA made an appeal to the Board to ensure that IMAP panels were comprised of a majority of classroom teachers, and that those teachers all met the highly qualified regulations of NCLB. This was later motioned and passed by the Board.
Commissioner Munger asked the Board to allow the Curriculum Commissioners greater access to the Publishers from the time the IMAP decisions were made to the time that the Curriculum Commission made its recommendations. Munger pointed out that especially with an abundance of programs there were many questions generated and communication with publishers beyond the times set up in public meetings was warranted, especially since other members of the public could communicate with them outside of scheduled public meeting times. Commissioner Waggoner spoke in favor of this idea saying that since Professional Organizations don’t have a vote, why do they need to know what communication goes on between a commissioner and publisher? Further, not allowing private publisher access calls his personal integrity into question. At very least, if publishers were not allowed to speak to Commissioners outside of public meetings, then other organizations and individuals should be limited to those public forums as well.
A motion was made by the Board to allow publishers private access with commissioners during the interim time between IMAP and Commission hearings. It was quickly pointed out by CDE and others that this issue had already been dealt with by the Board back in July, and that the Board had ruled in favor of having a much more transparent adoption process. Thus, the policy to limit on publisher input only to public hearing meetings. Much to the Boards credit in July, and again in not passing this motion yesterday, the commitment to having a more fair and open adoption process was upheld. While on the surface it may indeed be true that having more access to publishers would aid Commissioners in making decisions and compiling their reports, it does seem curious that these Commissioners would want to return to some of the practices that so tarnished the previous adoption.
The second Board hearing dealt with Programs that the IMAP panels had not recommended in part or whole, and now the Curriculum Commissions was recommending to once again be included. Examples here included Prentice Hall and Everyday Mathematics where only a grade level out of the program was not recommended by the IMAP, but was by the CC. Also in this group was iLearn, iPass, which as an entire program was not recommended by IMAP, but was by the CC. The Board voted unanimously to accept the CC recommendations. There was little discussion or debate about the motion to accept and no public comment. Various members of the Board did make mention from time to time how appreciative they were of the CC’s work in advising them.
The next hearing dealt with adding another Prentice Hall program, by the CC. Again there was no public comment and a unanimous vote of approval by the Board.
The last hearing was more delicate. This hearing involved Carnegie Learning’s Cognitive Tutor for Algebra 1. This program, as you may recall from previous reports, was recommended by the IMAP and rejected by the CC. Carnegie Learning representatives took their five minutes trying to make the case that research proved the program’s effectiveness. The Board then heard from Commissioners Munger, Waggoner, and McCray who voiced opposition to the program. Commissioner McCray who was the IMAP facilitator for the Carnegie panel stated that she had reservations about the panel’s recommendation of this program, so she asked Munger and Waggoner to review it. Their recommendation was to not approve the program saying that at least half the program would need to be rewritten for it to be able to meet standards.
Board member Lopez was concerned about not validating what the IMAP teachers had done and in the voting was the only member of the Board to vote in opposition of the CC recommendation that the Carnegie Algebra 1 program not be approved.
So, how do we sum up this phase of the adoption process? As has been stated before, all involved in this process, especially the IMAP teachers, are deserving of much praise for the tremendous amount of work they have done. CDE, the Curriculum Commission, and the State Board (as well as our own CMC observers) deserve accolades for their efforts in making this adoption process much more open and transparent. We are thrilled that the state’s educators have an abundance of curriculum choices. Three major decisions have been made, and now the real work begins for districts and teacher/administrator committees in making the most important decisions concerning what curriculum is best to help meet the needs of their students. Our sincere hope is that adoption committees will be vigilant and spend the necessary time that is needed to seek out quality.
It is also hoped that the blog reporting has raised awareness. It is important for teachers to be heard. But, all must realize the tremendous political forces that are brought to bear anytime phenomenal amounts of time and money are involved in decision-making processes. There are other issues, such as standards and testing, on the horizon that will present us with long sought after opportunity for change. If we want to be heard, and why not, for we as math teachers and educators have important things to say, we must maintain political awareness, activism, and presence. To the fore with these efforts!
Royce Page,
CMC Observer
Before the vote the audience was given a chance for public comment. Publishers were given five minutes to speak and all of us other non-publisher types were given two minutes to speak. An ASCA representative requested that the Board share with the governor the actual cost of these programs with the urging that they be fully funded. A parent requested that Teacher’s Editions rather than student texts be made available on line for review. A representative for CTA made an appeal to the Board to ensure that IMAP panels were comprised of a majority of classroom teachers, and that those teachers all met the highly qualified regulations of NCLB. This was later motioned and passed by the Board.
Commissioner Munger asked the Board to allow the Curriculum Commissioners greater access to the Publishers from the time the IMAP decisions were made to the time that the Curriculum Commission made its recommendations. Munger pointed out that especially with an abundance of programs there were many questions generated and communication with publishers beyond the times set up in public meetings was warranted, especially since other members of the public could communicate with them outside of scheduled public meeting times. Commissioner Waggoner spoke in favor of this idea saying that since Professional Organizations don’t have a vote, why do they need to know what communication goes on between a commissioner and publisher? Further, not allowing private publisher access calls his personal integrity into question. At very least, if publishers were not allowed to speak to Commissioners outside of public meetings, then other organizations and individuals should be limited to those public forums as well.
A motion was made by the Board to allow publishers private access with commissioners during the interim time between IMAP and Commission hearings. It was quickly pointed out by CDE and others that this issue had already been dealt with by the Board back in July, and that the Board had ruled in favor of having a much more transparent adoption process. Thus, the policy to limit on publisher input only to public hearing meetings. Much to the Boards credit in July, and again in not passing this motion yesterday, the commitment to having a more fair and open adoption process was upheld. While on the surface it may indeed be true that having more access to publishers would aid Commissioners in making decisions and compiling their reports, it does seem curious that these Commissioners would want to return to some of the practices that so tarnished the previous adoption.
The second Board hearing dealt with Programs that the IMAP panels had not recommended in part or whole, and now the Curriculum Commissions was recommending to once again be included. Examples here included Prentice Hall and Everyday Mathematics where only a grade level out of the program was not recommended by the IMAP, but was by the CC. Also in this group was iLearn, iPass, which as an entire program was not recommended by IMAP, but was by the CC. The Board voted unanimously to accept the CC recommendations. There was little discussion or debate about the motion to accept and no public comment. Various members of the Board did make mention from time to time how appreciative they were of the CC’s work in advising them.
The next hearing dealt with adding another Prentice Hall program, by the CC. Again there was no public comment and a unanimous vote of approval by the Board.
The last hearing was more delicate. This hearing involved Carnegie Learning’s Cognitive Tutor for Algebra 1. This program, as you may recall from previous reports, was recommended by the IMAP and rejected by the CC. Carnegie Learning representatives took their five minutes trying to make the case that research proved the program’s effectiveness. The Board then heard from Commissioners Munger, Waggoner, and McCray who voiced opposition to the program. Commissioner McCray who was the IMAP facilitator for the Carnegie panel stated that she had reservations about the panel’s recommendation of this program, so she asked Munger and Waggoner to review it. Their recommendation was to not approve the program saying that at least half the program would need to be rewritten for it to be able to meet standards.
Board member Lopez was concerned about not validating what the IMAP teachers had done and in the voting was the only member of the Board to vote in opposition of the CC recommendation that the Carnegie Algebra 1 program not be approved.
So, how do we sum up this phase of the adoption process? As has been stated before, all involved in this process, especially the IMAP teachers, are deserving of much praise for the tremendous amount of work they have done. CDE, the Curriculum Commission, and the State Board (as well as our own CMC observers) deserve accolades for their efforts in making this adoption process much more open and transparent. We are thrilled that the state’s educators have an abundance of curriculum choices. Three major decisions have been made, and now the real work begins for districts and teacher/administrator committees in making the most important decisions concerning what curriculum is best to help meet the needs of their students. Our sincere hope is that adoption committees will be vigilant and spend the necessary time that is needed to seek out quality.
It is also hoped that the blog reporting has raised awareness. It is important for teachers to be heard. But, all must realize the tremendous political forces that are brought to bear anytime phenomenal amounts of time and money are involved in decision-making processes. There are other issues, such as standards and testing, on the horizon that will present us with long sought after opportunity for change. If we want to be heard, and why not, for we as math teachers and educators have important things to say, we must maintain political awareness, activism, and presence. To the fore with these efforts!
Royce Page,
CMC Observer
|
