Last Night's Curriculum & Policy Committee Meeting
Lynne Cohee
I was also at the Curriculum & Instruction committee meeting last night. It was a “meeting of the whole”, with the entire board (except for Chow and Bass), the superintendent, and several district staff. To me the big takeaway from the meeting is that there is a disconnect between where the board is on curriculum alignment and where the district is.
First, all of the board members present made clear that they want the public to be part of the alignment process. Director Carr spoke more than once about the need not just to inform the public and teachers (and with regard to high school curriculum, students) but to do so early enough in the process that they have the opportunity to shape the process. This was echoed by Director Debell. Director Sundquist talked about an expectation that each significant district project – which he considers curriculum and textbook adoption to be – should begin with an explicit articulation of what the level of public involvement and engagement will be. Directors Carr, DeBell, Sundquist and Matin-Morris all expressed concerns about the makeup of the LA adoption committee and the lack of public representation on the committee.
The district pushed back consistently on all of this. The superintendent directly challenged Director Carr’s statement that the public should have a role in shaping the curriculum alignment process. She also disagreed that teachers hadn’t been given the opportunity to be heard in the LA adoption process, and said that she has told teachers that it is unfair for them to complain that they have not been heard if they have failed to first go to her and the Chief Academic Officer with their concerns. And district staff defended the makeup of the LA adoption committee and the process used to appoint the committee members.
Second, the board and the district disagree as to the board’s role in curriculum alignment. The district’s position is that alignment is the “means” and is done solely by the district, while the “ends” is textbook adoption, and it is only at this point that the board has a role in the process, by either approving or disapproving the district’s textbook recommendations. District attorneys present at the meeting pointed to state statutes and to board policy C21 (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/policies/c/C21.00.pdf) in support of their position that even though the board is responsible for adopting curriculum, curriculum alignment isn’t really adoption of a new curriculum and therefore doesn’t involve the board.
I was really pleased with how Directors DeBell and Sundquist pushed back on the district’s position. Director DeBell responded to the Superintendent’s means/ends analysis by noting that the Board is responsible for adopting curriculum and a course of study, and that if the district is adopting a four-year LA course of study he considers that a board decision; that as a board governance matter, he does not want the district’s alignment process to substitute for curriculum adoption. He stated that where the district is contemplating major changes in the LA curriculum, involving both new texts and new graduation requirements, that it begins to look like a curriculum adoption that requires a public process. Director Sundquist was even more to the point, stating that regardless of the legal terminology involved, the public will view curriculum alignment as a substantial change, and that it is necessary to come up with a process and policy that allows for public involvement, because the risk of not doing so is that public opinion “will find expression in the board’s textbook adoption votes” because there will be no other mechanism to address public concerns. The district folks present were completely tone deaf to all of this, but the Superintendent finally heard what Sundquist was saying and acknowledged late in the evening that curriculum alignment does represent a fundamental shift in approach and that there needs to be ongoing conversation about it on the C & I committee.
Third, I think the board wants to keep unique and successful programs like Roosevelt’s LA Options, but that the district has no interest in doing so. Director DeBell argued that to the extent that alignment helps address weaknesses in course offerings it is a good thing, but that the district shouldn’t overcompensate and go to standardization; that he wants to hold on to what the district has done in the past 15 years that is really valuable and keep existing rich course offerings. The Superintendent stated that the district is definitely not standardizing curriculum, and talked about the need to “have conversations” about whether course offerings like the LA Options program might meet the new aligned college readiness standards. However, she also took the position that earned autonomy comes into play only as part of the performance review process and is not relevant to the alignment process. And Cathy Thompson’s quick response to DeBell was that it would be difficult to produce standard curriculum guides if they followed his approach. When Director Carr noted that the current teacher contracts include provisions for site-based decision-making and asked what the district had done to bring the teachers along with alignment, Cathy responded that the contractual provisions regarding site-based decision making don’t have anything to do with curriculum.
I think that there is some wishful thinking going on on the part of board members. My impression is that the Superintendent isn’t missing the board’s points – she just disagrees with them. She is talking about “having conversations” about keeping programs like LA Options in order to reassure the board, but keeping these kinds of classes doesn’t at all fit into what the district is doing with curriculum alignment. The district people at the meeting said that four years of LA would be required, and that although some existing classes might meet the new standards, many would likely fall into the elective category.
The meeting ended with a decision to continue to address curriculum alignment through the C & I committee going forward – although the committee doesn’t meet again until late August. Although the district has pushed back on its earlier time frame of buying LA textbooks in August, when the district asked if it was ok to continue with LA adoption efforts during the next two months the Board did not give the district a clear yes or no. My guess is that absent the “no”, the district will continue to plow ahead.
Lynne Cohee