What Did I Sign Up For?

What Did I Sign Up For?

Last  Spring, teachers received an email about becoming a materials reviewer for the 2018 California Science Adoption.  I  read through the email and it peaked my interest, as I teach science concepts to the kindergartners at my school.  I filled out the online application, which included submitting a science lesson, and waited.   Then, in November, I received a packet that informed me that I had been appointed by the State Board of Education to serve as an Instructional Materials Reviewer.  My  duties include  4 days of training and 4 days of deliberations in  Sacramento.  Oh  yeah,  and between May 4 and  July 16, I  will  be  conducting an independent review of science  materials from 3 different publishers. Two  other colleagues from OMSD were also  appointed,  and another serves on the IQC (the Instructional Quality Commission), which will take all of  the panels' reports and actually submit the programs that have met all  of the requirements to the State Board of Education for adoption.  My part is essentially the first round of review.  The IQC's part is the second round of review, and  the school  districts have the third round of review  (selecting which approved programs to  pilot).

The democratic process is only as great as the people who participate in it.  -Jeff Miller

I  was bit  overwhelmed on that first day of training; I had to take an Oath of Office (my term expires in November, after the SBE  approves materials). I had to learn about the Bagley-Keene Opening Meeting Act of 2004,  which essentially states that all state boards and commissions conduct their meetings in public with 10 days notice, agendas, and  time for public comment.  I had to complete an ethics training course and submit a statement of economics interest form (to prove that I  do not  have any economic ties to any publishers).  My panel consists of classroom teachers and a content expert, and we are facilitated by an  employee of the California Department of Education. There are 16 panels total. I had no idea what it took for a program to get approved  for adoption!

SEPs and DCIs and CCCs...oh my!

These are some of the new acronyms I have learned while being  trained  in  NGSS (Next Generation  Science Standards).  I will be reviewing the programs to which I was assigned first for content standards (PEs-or Performance Expectations;  SEPs-Science and Engineering Practices; DCI-Disciplinary Core Ideas; and CCCs-Crosscutting Concepts). Then, I will review the programs using the Criteria for Instructional Resources Aligned to  the CA NGSS with Three-Dimensional Learning and the CA Science Framework.  During my review,  I also have to  be  cognizant of the Social  Content Standards.  I must take  copious notes  during my independent review as I will be deliberating with my panel in July.   I have  to  prove that I found  or didn't find evidence of ALL of the PEs with 3D Learning and ALL of the  Criteria in each of the programs, for  each of the  grade  levels (K-5  for  my panel).

All in all, I am excited to be a part of this democratic process.  I know this  will  also help me to improve  my  practice in the classroom as  well, as I am knee-deep  now in the CA NGSS!  Here are links  to the CA NGSS and  the California Science Framework (a 2000  page document!) if  you would like to  further your learning in science:

CA NGSS
Science Framework for California Public Schools

Happy and Positive Teaching!
Erin Grebel