Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

It’s not just one end-of-unit test. According to DCPS Central Office, teachers must administer three Amplify tests per unit (a pre, middle, and post). There are six Amplify units in sixth grade, so that’s an additional 18 tests on top of all the other tests schools are required to administer. It takes students at my school an average of 45 minutes (almost one class period) to complete one Amplify test. That’s more than three weeks of lost instructional time.

You should maybe think about adjusting, no one really cares about the pre-test (or the mid-test, I've never done one of those at all). The pre-test is literally the same as the end-of-unit test, but the kids haven't learned the topic yet, so doesn't make much sense to spend anywhere near as much time on the pre-test. If anyone checks anything, it's just the multiple choice, which is usually like 12 questions. Give them 20 minutes, say it's an engagement grade for trying, and keep it moving.

Does oversight vary by principal and IS?

It does.

Sure, you need to figure out exactly how to balance the whole “ask for forgiveness instead of permission” situation for yourself. But no principal is going to get you in hot water for like “hey all your students took the pre-test but you only let them have 20 minutes so you could teach a short lesson too?!?”

PP said they’re at a middle school, and the IS for middle school really DNGAF about amplify

I’ve been literally yelled at over not doing it enough before.

Here are 4/12 of the questions on one assignment. No mention of actual vocab other than population. Children who can read well can ace it before learning anything.

Scientists have been studying the size of three populations along the coast of Antarctica. In this ecosystem, penguins eat sardines (a type of small fish), and sardines eat zooplankton (very small animals that live in water). The data showed that all three populations were stable. Then the penguin population decreased suddenly. What will likely happen to the size of the sardine population as a result?

The size of the sardine population will . . .
a) stay the same. The size of its resource population did not change, so the amount of energy storage molecules available for the sardines did not change. There will be the same number of births and deaths in the sardine population.
b) decrease. A decrease in one population causes a decrease in the sizes of all other populations in the ecosystem.
c) increase. The smaller penguin population will leave more energy storage molecules available for the sardine population to reproduce more. This will lead to more births in the sardine population.
d) increase. The smaller penguin population will need fewer energy storage molecules, so they will eat fewer sardines. This will lead to fewer deaths than births in the sardine population.

Scientists have been studying the size of three populations in a grassland. In this ecosystem, snakes eat rats, and rats eat grasshoppers. The data showed that all three populations were stable. Then the grasshopper population decreased suddenly. What will likely happen to the size of the rat population as a result?

The size of the rat population will . . .
a) stay the same. The size of their consumer population did not change, so the number of deaths in the rat population did not change. There will be the same number of births and deaths in the rat population.
b) increase. The smaller grasshopper population will need fewer energy storage molecules so there will be more energy storage molecules available for the rat population to reproduce. This will lead to more births in the rat population.
c) decrease. A decrease in any population leads to a decrease in the sizes of all other populations in the ecosystem.
d) decrease. The smaller grasshopper population provides fewer energy storage molecules for the rat population, so the rat population will reproduce less. This will lead to fewer births than deaths in the rat population.
In a rainforest, anteaters eat ants, and ants eat aphids (a type of very small insect). The sizes of the populations have been stable for the last 10 years, but recently the size of the aphid population decreased. What will likely happen to the anteater population?

The size of the anteater population will . . .
a) stay the same. Anteaters do not eat aphids, so the number of births and deaths in the anteater population will stay the same.
b) decrease. Fewer energy storage molecules will be available to the anteater population from the smaller ant population, so the anteater population will reproduce less. This will lead to fewer births than deaths in the anteater population.
c) decrease. A decrease in the size of any population leads to a decrease in the sizes of all other populations in an ecosystem.
d) increase. The smaller aphid population will leave more energy storage molecules available in the ecosystem for the anteater population, so there will be more births in the anteater population.

In a mountain region, tigers eat wild pigs, and wild pigs eat worms. In the last 5 years, the sizes of the populations have been stable, but recently the tiger population has increased. What will likely happen to the worm population?

The worm population will . . .
a) increase. The larger tiger population will lead to fewer wild pigs. The smaller wild pig population will need fewer energy storage molecules to reproduce, so they will eat fewer worms. This will lead to more births than deaths in the worm population.
b) increase. An increase in the size of any population leads to an increase in the sizes of all other populations in an ecosystem.
c) stay the same. Tigers do not eat worms, so the number of births and deaths in the worm population will stay the same.
d) decrease. The larger tiger population will leave fewer energy storage molecules available in the ecosystem for the worm population, so there will be fewer births in the worm population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

It’s not just one end-of-unit test. According to DCPS Central Office, teachers must administer three Amplify tests per unit (a pre, middle, and post). There are six Amplify units in sixth grade, so that’s an additional 18 tests on top of all the other tests schools are required to administer. It takes students at my school an average of 45 minutes (almost one class period) to complete one Amplify test. That’s more than three weeks of lost instructional time.

You should maybe think about adjusting, no one really cares about the pre-test (or the mid-test, I've never done one of those at all). The pre-test is literally the same as the end-of-unit test, but the kids haven't learned the topic yet, so doesn't make much sense to spend anywhere near as much time on the pre-test. If anyone checks anything, it's just the multiple choice, which is usually like 12 questions. Give them 20 minutes, say it's an engagement grade for trying, and keep it moving.

Does oversight vary by principal and IS?

It does.

Sure, you need to figure out exactly how to balance the whole “ask for forgiveness instead of permission” situation for yourself. But no principal is going to get you in hot water for like “hey all your students took the pre-test but you only let them have 20 minutes so you could teach a short lesson too?!?”

PP said they’re at a middle school, and the IS for middle school really DNGAF about amplify

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

It’s not just one end-of-unit test. According to DCPS Central Office, teachers must administer three Amplify tests per unit (a pre, middle, and post). There are six Amplify units in sixth grade, so that’s an additional 18 tests on top of all the other tests schools are required to administer. It takes students at my school an average of 45 minutes (almost one class period) to complete one Amplify test. That’s more than three weeks of lost instructional time.

You should maybe think about adjusting, no one really cares about the pre-test (or the mid-test, I've never done one of those at all). The pre-test is literally the same as the end-of-unit test, but the kids haven't learned the topic yet, so doesn't make much sense to spend anywhere near as much time on the pre-test. If anyone checks anything, it's just the multiple choice, which is usually like 12 questions. Give them 20 minutes, say it's an engagement grade for trying, and keep it moving.

Does oversight vary by principal and IS?

It does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

It’s not just one end-of-unit test. According to DCPS Central Office, teachers must administer three Amplify tests per unit (a pre, middle, and post). There are six Amplify units in sixth grade, so that’s an additional 18 tests on top of all the other tests schools are required to administer. It takes students at my school an average of 45 minutes (almost one class period) to complete one Amplify test. That’s more than three weeks of lost instructional time.

You should maybe think about adjusting, no one really cares about the pre-test (or the mid-test, I've never done one of those at all). The pre-test is literally the same as the end-of-unit test, but the kids haven't learned the topic yet, so doesn't make much sense to spend anywhere near as much time on the pre-test. If anyone checks anything, it's just the multiple choice, which is usually like 12 questions. Give them 20 minutes, say it's an engagement grade for trying, and keep it moving.

Does oversight vary by principal and IS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

It’s not just one end-of-unit test. According to DCPS Central Office, teachers must administer three Amplify tests per unit (a pre, middle, and post). There are six Amplify units in sixth grade, so that’s an additional 18 tests on top of all the other tests schools are required to administer. It takes students at my school an average of 45 minutes (almost one class period) to complete one Amplify test. That’s more than three weeks of lost instructional time.

You should maybe think about adjusting, no one really cares about the pre-test (or the mid-test, I've never done one of those at all). The pre-test is literally the same as the end-of-unit test, but the kids haven't learned the topic yet, so doesn't make much sense to spend anywhere near as much time on the pre-test. If anyone checks anything, it's just the multiple choice, which is usually like 12 questions. Give them 20 minutes, say it's an engagement grade for trying, and keep it moving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

It’s not just one end-of-unit test. According to DCPS Central Office, teachers must administer three Amplify tests per unit (a pre, middle, and post). There are six Amplify units in sixth grade, so that’s an additional 18 tests on top of all the other tests schools are required to administer. It takes students at my school an average of 45 minutes (almost one class period) to complete one Amplify test. That’s more than three weeks of lost instructional time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

I'm a middle-school science teacher and I got docked just enough on the "contributing to the school community" component of my Impact evaluation last year to drop my overall score to a 349 because, in my evaluator's opinion, my students didn't have enough screen time on Amplify. That was the exact justification they gave. For those who don't know, a 350 is considered "highly effective," which I'd earned every year previous.

So...your experience is not the same as everyone else's.

This is a nightmare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

I'm a middle-school science teacher and I got docked just enough on the "contributing to the school community" component of my Impact evaluation last year to drop my overall score to a 349 because, in my evaluator's opinion, my students didn't have enough screen time on Amplify. That was the exact justification they gave. For those who don't know, a 350 is considered "highly effective," which I'd earned every year previous.

So...your experience is not the same as everyone else's.

Every day I’m stuck doing amplify is a day I’m not actually teaching. DC is spending $600k a year on this. It’s absurd; I assume corruption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

Time and money stop a strong science teacher from supplementing.

Why are we paying for a worse-than-useless curriculum and why are we paying for the people who chose it?

Why didn't the geniuses at Central get input in advance from the actual strong science teachers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

Saying you are a middle teacher seems like you aren’t a science teacher. I’ve been teaching science in DC for 18 years. This is the worst thing we’ve ever been given.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

That's not quite true, the curriculum before had Cornerstone assessments and a scope and sequence, but really no day-to-day materials or resources. So teachers had to create or find those on their own. And yes, having been a middle school teacher in DCPS for close to 20 years, I would say at least 50% of science teachers that I've known greatly benefit from having a pre-made curriculum.

Nothing stops a strong science teacher from supplementing Amplify materials with other resources. Literally no one checks science classes that they are on a specific activity within Amplify. Maybe some administrators pay lip service to "are you implementing Amplify?" so teachers need to do enough to be able to say yes, which basically just means doing the End-of-Unit tests. They do check more specifically for math, but really not for science from what I've seen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!

The entire forum is like this.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Amplify has lots of issues.

However, my hot take is that DCPS providing a full science curriculum with units mapped out, resources ready etc is actually extremely valuable to science in DCPS as a whole. It’s a big improvement from years ago when there was essentially nothing for teachers to work off of except standards.

I admit it likely does not help the strongest science teachers in DCPS. However I think providing a full curriculum is a huge step forward for many newer science teachers, and will help many students learn science in classes with less experienced teachers. Science teacher is also a hard-to-fill position, so sometimes an inexperienced teacher might really need a curriculum to work off, and adjust as needed.

Before the flaming commences, yes there still needs to be improvements and the strongest science teachers need to be vocal with ways to adjust the curriculum.

There was a (bad but not quite as horrible) curriculum before Amplify.

Nothing you said justifies picking Amplify.

What you said is DCPS's excuse for everything: We don't trust our teachers, so we'll centralize everything (even though we don't know what we're doing), and then all students can have the same bad experience. Equity!