Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers urge Scranton School District to reconsider "Open SIAD" science curriculum, citing literacy and implementation concerns
Summary
Dozens of teachers and staff told the board that the district's newly adopted Open SIAD (referred to as 'open sed') science curriculum is misaligned with literacy goals, imposes heavy teacher prep burdens, and lacks adequate reading supports; they asked for a written review and alternatives.
Teachers from across the district used the board's public comment period on March 2 to press the Scranton School District to reconsider the recently adopted Open SIAD science curriculum.
Multiple middle-school science teachers described the curriculum as difficult to implement and misaligned with the district's stated focus on literacy. "We were also told the district doesn't have any money for other options... If this were a full curriculum, teachers wouldn't need to—or at the very least minimally—supplement and find content," said Beth Price, a sixth-grade teacher, summarizing classroom challenges.
Christian Guerrero, a seventh-grade science teacher, told the board the curriculum "takes twice as long to implement" as written, leaves insufficient time for absent students to catch up, and provides very few reading opportunities—"on average, three readings per unit," he said—making it a poor fit for a district emphasizing the science of reading. Several teachers said the materials require large volumes of supplementary preparation and that the scripted lessons do not include ready-to-use texts.
Teachers asked the board to commission a formal review and to publish a clear memo describing how the curriculum was selected and vetted. "When consistent patterns of frustration, heavy modification, and concerns about clarity emerge across the district, it is the district's responsibility to examine those concerns closely," said Kathleen Beckwith, a sixth-grade reading and science teacher.
District leaders acknowledged the concerns and said meetings and follow-up work were underway; the superintendent and curriculum staff committed to preparing a report and to meeting with teacher representatives. The board asked administration to deliver a written memo explaining the curriculum-selection process and the recent teacher consultations.
Next steps: administration will prepare a memo for the board summarizing the vetting process, documented teacher feedback and options for additional investments or alternative curricula.
