5/24/2025 – The Board meeting presentation and discussion regarding the NGSS-aligned biology and physics textbooks was informative and useful but leaves some questions still unanswered. The purpose of this article is to try to obtain this information prior to the final adoption meeting on 6/12/25.
Introduction
Let me begin by saying that the District did a good job in the presentation and gave many convincing reasons why the books should be adopted. The presentation was concise, not overburdened by a massive PowerPoint slide deck, and the following discussion was focussed on essential topics.
I wish to emphasize that it is not my purpose at this point to try and overturn NGSS – that ship sailed in 2018. In 2019 my final article (until this month) on this topic, My SMUHSD Board Report on NGSS – A Lot of People of Good Will Trying to Deal with a Tough Problem, stated in its abstract:
Current problems may eventually be ironed out of the NGSS curriculum. There was a nice display of positive progress at the 3/7/19 Board meeting, but there is still a significant way to go. There will be problems during the transition. Parents unfortunately appear unaware of or unconcerned by this issue.
I was hoping to hear long before now that these problems had been resolved. Unfortunately the Superintendent at that time made several promises of follow-up actions after the March 2019 meeting, but was repeatedly consumed by other issues and was never able to follow up despite replying to several email requests that I sent him. I eventually moved on to other issues myself, and, not long thereafter, I was tutoring AP students almost exclusively.
Seven years passed until I received the email last Monday that the District finally had piloted two acceptable NGSS-aligned textbooks! During all this time, local teachers were writing the college prep (CP) science curriculum by themselves after hours while they were simultaneously trying to teach the class. I had no idea whether they had ever succeeded in completing it. I recommended to parents who contacted me about science class options that they stick with the AP classes despite my earlier love for Aragon’s CP physics as a prerequisite to AP Physics. Early in this transition I also knew that even Aragon HS school counselors were making the same recommendation as I wrote about here:
When signing up for classes for last school year (2017-2018), several of my tutoring students told me that they had been counseled to take AP physics 1 rather than regular physics because “the regular physics class was changing, and the AP physics 1 class was more like the old regular physics class.”
Thus when I recently received the news about the pending textbook adoption, I was eager to see if the curriculum development work had been completed after all this time and if the proposed book really would be useful.
I would actually like to be able to recommend these classes again if they are finally in good shape!!!
Board Meeting Summary for Agenda Item U1
For reference, here is the link to the article that I distributed to Board members, SMUHSD administrators, and several SMUHSD physics teachers prior to last Thursday’s meeting: Update After 7 Years: Finally an NGSS-aligned Textbook
In that article, after an introductory history of the NGSS issue, I listed several bullet points highlighting questions that I hoped to have answered. Those questions will follow this section which is a summary of the District’s presentation. This can also be viewed at greater length/detail on YouTube via this link directly to the video for that agenda item.
Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Dr. Julia Kempkey introduced the topic briefly and was followed by Director of Curriculum and Assessment Brian Simmons who gave the District’s presentation as well as the Biology textbook presentation. Capuchino HS physics and project lead teacher Janice Valletta gave the physics presentation.
Director Simmons reviewed the college prep (CP) science course sequence for the district and included data on science pass rates in his first slide (again please use the link two paragraphs above to see this information – my purpose here will be only to highlight quickly the significant conclusions). In his second slide he explained the reasons why the district went through the evaluation process. He noted that it took about 10 years after the adoption of the NGSS standards by California for textbook publishers to produce an aligned textbook for biology and physics and that there still is no chemistry textbook that satisfied the District’s chemistry teachers. The District was also seeking material that could assist historically underserved groups (HUGs) and people with reading disabilities. The chosen books are not only aligned with the standards but are also available in multiple languages and have tools to assist students with reading disabilities. The books also integrate with the District’s Canvas learning management system and provide hardcopies for classroom use and digital copies for home use. The selected publisher also needed to provide technical support and teacher training on their product.
Director Simmons then reviewed the selection process. A list of 5-6 textbooks for each subject was winnowed down to two by the teachers and then each was piloted in classrooms for a month during March and April. In early May teachers met and recommended the two Savvas textbooks.
Director Simmons then gave a brief slide about the Biology process. The most important points were that both teachers and students liked the Savvas texts the best, its Canvas software integration was the strongest, and it had multilingual and English learner support.
Physics teacher Janice Valletta then spoke briefly about the Physics evaluation. She noted that NGSS tries to give students scientific skills instead of trying to teach them broad physics content, i.e., the NGSS classes go into less content but in greater detail. The teachers had no textbook initially (back in 2018) and met after school to develop lessons.
Over the years they developed 12 NGSS Common Learning Experiences (CLEs) to cover the subject, but they did not have enough reading material for the students to gain information outside of the CLEs. Thus they were glad when the new textbooks finally appeared on the market and were eager to review them. Although the previous Conceptual Physics textbook by Hewitt was available, it was based on the older broad content model instead of going into depth on the topics covered by the CLEs, i.e., that book did not have the “NGSS inquiry basis” that teachers and students needed.
Out of the two books piloted, both teachers and students loved the Savvas book and several students asked Janice if they could instead read the Savvas book during the pilot of its competitor.
Mrs. Valletta said that teachers who were not in the pilot will need professional development time to learn the Canvas software integration and new science teachers to the District will also require training. Physics teachers will also continue to develop curriculum after hours.
The Board was then allowed time for questions.
Trustee Andrade Zúñiga asked about the training process for new teachers. Director Simmons replied that they are given three days of introductory training by the District and then further training by departments. Janice Valletta added that not only do teachers have peer support groups but also wider District email lists.
Trustee Jacobson asked how will the new textbook be used and was told by Mrs. Valletta that it will be reading material to support the CLEs. Students observe the CLE phenomena during classroom activities, think about them and discuss them on their own, and then will use the hardcopy textbook in class and other sources such as news articles to learn more about the subject. The online textbook can be used at home and also features Spanish language capability, an audio reader for those with reading disabilities, and online movies about the phenomena.
Trustee Jacobson asked about lab materials for the textbook. Those are available but SMUHSD already has most of the materials it needs. Director Simmons noted that lab materials will be purchased for Peninsula HS which does not have them.
Trustee Jacobson asked about the textbook costs. Director Simmons said that costs will be presented at the 6/12/25 meeting and are still under negotiation, but will be around $350,000 for the Biology program and about $200,000 for physics. This will include 35 physical textbooks for classroom use for each teacher and eight year digital licenses for student online use.
Trustee Griffin noted that since the textbook will be a supplement instead of a determinant of the curriculum, how does the Board know that the teachers are following the NGSS curriculum? Mrs. Valletta said that the textbook serves as a guideline but that the teachers frequently refer to the state NGSS guidelines to ensure this. Director Simmons also mentioned that the District has codified course guidelines for these classes.
Trustee Griffin asked why after so long there is still no chemistry text. Director Simmons responded that NGSS topics are more complex. As an example, the first unit in chemistry is on plate tectonics which was not in previous high school chemistry classes.
Trustee Jacobson asked if all of the NGSS courses have CLEs and was told that this was the case. The new texts support these CLEs. Director Simmons said that after 10 years without texts, the work now will be integrating use of the texts into the CLEs that the District teachers prepared.
Finally Trustee Griffin said that after 10 years without a textbook, now that we finally have one, will NGSS be about to reach its shelf life and be replaced by something new? Director Simmons replied that this is why we need to purchase digital texts that can be easily updated and buy as few hardcopy texts as possible since these are dated quickly.
Trustee Griffin’s question gets to the heart of my initial 2018 objection to this entire effort. Director Simmons and I are essentially in agreement that we need a program that can be gradually updated, not revolutionized every decade. If the State decides to uproot everything again, we could still go back to square one a second time.
Finally I was granted a short time to speak and asked Janice Valletta a few questions about the CLEs, e.g., if they now covered the entire mandated NGSS curriculum. This discussion was brief and can be viewed directly on YouTube here.
I ended with a plea to Superintendent Booker to create a Citizen’s Oversight Committee as an advisory group on curriculum matters and textbooks. I noted that there are many scientists and technologists in our area, as well as many retired teachers, who could serve on such an advisory committee, and their advice need not be binding. This method would be far superior to the current public feedback method involving last minute public notifications and only allowing 3 minute sound bite comments, not to mention the inability to provide feedback until the entire process is essentially complete and the outcome set in stone.
Question List and Action Items
Below are my bulleted questions submitted to the Board prior to the 5/22/25 meeting followed by italicized answers that I heard during the meeting and/or my requests for more information which are bolded but NOT italicized. Answers that are only italicized require no further action.
- Did the teachers have access to more of the textbook than only the one chapter on waves that the public can see? If not, how do they know how well the entire textbook actually aligns with NGSS?
The teachers and students had full access to the textbook.
- How many additional CLEs have the teachers developed over the seven years since that meeting and will the adoption of this textbook replace the use of those CLEs?
Between 2018 and 2019 the teachers had developed 6 CLEs. There are now 12. The textbook will not replace the teacher-created CLEs but instead provide more in-depth readings about those topics in addition to multilingual support, support for students with reading disabilities via audio readers, online videos and problem sets.
I also asked Janice Valletta during the meeting if CLE development for the class had by now covered the NGSS requirements. She said that the 12 CLEs did cover the requirements, but there was still some work ongoing to produce shorter one day CLEs for teachers who had trouble fitting the longer one week CLEs into their curriculum.
This partially answered my question above, but also raised additional questions which I did not have time to pursue in my allotted comment time. The twelve longer CLEs were described as being around a week in length each. There are far more than 12 weeks in a school year, so it is still unclear how the classroom work actually unfolds. After the CLE itself, it sounds like there must be extensive other analysis work of the phenomenon in question but that is not considered part of the CLE?! I was under the possibly erroneous impression that the CLE was essentially encompassing the entire activity on a particular topic, but perhaps it is just referring to the introductory observations? Secondly, if some teachers are not using the week-long CLEs this sure sounds like the NGSS standards are not being implemented in some classrooms.
- Will the textbook actually be used frequently as an active teaching source or is it merely to be provided as a student home reference to meet a state requirement to have a textbook for the class?
The hardcopy textbook will be used in class for deeper reading about the phenomenon covered in the teacher-created CLE and the online version of the textbook will be available for student use at home.
- How much will the textbook cost the district?
The costs will be presented at the 6/12/25 meeting and are still under negotiation, but will be around $350,000 for the Biology program and about $200,000 for physics. This will include 35 physical textbooks for classroom use for each teacher and eight year digital licenses for student online use.
- Are there also materials for conducting the labs that come with the textbook? If so, how much do they add to the cost?
There are lab materials available, but most teachers already have materials for their activities for each CLE. Director Simmons noted that lab materials will be purchased for the Peninsula HS which does not have them. I did not hear a cost for these mentioned during the 5/22/25 meeting and assume that this will be provided at the next meeting.
- If the textbook will only be used as a reference and teachers will primarily use their own CLEs, why not just keep the Hewitt textbook as a reference and save the money, particularly if the teacher-created CLEs differ substantially from those in the textbook?
The textbook will be used actively in the classroom, not merely as a take-home reference that might be seldom consulted by the student. The textbook CLEs align well with the teacher CLEs. The Hewitt textbook does not have the in-depth readings needed to cover the NGSS CLEs.
- A critical component of any physics textbook is the quality of its homework problem sets! When I looked at the problem set on waves, the problems were routine and not very inspiring. The computer interface was also rather clunky. If the evaluation material was restricted to the chapter on waves, how can we know the quality of the problem sets in the vast majority of the book that remains unseen?
Only the public evaluation material was restricted to waves. The pilots used the complete textbook.
However, it still appears to me that the actual 4 week pilot may have been limited to the wave material as the comments in the teacher textbook evaluation report were limited to waves; this was not addressed in the Board meeting.
It is also not clear to me to what extent the NGSS classes even assign textbook problems. In 2019 Superintendent Skelly said that he would allow me to accompany him to some class observations, but sadly this never happened. I would still like to know more details about the actual classroom implementation. All the Board was shown in 2019 were a few short video clips of students engaged in NGSS classroom activities.
Also if by some chance NGSS actually excites students about science and they decide to go on to a college science major, they may then have a rude awakening if they find that the college classes require doing problem sets, especially in physics!
Having access to a hardcopy textbook would have helped me quickly page through the problem sets and examine their contents. The problem set displayed in the online wave evaluation chapter requires a user to go through the set sequentially, clicking through only one problem at a time.
- Is there also a hardcopy textbook or is the book entirely online?
As noted above, a hardcopy text is available. This question was posed, not because of a presumed fetish of mine for hardcopy texts, but for quicker review capability. I had to go directly to the publisher web site and hunt around just to find the overall textbook table of contents. It was not in the public review material. The online version also made it impossible to quickly review problem sets as noted above. I would still greatly appreciate seeing a copy of the hardcopy textbook and also seeing an actual NGSS class in action.
Conclusion
Finally, please allow me to thank the District in advance for attending to my requests above. I am happy that we may finally be seeing the light at the end of the long conversion of the CP science curriculum to NGSS standards. I am elated that such textbooks are finally available for physics and biology, if not for chemistry. I currently see no reason to oppose adoption of the proposed textbooks, but would still appreciate answers to the remaining action items before the 6/12/25 adoption meeting if at all possible.
The question of whether or not this conversion of our previous CP Physics program to NGSS was worth the lengthy time and disruptions that it took to make is something that I personally still do not have enough information to answer. The District could answer this question by providing the follow-up that Superintendent Skelly committed to 7 years ago.
Right now it still looks to me that this whole process was excessively complex and put an unconscionable burden on the teaching staff who nevertheless valiantly rose to the occasion.
When Trustee Griffin joked that NGSS had taken so long to implement that it might now be time for something new again, he was met by smiles from several people. That reaction and usual resignation to the whims of state bureaucracy still concerns me. It is similar to the resignation which has put us into our current national political mess.
Prior to NGSS we had an excellent physics curriculum created by nationally recognized teachers. Next time we must show greater resolve and lobby vigorously and far in advance for exemptions to these initiatives if we are satisfied with this new NGSS creation. Otherwise we continue to hurt our kids who end up as guinea pigs in a curriculum experiment, and we line the pockets of educational consultants and publishers who profit greatly from these massive changes.
I agree with Director Simmons that we need online texts that can be easily updated, but it would be a BIG MISTAKE to sit idly by while an external force requires us to completely rewrite the science curriculum yet again!.
NOTE: For follow-up actions after this article, please see my comment below. The SMUHSD Board of Trustees adopted the new NGSS-aligned physics and biology textbooks at their 6/12/2025 meeting.
EduIssues 