Initial meeting of the Precalculus-Calculus-Statistics Instructional Materials Adoption Committee

1. Dr. Perkins and Elissa Farmer welcomed committee members and gave opening remarks.
2. The committee reviewed the meeting agenda.
3. Committee members introduced themselves.
4. The committee reviewed the group norms that will guide its work.
5. Members learned about the adoption timeline and the groups involved in the approval process, including the Adoption Committee, the Instructional Materials Committee (IMC), and the Seattle School Board.
6. Members were introduced to the Microsoft Teams channel, where digital copies of meeting materials are available.
7. The committee reviewed sections of SPS Board Policy 2015 and Procedure 2015SP.B, including the committee’s role and responsibilities in the adoption process.
8. The committee reviewed and discussed SPS Board Policies 0030 and 0010.
9. Members reviewed the committee’s decision-making process.
10. The committee reviewed five evaluation categories that have been used in past instructional materials adoptions and align with recommendations from OSPI.
11. Members learned about other parts of the approval process, including reviews for cost, accessibility (ADA compliance), and compatibility with Seattle Public Schools technology systems.
12. The committee reviewed three of its four main responsibilities:
    • Review instructional materials for bias using the Anti-Bias Tool.
    • Evaluate materials using the remaining categories and assigned weights.
    • Vote on which materials will move forward to the field test phase.
13. The committee reviewed and discussed results from student and staff needs assessment surveys. Members were given access to the full survey reports.
14. The committee began assigning point values to the five evaluation categories. During discussion, members decided that the categories needed clearer definitions before finalizing point values.
15. The committee selected a point range for each category.
16. A committee member made a motion to vote on the category weights. The motion was seconded, and a vote was held.
17. In the first vote, 8 members voted in favor and 5 voted against. Members who disagreed shared their concerns, and the committee discussed them.
18. A second vote was held. The result was 11 in favor, 1 against, and 1 undecided. The proposal passed because it met the committee’s 75% approval requirement.
19. The meeting ended at 2:00 p.m.