STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONAugust 17, 2010

Northwest Viticulture Center215 Doaks Ferry Rd NW, Salem, OR 97310

Members Present Brenda Frank Board Chair Nikki Squire Board MemberArt Paz Vice-Chair Duncan Wyse Board MemberLeslie Shepherd 2nd Vice-Chair Preston Pulliams Advisor, Community College Pres.Jerry Berger Board Member Caryn Connolly Advisor K-12 Teacher Rep

Members/Advisors ExcusedTed Wheeler Ex Officio Board Member Kate Brown Ex Officio Board Member

Participants Susan Castillo Supt. of Public InsCamille Preus Com. Colleges & Workforce Dev.Jan McComb Board Staff, ODE Connie Green Special Projects, CCWDMarjorie Lowe Office of the Governor Colt Gill Bethel SDBob McKean Centennial SD Dean Wendell Rogue CC/OCCA Exec Bd.Julie LafayetteLincoln Co. SD Kevin Zerzan Milken Award WinnerSonya Christian Lane CC Bruce Clemetson Linn-Benton CCJohn Turner Blue Mtn CC

Interested StakeholdersEd Dennis Deputy Supt., ODE Krissa Caldwell Deputy Comm., CCWDColleen Mileham Asst. Supt., ODE Doug Kosty Asst. Supt., ODENancy Latini Asst. Supt., ODE David Moore CCWDTerri Johansen CCWD Evelyn Roth CCWDDiane Roth ODE Joyce Harris Education NorthwestSuzie Johnson Lane CC/OCCA Exec. Bd. Tamara Busch-Johnson Business Ed CompactColin Cameron COSA Chuck Bennett COSACraig Hawkins COSA Vickie Chamberlain Teacher Standards & Practices ComEd Edwards OSEA Nicole MayerTana Atchley Dan Jamison Chalkboard ProjectChris Gutierrez Atkinson Elem. Barbara Rommel David Douglas SD (former)Sue Hildick Chalkboard Project

Welcome & IntroductionsChair Frank called the meeting to order at 1:03 a.m. and called the roll. Director Paz had relayed he would be a half-hour late. Excused were Brown and Wheeler (the third congressional position has not been filled).

Education Environment: Issues, Trends, ForcesFacilitator Connie Green, All

Chair Frank welcomed the guests.

Green asked those present to introduce themselves and guests, board advisors, and board members did so.

1

Desired Retreat Outcomes. 1. Understand the changing environment that is affecting educational learning of

students of all ages.2. Identify where Oregon and the education stakeholders need to be more intentional to

increase student success in light of the current environment.3. Identify evidence best practices or promising practices/innovations that will increase

classroom learning, student persistence, completion and success at all levels of learning from PK-thru 16 in current environment.

4. Identify policy areas, administrative rules, budgets etc that the state board needs to address to assist districts in guiding students to successfully complete school/college/career goals.

Green asked participants to describe what forces they foresaw influencing education policy discussions. What is affecting the work now that is different from a year ago?

Issues Participants Identified as Major Impacts on Education: Double-digit enrollment growth coupled with double-digit budget cuts for community

colleges. Declining revenues, disinvesting in community colleges and higher education. Lack of counseling in high schools. Implementation of proficiency-based practices. Need for more high school teachers to teach college classes for college credit. Less time for teacher collaboration to use best practices. Disinvestment in K-12 coupled with increased student graduation expectations. Search for private funding. National standards movement, whether students will meet the standards. Increased diversity of community college students and the challenge of meeting

those needs. Increased focus on student completion, access, online teaching and learning. Intersection of national standards and Oregon diploma. Private fundraising of universities and similarities to private industry. People of color are being underserved; the achievement gap. Importance of writing and research to college success. Rural and poor Oregonians’ access to higher education. Technology’s impact on teaching and learning. Top down leadership v. bottom up (parents, local boards, teachers) leadership and

nurturing bottom up leadership. It’s what you do with the standards; need to transform education to more proficiency-

based model. Impact of financial aid for community college attendance and shift from grants to

loans—that will be a big challenge for students, particularly those who leave school without the needed skills.

Increased focus on education pathways in education system. Reset Cabinet findings and whether those will be seriously considered. Governance structure Whether education system will keep moving forward, innovating, despite fiscal

shortfall; need to change how we do things given the fiscal reality. Education systems not aligned in terms of proficiency and funding student

attendance. What are the barriers getting in the way of moving forward? How do teachers get

more effective, fast? The need for deep and consistent research and development of best practices. Community college conflict of core values: access v. persistence. We don’t incent

success—we incent access. Using data to improve the system.

2

Independence of local school board and responsibility of state and that intersection. Now we talk about all students reaching standards, rather than just a subset—need

to help turn around struggling schools and identify education goals and not get in the way of working toward priorities using what resources we have.

International education methods, sustainability, and integrating hands-on application with academics.

Shift from federal funding from formulas to competitive grants and potential for harm to poorer schools.

Creating safe schools for all students. Defining student “success.” 40-40-20 Goal and whether we continue to work toward that goal. Connection between education and the economy; Oregon behind in wages. Opportunities for the state under new ESEA policy. Affect of new community college funding formula on state’s colleges.

National Education TrendsJon Cohen, Sr. Vice President and Director of Assessment, American Institutes for Research Kerstin LeFloch, Principle Research Analyst, American Institutes for Research, AIRMike Garet, Vice President of Education, Human Development, and the Workforce, AIRJon Cohen, Vice President and Director of the Assessment Program, AIRGina Burkhardt, Exec. V-P, Division Director, Education, Human Development, and the Workforce, AIRJennifer Williamson, Sr. Communications Specialist, AIR

Doug Kosty stated that he had invited American Institutes for Research to review national education trends. AIR is one of ODE contractors for the state test and operates nationwide. They’ve put together a presentation to stimulate conversation.

Cohen stated that AIR is a not-for-profit organization and serves as a resource. He introduced AIR staff. The group has come up with a lot of interesting issues. Budget crises can be a catalyst for change or stymie change.

AIR spent a lot of time learning about Oregon. He discussed possible next steps for Oregon (handout). Oregon’s policy levers: regulation and certification; standards and assessment; accountability; data systems; support systems.

Assessment System Oregon’s testing system (OAKS) is different from other states in a number of ways: OAKS is given multiple times and schools can decide when to give the test. That’s

different from other states that test at the end of the year. Hawaii has followed Oregon’s model and other states are following suit.

Students and teachers get immediate feedback. The state adapts to the students’ skill level so every student experiences a challenging

test. Increasingly able to measure application and strategic thinking with new, machine

scored item types. Existing high school math standard puts an Oregon graduate at the mean of the OECD

nations.

Recommendations Make accountability system have stronger consequences. Add accountability for implementation of key features (e.g. personalized learning plans) Exploit longitudinal data system for early warning and improved postsecondary feedback

to high schools

3

Regulation: Require more frequent and structured teacher evaluation. Institute some requirements on time usage among the lowest performing schools.

Goal: 40-40-20 All students must graduate-Oregon should focus more on drop out rate. They must graduate with the essential skills that prepare them to succeed in

postsecondary education and the workplace. They must have the knowledge and resources to pursue postsecondary admissions. They must persist in and complete postsecondary degrees.

All Students Must Graduate: StrategiesWhat has been done: Challenging courses designed to be more engaging Credit for proficiency Schools required to ensure that each student has a personalized learning plan.Challenges remaining: Chronically low performing schools aggravate barriers to graduation. Demanding course requirements may accelerate dropouts without appropriate supports. Higher dropout rates among subgroups, especially ELLs. Implementation and quality of personalized learning plan.

What Works: Getting Struggling Students to Graduate Early identification of students off track to graduate. Comprehensive dropout prevention model. Individualized planning documents to chart student progress and communicate about

graduation plans. External reviews or audits of school climate and environment.

Policies to Support High School Completion: Early identification of students off track to graduate Leverage existing data systems to better track students failing core subjects and with

low attendance rates. Massachusetts is developing a statewide system based on locally-validated measures of

dropout predictors. Needs to be coupled with support for identifying appropriate interventions.

Policies to Support High School Completion: Comprehensive dropout prevention model Develop a coherent framework for schools to identify, target, and implement dropout

supports. Several states piloting tiered systems of dropout supports; universal supports (all

students); targeted supports (15% of students) and selected supports (5% of students). Minnesota’s three-tiered model explicitly encourages use of Check and Connect.

Policies to Support High School Completion: Individualized planning documents for students Often part of a student advisory system Can be used to anchor discussions among students, teachers, and parents NYC schools use a student-level planning document to track student progress for

credit accumulation, attendance, PSAT scores, and course history.

Policies to Support High School Completion: School level audits or quality reviews External partners conduct reviews of school-level practices, including those that are

linked to dropout factors. Currently in use in many states including TX, WA, MI, IN, FL In NYC quality reviews are linked to accountability consequences.

4

Students Graduate with Essential SkillsWhat has been done:

Identified essential skills, aligned content standards Phase-in challenging course requirements Teachers receive professional development and toolkits to help prepare them to

teach challenging courses Credit by proficiency Dual credit plans Standardization of credit and admission policies across cc/university systems

Challenges Remaining: Aligning instruction and curricular materials with new standards Ensuring teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of capable teachers Supporting teachers in providing instruction for students struggling with the new content Maintaining course content at a high level Ensuring students enter high school with skills to be successful

What Works: Learning the Essential Skills and Knowledge Teacher effectiveness; strengthen way teachers are evaluated Professional learning communities Valid use of data to learn what works Increased availability and use of higher level courses (AP, IB, Dual Credit, etc.)

Increasing Teacher Effectiveness: Florida requires teacher evaluation to include measures of effectiveness including both

student learning and classroom observations Oklahoma requires probationary teachers to be evaluated twice a year and non-

probationary once a year

Encouraging Professional Learning Communities Massachusetts requires low-performing schools to allocate at least one hour per week to

collaborative planning for grade level or department teams and provides guidance on using the time effectively.

In Florida, collaborative planning is required for lowest 5% of schools.

Improved Use of Data New Hampshire has data warehouse and provides tools for analysis and reporting,

training to districts and schools and professional development for teachers on using data to modify instruction.

Louisiana provides online formative assessment and professional development in its use.

Florida requires low-performing schools to administer and use interim assessments.

Students Have Resources to Pursue AdmissionsWhat has been done: FAFSA webinarsChallenges Remaining: Ensure students understand availability of financial aid. Ensure students are able to apply for financial aid. Ensure students understand admissions process.

What works: Getting Kids into College Increase information about admissions and financial aid in high school and earlier. Increase the number of students who fill out financial aid forms.

5

Coaching or mentoring beyond school counseling system. Rigorous coursework.

Policies to Make it Happen Establish and monitor expectations for districts related to FAFSA completion Require and monitor college prep training or certification for guidance counselors.

Reduce ratio of counselors to students in high need areas. Require and monitor districts and schools to track student progression through critical

grade-level transitions and monitor targeted interventions Create incentives for districts and schools that increase course rigor and AP course-

taking for high need students.

Students Persist in and Complete Postsecondary EducationWhat has been done: Essential Skills should give students the academic prep needed. Oregon Opportunity Grants Annual linkages between Oregon University System and K-12 data systems

Challenges Remaining: Affordability Social integration of first-generation college students Real-time linkages between systems, integration of community college data system with

K-12. Shift budget from instructional expenditures to student service expenditures at low-

completion colleges and universities. Link student college and university course grades to high schools they attended and

provide feedback loop. Publish college completion rates by college and make the results known to the college-

seeking public. Publish a report card that includes and highlights completion rates of each college and

university. Expand the longitudinal data system to better support feedback on college success of

high school graduates (Louisiana and Florida as examples) Consider shifting funds from instructional expenditures to student services in schools

with low persistence/completion rates.

Remember This: Increase focus on dropouts. Implement easy-to-use warning systems Hold schools and districts accountable for high-quality personalized learning plans Enhance teacher evaluation requirements (more often, include concrete outcomes) Require collaborative planning time at low performing schools Add college transition measures to your K-12 accountability system Continue to develop the postsecondary linkage to the K-12 data system to support

improved feedback to K-12. Consider the mix of student services and instructional expenditures at postsecondary institutions with low completion rates.

Discussion: Importance of building principal in keeping focus on learning goals and maintaining a

positive environment. Equitable distribution of capable teachers—how will that happen? Current teacher evaluations (probationary teachers only)—collectively bargained.

6

While there is currently a requirement to have a personal plan for a student, districts have not implemented the requirement. More requirements won’t change necessarily improve education.

The challenges of a diverse student population; the value of tiered-interventions. How an outside audit would be done, and how would results be used—against the district

or help the district? Teacher evaluations must be meaningful. Need to fund outcomes rather than seat time. Learning how to use data to intervene with struggling students. Let local districts decide how to achieve state/national goals. Need for teacher

collaboration missing. College accountability measures such as college applications, course completion. Data on how well students are doing at college and what high school produced them

exists now. The value of a longer school year. The value of connecting and collaborating with parents and the community.

Reflection on the DayConnie Green, Facilitator

Green asked board members and those at the table for one policy goal they would like the board to focus on. Below is the list: Adopt the national common core standards. Identify teacher effectiveness best practices/learning communities Accountability framework/school transformation model at the school level—strategies,

tools to ensure accountability. How to assist teachers be more effective, teach to national standards. Need to focus on student; give teachers the flexibility and tools to help students. Prepare high school students better for college so colleges can focus on returning adults. Better alignment of the education system Timeline and alignment of national standards so Oregon is a leader

Key Issues for TomorrowConnie Green, Facilitator

Green asked the board what they wanted to focus on for the next year.

Leslie Shepherd: Mentors from the community to help with college admissions/student plan.

Jerry Berger: Stay the course on Essential Skills-you can’t graduate unless you’re proficient.

Brenda Frank: Identify where we are now, where do we have to be, and how do we get there using existing resources.

Nikki Squire: Identify 4-5 strategies to close the gap between where we are and where we need to be.

Art Paz: A rigorous analysis of national standards. Duncan Wyse: A system (budget, accountability system) that supports proficiency-based

learning and an aligned education system. Susan Castillo: Continued identification of barriers and misalignments to meet the higher

expectations. Camille Preus: That high school diploma is not a terminal degree; many community

college students are returning adults.

7

Chair Frank adjourned the meeting at 5:00 pm.

8

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONAugust 18, 2010

Northwest Viticulture Center215 Doaks Ferry Rd NW, Salem, OR 97310

Members PresentBrenda Frank Board Chair Nikki Squire Board MemberArt Paz Vice-Chair Duncan Wyse Board MemberLeslie Shepherd 2nd Vice-Chair Preston Pulliams Advisor, Community College Pres.Jerry Berger Board Member Caryn Connolly Advisor K-12 Teacher Rep

Members/Advisors ExcusedTed Wheeler Ex Officio Board Member Kate Brown Ex Officio Board Member

Participants Susan Castillo Supt. of Public InsCamille Preus Com. Colleges & Workforce Dev.Jan McComb Board Staff, ODE Connie Green Special Projects, CCWDMarjorie Lowe Office of the Governor Colt Gill Bethel SDBob McKean Centennial SD Dean Wendell Rogue CC/OCCA Exec Bd.Julie LafayetteLincoln Co. SD Kevin Zerzan Milken Award WinnerSonya Christian Lane CC Bruce Clemetson Linn-Benton CCJohn Turner Blue Mtn CC

Interested StakeholdersEd Dennis Deputy Supt., ODE Krissa Caldwell Deputy Comm., CCWDColleen Mileham Asst. Supt., ODE Doug Kosty Asst. Supt., ODENancy Latini Asst. Supt., ODE David Moore CCWDTerri Johansen CCWD Evelyn Roth CCWDDiane Roth ODE Joyce Harris Education NorthwestSuzie Johnson Lane CC/OCCA Exec. Bd. Tamara Busch-Johnson Business Ed CompactColin Cameron COSA Chuck Bennett COSACraig Hawkins COSA Vickie Chamberlain Teacher Standards & Practices ComEd Edwards OSEA Nicole MayerTana Atchley Vickie FlemingChris Gutierrez Atkinson Elem. Barbara Rommel David Douglas SD (former)Sue Hildick Chalkboard Project Dan Jamison Chalkboard Project

Welcome & IntroductionsChair Frank called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and called the roll. Excused were Brown and Wheeler; Paz arrived at 8:35. (The third congressional position has not been filled).

Doing What Works: Scaling Up Effective Practices in EducationNancy Latini, Assistant Superintendent, ODERob Horner, College of Education, University of Oregon

Latini introduced Rob Horner. He has worked many times with the department and has proven to be a valuable partner (handout).

9

Horner stated he had just come from Wisconsin which was dealing with the same challenges. He said he had three big messages: the decisions you are making are critical now, especially with the fiscal constraints; people will look to you for clarity and guidance. Secondly, you will be faced with many opportunities to look at various programs—all will have strong advocates and a small number will have evidence that it is practical, better than what we do now, and related to the change you are seeking. Third, focus on implementation. We in education have been more focused on describing what works but there’s a big difference between identifying what works and getting it in place. You need to have strategies in implementation. School wide behavior positive supports—learning will be better if the social aspect of school is welcoming, consistent, and safe. We’ve implemented this in over 13,000 schools. If you can define with clarity a vision for where the state is going in Oregon, smart people will follow. You should require evidence-based practices before implementation. Also, implementation is difficult; we are learning about how to move an innovation to a norm. There are examples in Oregon of how this change can happen.

The old idea of waiting for kids to behave badly then fixing it, or expecting kids to be well behaved, doesn’t work anymore. Stop doing things as individual events, but rather, change a continuum of supports that begin with the whole school and extends to intensive, wraparound support for individual students and their families. Schools need clear predictable consequences for bad behavior. First invest in prevention. Don’t wait for kids to behave badly—within two weeks students should be able to tell you what the expectations are. You need a systems approach for establishing the social culture and behavioral supports needed.

We’ve learned that we can build this kind of school culture. Never have only one level of intensity. Start with all kids getting something and that should work for about 80 percent of kids. Assume that you’ll need something higher in intensity for the others; 3-5% of kids will present greater challenges. No single program works for everyone. About half of Oregon schools are using School Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (SWPBIS). You can change the social behavior of whole schools, large and small. Core features need to fit the culture and be indigenous—the path will be different. Bethel implemented differently than Tigard-Tualatin and both were successful. Good behavior leads to higher academic achievement. With SWPBIS you get significant reduction in office referrals, but you also get consecutive increases in test scores for all kids, due to the tiered intensity level. shouldn’t approach solving the bullying problem in isolation of a larger structure. Don’t teach students what bullying is—teach them what being respectful is. Bullies bully to get attention from peers. They teach students to walk away from bullies—including bystanders—do not reward the behavior. Reductions in bullying were seen—efficient, and at a small cost.

Systems need to work for adults as well as kids. Implementing school wide positive supports helps teachers—fewer teachers reported emotional exhaustion and report that they feel more effective. Investing in evidence based practices is more essential for at risk students.

Lessons learned: Oregon is one of three states to scale up evidence-based practices. Need to identify scale worthy practices—documented to be cost-effective and more effective than what we do. We are moving away from many programs that are all designed to do the same thing. Always tie things to kid outcomes. Get rid of the label and look at the core practices. Look for the smallest change to produce the biggest effect. Never stop doing what already works for students. Only do what you can do with your staff and your resources. Never introduce something new unless you introduce what you are going to stop doing. We are teaching administrators how to assess what they are doing and what they can do better. Need to link academic and behavior. Attending to both is important. If you decrease bad behavior you increase minutes devoted to instruction. Good teacher also improves behavior. Kids that are off-task are usually frustrated and above their ability level. You need to

10

carefully match student skill level with academic level to avoid disengagement and frustration.

Teachers were able to do this because they were knowledgeable about both pieces, academic and behavioral. Invest professional development on a small number of outcomes, such as reading. Train teams not individuals. Never train without coaching to get the training in place. Implement with clear policy, support and evaluation. Provide the leadership and infrastructure to make it happen, not just a mandate. There is no good idea that we can’t do badly. You can’t mandate quality, but you can mandate kid outcomes. You need infrastructure of data systems, teams. We have policy that is designed to affect practice. However, we find that we don’t get the effect unless you build in feedback so the practice comes back to policymakers. Should require asking the field if the state is doing what we said we’d do (are we implementing early intervention, etc.) and you should ask how well schools are implementing the program. You need to tie everything back to student outcomes. Policy and practice feedback loop. Plan –develop specific things to do; Do – do them; Study – see what happens; Act – make adjustments; Cycle – do over and over again until goal is reached.

Implementation occurs in stages and takes 2-4 years and it should last a decade to make it work. Program framework competence drivers: selection of staff, training, coaching; organizational drivers: decision support data system—don’t build data systems, build decision systems. Facilitative administration needs to make everyone more effective. Measure fidelity. School team builds the data system and uses it. It costs much more to educate a badly behaved child. We are less likely to suspend students using SWPBIS.

How do we make this the norm? District policy stating value of student social behavior. School improvement plan lists social behavior of students as a core goal. Annual orientation: school-wide academic and behavior supports. Hiring: competence in a school-wide behavior support is an expected competence Annual evaluation: include competence in a school wide behavior support as part of

annual evaluation. Professional development focused on school-wide systems of behavior support Develop data systems for decision making at the school level (literacy, behavior, math,

writing).

Discussion: Students of color are disciplined more in Oregon, SWPBIS can help close the

achievement gap. Resources needed at the school level to implement. Always start with a team that

includes teachers, administrators, and families. Importance of creating allies for change. Importance of correct implementation. Leadership role ESDs could play with this kind of work. Getting buy-in from school staff. Whether teacher colleges teach this (spec education teachers yes; regular teachers, no) Getting parental involvement. How to eliminate current activities—list outcomes, combine similar outcomes.

Common Core Needed StepsColleen Mileham, Asst. Superintendent, Oregon Dept. of EducationConnie Green, Board Facilitator, CCWD

11

Green reviewed the plan for the rest of the day, much of it focused on national common core standards.

Stay the Course

Mileham stated that ODE does plan to maintain the Essential Skills and have explicit outcomes. There’s a concerted effort to reinforce this message with the field. Also we are asking our staff to talk to the field about diploma requirements whenever they are in the field. We are now doing a gap analysis between the national math standards and state math standards. We are moving forward on English language arts; that will save us money. What else do you want for the October meeting?

Hooper stated that whenever ODE staff talks to districts, they tell them to continue to align work with standards; these will be easily applied to a new national system. The gap analysis is tedious and slow, standard by standard. In October, we can report the differences in content and grade level. We have developed a survey for the field to look again at the standards, targeting those teachers that participated in focus groups earlier in the year. We will know about the assessment grant award in October as well.

Requests: Where is the state on supporting district formative assessments? What School Improvement efforts have been made? English language arts timeline: When would we switch to national standards and

assessments? Will we be adding additional English language arts standards? What does the field support? Gap analysis on state and national math standards and field review of the gap. Whether our math approach would continue to include a Career-Technical Education

approach. Whether national standards include No Child Left Indoors standards. Whether Texas history standards would be included in the national standards. What percentage of state standards could be added to the national standards? Whether national standards would increase drop out rate among students of color.

Discussion: Need to stay focused on what we expect of students—academic achievement—not

national standards. That half of the 3.5 GPA students need remediation prior to college credit classes. Timeline of national standards; assessments in place in 2014. Possibility of transitioning to national ELA standards early. Advantages of a national exam and a level playing field. The difference between standards and performance requirements, graduation

requirements. Drop out interventions will be needed with new graduation requirements, with no new

funding. That districts might adopt national standards even if the state does not, out of fear of

falling behind the rest of the country. Impact national standards may have on professional development, efficiencies, greater

collaboration among states. Cut scores on the national standards have yet to be determined. Whether to focus on how to implement national standards rather than whether to adopt

national standards. Board tradition of communicating the board’s leaning to the field prior to making a final

decision. Whether to make a tentative vote in favor of national standards.

12

The letter of support from school superintendents.

MOTION: Squire moved to signal the board’s leaning to the field the plan to adopt the common core standards in October and invite comments on that leaning, assemble those comments and review them in October. Shepherd seconded the motion.

Discussion: Whether top down solutions are best and ignore the people on the front lines on the

field. The hope that announcing the leaning will provoke feedback.

VOTE: The motion passed 4-2, Paz, Berger voting no.

Discussion: Whether adoption date should be October or December. That districts want to know as soon as possible about adoption. Whether federal funding is driving states’ adoption of national standards. Whether national math standards are unrealistically high; need to emphasize core math

skills identified by college professors as necessary. How to communicate with parents. Cut scores have not been established. With national standards, kids will be exposed to

the content but not necessarily asked to master the content.

Proficiency-Based Teaching & LearningJulie Lafayette, Lincoln County School District

Lafayette described how her high school was implementing proficiency-based teaching and learning. They had done a lot of standards-based training prior to shifting to proficiency-based practices. Time and training is needed—board policies are not in the way. Proficiency Learning Community

Lafayette specified some barriers: holding all accountable to standards; how to assess; training; leadership and teacher training on collecting and reading data and how to change teaching based on that data. Another barrier is letter grades used by universities rather than rubrics. It’s important to stay the course—we are headed in a good direction. Schools need to understand what a proficiency policy lets them do.

Discussion: That state and federal policies require time to sort through and with which to comply. District improvement plan has many goals rather than a few focused goals. Needing to graduate in four years is a possible barrier to proficiency; are there a small

number of schools that are successful that could identify barriers. Student gains despite reduced budgets. Inconsistent grading policies from district to district. Community support of professional development days. What does success look like? Portfolio data for every student. Assessments lead to immediate intervention. Students don’t get credit until they are proficient. Teachers need training on teaching essential skills. Assessment is sporadic; teachers don’t know their own statistics—how many students

are being successful.

Transitioning from High School to College

13

Green explained that most retreats cover the transition from high school to college. How do we get students ready for college?

1. Student Policies. Examples to review could include:a. Middle and High School policies that support student’s goal to have college classes by the end of HSb. College placement test and assessment available at all high schools to assist students to see learning path that is needed for collegec. Tutoring supportsd. College visitse. Use of plan and profile used by collegef. Proficiency policies align with acceleration options g. Student re-engagement efforts count as student success

2. System Policies. Examples to review could include:a. Faculty to faculty connectionsb. Curriculum connected from HS to CCc. Agreed to learning outcomesd. Middle and high school counselor training on cc opportunities, forms, processing, etce. Support for multiple paths by students for post secondary engagement: alt. schools, GED recovery, middle colleges, alt. high school degree

3. Affordability Policies. Examples to review could include:a. FA assistance to students is decreasing in Oregonb. Loan assistance is increasing – what is ethicalc. institutional assistance to students

Discussion: What are we doing well? Local high school requires students to complete FAFSA and apply to local community

college. Portland Community College worked with Portland Public School drop outs and helped

them complete high school and earn college credit. Expanded Options does a good job targeting at-risk students and getting them back into

school and then into college. Dual credit provides a strong path to higher education. Reaching out to Hispanic students. Administering a college test—ACT or SAT—for all 10th graders Community colleges visit high schools and vice versa. Community colleges train high school counselors. Vocational/military tests available to all students. Gear Up program provides guidance to students. Standardization of Advanced Placement credits. Standardization of the community course general education courses and ease of

transferability of courses among colleges. Career Pathways and the articulation of curriculum. Summer programs that bridge high schools students to college. Building relationships between high schools and community colleges. Adult re-training, assists economic development for area. We’ve built good data systems. Partnerships between community colleges and high schools regarding online classes. Career-technical education standards alignment and articulation. Assistance of local government for at-risk students in summer programs.

Discussion: What needs improvement?

14

Traditional high school model does not work for everyone. Policy conflict: Students spending 5th year at community college yet doesn’t count as

graduating on time. Some community colleges do not participate in Expanded Options. Few students have taken advantage of Portland Public Schools relationship with Portland

Community College. More partnerships with intergenerational groups. Retired baby boomers have a lot to

offer schools—schools need to reach out. Beefing up the Oregon Opportunity Grant. Lack of ASPIRE, guidance counselors, inadequate bandwidth in small rural high schools. Affordability; can’t access higher education without moving and associated costs. Lack of Oregon jobs for students. Lack of sustainability education. Capacity of community colleges. Use of data by schools to measure performance. Overcrowded community colleges trying to serve everyone, comprehensively. Students not prepared for college-level work.

Discussion: Next Steps for 2010-11 BoardConnie Green, Facilitator

Green asked board members to identify issues for the board for the next year.

Topics identified: The need to focus on literacy, given the new graduation requirement. Community college funding formula; need to take fresh look at resource issue. Paying for outcomes rather than process. Accelerating learning. Need to nurture creativity. Native American mascot issue. Indian education specialist at ODE. Better use of data by board to make policy decisions. Partner with OSBA. Student success completion work at community colleges. Social studies standards. Teacher effectiveness. Making sure students are succeeding at every level.

Discussion: The value of a short list of priorities for focus. Whether to have district representatives come in October to explain what they are doing

well. Advantage of tying financial aid requirements to minimum number of credits. Whether to have credit for proficiency high schools to present to the board, as well as a

district that is having a problem and have the proficient high school mentor the struggling school.

Remediation strategies. People want to do the right thing.

Chair Frank thanked participants for their perspectives. Tomorrow is busy. She adjourned the meeting at 5:00 pm.

15

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONAugust 19, 2010

Northwest Viticulture Center215 Doaks Ferry Rd NW, Salem, OR 97310

Members PresentBrenda Frank Board Chair Nikki Squire Board MemberArt Paz Vice-Chair Duncan Wyse Board MemberLeslie Shepherd 2nd Vice-Chair Advisor, Community College Pres.Jerry Berger Board Member Caryn Connolly Advisor K-12 Teacher Rep

Members/Advisors ExcusedTed Wheeler Ex Officio Board Member Kate Brown Ex Officio Board Member

Other ParticipantsSusan Castillo Supt. of Public InsCamille Preus Com. Colleges & Workforce Dev.Ed Dennis Deputy Supt., ODE Krissa Caldwell Deputy Comm., CCWDJan McComb Board Staff, ODE Connie Green Special Projects, CCWDTheresa Richards Education Spec. ODE Marjorie Lowe Office of the GovernorMichelle Hooper Systems Coord, ODE Susanne Daggett Education Spec. ODEColleen Mileham Asst. Supt., ODE Doug Kosty Asst. Supt., ODENancy Latini Asst. Supt., ODE David Moore CCWDTerri Johansen CCWD Evelyn Roth CCWD

Preliminary BusinessChair Frank called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. and called the roll. Excused were Brown and Wheeler (the position of Lew Frederick has not been filled).

Retreat ReviewConnie Green, Facilitator

Green reviewed the preliminary retreat decisions: Stay the course. Focus on keeping diploma moving forward. Student achievement.

Anticipated Work for Community Colleges in 2010-11: The need to continue focus on student success, persistence & completion work. Career pathways & other work groups. Achievement gap, demographics, gender – how community colleges are doing. Data collections. Commissioner Preus will visit every community college this year. Growth work that community college presidents are working on. Other routine work, legislative session, budget & policy issues.

Anticipated Work for K-12 in 2010-11: Sending teams around the state to talk about diploma implementation, offering

technical assistance. Working with COSA & partners to identify barriers.

16

Implement work that was in Oregon’s failed Race to the Top grant—one component is common core standards.

Working w/partners around the country National assessment work—ODE is at the table nationally – Tony Alpert is the co-

national director. Developing criteria and awarding the $32 million of lowest performing schools grant. Continuing the development of longitudinal data systems with a grant of $10.5

million with four major outcomes:1. integrate pk into k-12 data systems2. student teacher connections3. pk-20 connection including community college & workforce development4. data quality initiative

Scaling Up brings benefits to ODE on how we can work better w/field. Will bring barriers to the board – What can we change?

Legislative Session work, including 25% budget cuts.

Work Board Members Would Like to See

Updates on assessment grants. Longitudinal data system updates. Civics Standards. Communicating with local school boards on using data. Low performing schools grant updates. Community college growths issues

Board Management – AdoptionBrenda Frank, Chair, State Board of EducationJan McComb, Board Staff

Board AdvisorsMcComb presented the following slate of proposed advisors:

Preston Pulliams, Presidents’ Council president Caryn Connolly, K-12 teacher representative Colt Gill, K-12 Administrator CC Faculty Advisor: no nominees at this time K-12 Student: no nominees at this time

MOTION: Jerry moved to adopt the slate of advisors. Duncan seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed unanimously 6-0.

Subcommittees & WorkgroupsFrank stated that the chair (Frank), the vice-chair (Paz), and the outgoing chair (Wyse) would makeup the Executive Committee.

She reviewed the possible subcommittees and asked if there was interest in having a Retreat Committee, a Nominating Committee, and a Legislative Representative. Following a brief discussion, the board made the following decisions:

Retreat Committee: The Executive Committee membersLegislative Representative: Berger lead; Squire and Wyse as back-up.Nominating Committee: Executive Committee members

17

Frank directed staff to outline nomination process in board’s policy manual.

Unified Education Enterprise Committee: Frank, Berger, SquireCCSF Revision Work Group: Squire, Wyse

LiaisonsThe board agreed to maintain existing assignments with the following changes: Confederation of Oregon School Administrators: Colt Gill Oregon Education Assn: Caryn Connolly Oregon Innovation Council: Brenda Frank Teacher Standards & Practices Commission: Leslie Shepherd Governor’s Budget Committee: Paz, Wyse, Berger

Oregon School Activities Association Redistricting Committee, Youth Advisory Team, and Oregon PTA will be deleted. Board staff will update the chart and put it on the October consent agenda.

NASBE ElectionEach year, NASBE members elect a president and regional directors. This year, the nominees are Gayle Manchin for president and Carol Murphy for Western Area Director.

MOTION: Shepherd moved to support Gayle Manchin for president of NASBE; Berger seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed 5-0-1; Paz abstained.

MOTION: Squire moved to vote for Carol Murphy for Western Area Director, Shepherd seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed 6-0.

InformationCareer-Technical Education Draft ReportRep. Michael DembrowDebra Barnes, Sabin-Schellenberg Professional Technical Center NDennis Boyd, Executive Director, Sheet Metal Training FundCarolyn Becic, Executive Director, Oregon MentorsLaura Roach, Director, Secondary/Post-Secondary Transitions, ODE

Dembrow reported on the activities of the Career and Technical Education Collaboration Task Force, created by HB 2732. The charge of the task force was to identify the collaborations and partnerships among kindergarten through grade 12 schools, community colleges, labor, business and industry in relation to career and technical education (CTE) that are currently established or are in the process of being established; and make recommendations regarding increasing collaborative efforts and using partnerships for the purpose of better sharing facilities and resources and developing a high-skill, high-wage sustainable workforce.

Barnes gave examples of CTE atmosphere. It is rigorous, relevant and builds relationships. The task force would like every school district to have CTE classes.

Boyd stated that kids graduate at a higher rate with CTE courses. Labor & business wants to be a bigger partner in CTE—they want to partner with schools and be a resource for instructors and counselors.

18

Becic stated that CTE helps grow wrap-around programs, workplace mentoring.

Dembrow distributed letter of support of CTE from Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian. We’re looking for leadership from the State Board with your workplans.

Discussion: Use of CTE to meet math graduation requirements. That CTE is another avenue for students to be successful. The need for CTE to reach down into lower grades. CTE in rural areas. CTE is project based learning with standards—on-the-job training. With CTE, students are not just doing an applied project—there’s an ongoing investment. CTE is an effective, contextual form of learning.

The board thanked Connie Green for her work; she is leaving to become the vice-president at Tillamook Bay Community College. She has given many years of service to the board, to the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development, to the Joint Boards of Education and the students of Oregon.

AdoptionOnline Learning Paper/RecommendationsJan McComb, Board Staff

McComb stated that a draft report had been written that represented what she believed to be the opinion of a majority of board members. Some issues were very close or undecided: whether school districts should be required to offer a comprehensive online learning option; whether the state would sponsor schools; whether there would be any open enrollment for online schools and if so, how much; and what entity should set the price for approved comprehensive schools, the district or the state.

Connie Green walked the board through the four topics and asked board members to identify which of the possible options they supported. When board members chose different options, she asked each why they chose that option. Board members then discussed each issue.

District Requirement to Offer Comprehensive Online OptionInitially, the six board members opted for different possible options. Following a discussion, a majority of the board supported not mandating that local districts offer their students a comprehensive online option, but did encourage districts to have online options, working toward the ultimate goal of any student having access to a full-time virtual school. Berger did not support the decision.

Eligible Sponsors of Online SchoolsThe board discussed whether the state could be a sponsor of an online school, if a vendor working through a nonprofit board applied for approval and whether charter schools could apply for approval. A majority of the board agreed to eliminate charter schools and non-profit boards from the entities that could seek approval from the state, leaving ESDs and school districts. Charter schools would need to apply through their sponsoring district.

Open Enrollment & District PermissionThe board discussed the following issues: The value of parents having a choice in where their student attended school.

19

Some parents have more time to devote to this topic than others. The district responsibility for the student. The possible funding loss to districts when students left to attend school elsewhere. The desirability of a partnership between the resident school and the student family. Should there be a limit as to how many students could leave a school district for another

district’s virtual school? The possible impact on per student funding if all homeschoolers opted for a public,

virtual education. Student needs should be the focus of any decision. The need to notify resident school districts of a parent’s decision to enroll their student

in an online school—perhaps in March when districts start their budgets for the following year.

The value of the resident school district and the parent having a conversation about the decision, especially since many students return to their resident school district.

The initial vote was split among the possible options. Following the discussion, the board supported a district cap on student loss in the 3-5 percent range. The board supported the idea of parents notifying the district of their plans to enroll their student in an online school.

Virtual School Price SettingMcComb stated that the board had not spent much time on this issue, but appeared to be leaning toward allowing individual districts to negotiate the price along with their contract. Board members discussed the value of setting the price, when that could be done, and who would be best to set the price—the board, a task force, the legislature and when that could be done. As more information becomes available, this may change.

Adoption of ReportDirector Squire asked if the board needed to have another meeting to approve the final report with today’s changes.

Discussion: Desirability to have financial transparency of these schools. Scheduling another meeting. Sending editing suggestions to staff.

The board directed staff to set up another meeting prior to the Sept. 1 deadline.

CONSENT AGENDA June Minutes KNOVA Beaverton Charter School Sponsorship Appeal Second Language Standards Charter Schools Asset Distribution Commissioner’s Travel

Wyse pulled the KNOVA Beaverton Charter School Sponsorship Appeal from the agenda. Due to time constraints, it will be moved to the October board meeting.

MOTION: Berger moved to adopt the staff recommendations for the consent agenda except to move the KNOVA to the October meeting; Paz seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed, 6-0.

Written Reports/1st Readings Evaluating Student Transcripts OAR 581-021-0210 – nikki asked for more info

20

Private Career Schools Rules: OAR 581-045-009, -0014, -0018, -0019, -0032, -0062

Squire asked for more information regarding the fiscal impact of OAR 021-0210.

Chair Frank adjourned the meeting at 12:50 am.

21