State Board of Education Topic Summary

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY

Topic: August 2010 Minutes

Date: October 29, 2010

Staff/Office: Jan McComb, Board Administrator

Action Requested: Information only Policy Adoption Policy Adoption/Consent Calendar

ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD: Adoption of the August retreat 2010 minutes

BACKGROUND: The State Board of Education is a public governing body, and as such, its meetings must comply with the provisions of ORS chapter 192, Records, Public Reports, Public Meetings.

Minutes of the State Board meetings shall be written in compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes and give a true reflection on the matters discussed at the meeting. They shall contain brief statements on important points made by Board members and participants and include all motions, proposals, resolutions, orders, ordinances and measures proposed and actions taken.

Past practice has been to send the minutes to board members for review and correction prior to the next board meeting and placed on the consent calendar.

As a cost cutting measure, minutes content will be reduced and times will be added so that minutes may be used as a guide to the video.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the August retreat 2010 minutes.

16

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

August 17, 2010

Northwest Viticulture Center

215 Doaks Ferry Rd NW, Salem, OR 97310

Members Present

Brenda Frank Board Chair Nikki Squire Board Member

Art Paz Vice-Chair Duncan Wyse Board Member

Leslie Shepherd 2nd Vice-Chair Preston Pulliams Advisor, Community College Pres.

Jerry Berger Board Member Caryn Connolly Advisor K-12 Teacher Rep

Members/Advisors Excused

Ted Wheeler Ex Officio Board Member Kate Brown Ex Officio Board Member

Participants

Susan Castillo Supt. of Public Ins Camille Preus Com. Colleges & Workforce Dev.

Jan McComb Board Staff, ODE Connie Green Special Projects, CCWD

Marjorie Lowe Office of the Governor Colt Gill Bethel SD

Bob McKean Centennial SD Dean Wendell Rogue CC/OCCA Exec Bd.

Julie Lafayette Lincoln Co. SD Kevin Zerzan Milken Award Winner

Sonya Christian Lane CC Bruce Clemetson Linn-Benton CC

John Turner Blue Mtn CC

Interested Stakeholders

Ed Dennis Deputy Supt., ODE Krissa Caldwell Deputy Comm., CCWD

Colleen Mileham Asst. Supt., ODE Doug Kosty Asst. Supt., ODE

Nancy Latini Asst. Supt., ODE David Moore CCWD

Terri Johansen CCWD Evelyn Roth CCWD

Diane Roth ODE Joyce Harris Education Northwest

Suzie Johnson Lane CC/OCCA Exec. Bd. Tamara Busch-Johnson Business Ed Compact

Colin Cameron COSA Chuck Bennett COSA

Craig Hawkins COSA Vickie Chamberlain Teacher Standards & Practices Com

Ed Edwards OSEA Nicole Mayer

Tana Atchley Dan Jamison Chalkboard Project

Chris Gutierrez Atkinson Elem. Barbara Rommel David Douglas SD (former)

Sue Hildick Chalkboard Project

Welcome & Introductions

Chair 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, Forces

Facilitator Connie Green, All

Chair Frank welcomed the guests.

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

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.

·  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 Trends

Jon Cohen, Sr. Vice President and Director of Assessment, American Institutes for Research

Kerstin LeFloch, Principle Research Analyst, American Institutes for Research, AIR

Mike Garet, Vice President of Education, Human Development, and the Workforce, AIR

Jon Cohen, Vice President and Director of the Assessment Program, AIR

Gina Burkhardt, Exec. V-P, Division Director, Education, Human Development, and the Workforce, AIR

Jennifer 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

·  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: Strategies

What 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.

Students Graduate with Essential Skills

What 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 Admissions

What has been done: FAFSA webinars

Challenges 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.

·  Coaching or mentoring beyond school counseling system.

·  Rigorous coursework.

Policies to Make it Happen