State Board of Education Topic Summary s6
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY
Topic: August 2012 Minutes
Date: October 12, 2012
Staff/Office: Jan McComb, Board Administrator
Action Requested: Information only Policy Adoption Policy Adoption/Consent Calendar
ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD: Adoption of the August 2012 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.
192.650 Recording or written minutes required; content; fees. (1) The governing body of a public body shall provide for the sound, video or digital recording or the taking of written minutes of all its meetings. Neither a full transcript nor a full recording of the meeting is required, except as otherwise provided by law, but the written minutes or recording must give a true reflection of the matters discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants. All minutes or recordings shall be available to the public within a reasonable time after the meeting, and shall include at least the following information:
(a) All members of the governing body present;
(b) All motions, proposals, resolutions, orders, ordinances and measures proposed and their disposition;
(c) The results of all votes and, except for public bodies consisting of more than 25 members unless requested by a member of that body, the vote of each member by name;
(d) The substance of any discussion on any matter; and
(e) Subject to ORS 192.410 to 192.505 relating to public records, a reference to any document discussed at the meeting.
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.
As a cost-cutting measure, minutes content will be reduced and can used as a guide to the video.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the August 2012 minutes.
1
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
August 22, 2012
Chemeketa Viticulture Center
215 Doaks Ferry Road NW, Salem, OR 97302
Members Present
Artemio Paz Board Chair Serilda Summers-McGee Board Member
Samuel Henry Vice-Chair Angela Bowen Board Member
Gerald Hamilton Board Member Randy Schild Advisor, K-12 Admin.
Duncan Wyse Board Member Peter Angstadt Advisor, Com College Pres.
Colleen Works Advisor, K-12 Teacher
Members/Advisors Excused
Ted Wheeler Ex Officio Board Member Kate Brown Ex Officio Member
Kevin Furey CC Faculty Advisor
Other Participants
Rob Saxton Acting Deputy Supt of Public Instr. Rudy Crew Chief Education Officer
Camille Preus Commissioner, CCWD Jon Wiens Education Spec., ODE
Whitney Grubbs Office of the CEdO Tryna Luton School Improvement, ODE
Amanda Whalen Ex. Asst. to Supt. PPS Nanci Schneider Education Northwest
Mike Garling School Improvement Coach Chris Rhines School Improvement Coach
Ken Parshall Principal, McKay High School Dave Conley Education Policy Imp. Ctr, UO
Audio Recording
Supporting Documents are posted online
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=3748
Preliminary Business
Call to Order/Roll Call/Flag Salute
Chair Paz called the meeting to order at 1:05 pm. He called the roll and reviewed the agenda. Excused were Directors Brown and Wheeler.
Paz welcomed members and reviewed the agenda, the retreat format, and education issues facing the state. Last year, at the OUS symposium held at Oregon State University, the 40-40-20 Goal was discussed along with its challenges. He received a phone call telling him that Oregon had received the federal waiver and reminded him of the movie Waiting for Superman; his comments resonated with him. In terms of timelines, he was looking for change in the near term—the next 3-5 years. In creating this new culture of learning, he cited an Olympic runner, Emil Zátopek, who won the 5000 meter race, then the 10,000 meter, and then the marathon. Emil won the gold medal. Paz stated that he is looking for international benchmarking to measure Oregon student progress. The OECD is looking at “green at 15.” Oregon has not talked about environmental implications, and yet the OECD is looking at assessing 32 countries on environment implications. California recently changed “STEM”—science, technology, engineering, and math to “STEAM” by adding the arts. Paz stated that he wanted to add art and ecological intelligence and make it STEAMEI.
Chief Education Officer Rudy Crew updated the board. He has met with nothing but cordial and kind introductions, but he detects a quiet anxiousness. Living with ambiguity can be difficult. The new and different roles are welcomed—people want change and see it on the horizon; but there is some trepidation. What will really be different for educators and students in Oregon? Students will show up at school, regardless of the level of funding available. We (policymakers) need to have deep understanding of what it means to be literate. What does it mean about parent literacy, with communities struggling with language barriers, and the value that we begin to place on culture the acquisition of language through the existing culture. Students come with a sense of their own literacy; we need to consider bilingual literacy. In early learning, you can almost predict who will complete high school and go on to college, depending on whether they have a home that uses language richly and values education. Also, what are we asking parents to do and other agencies to do, differently? We have not always valued the parents’ role in education. Parents and the community can be a good resource. High schools are tough places to change, but they are the bedrock of major transformation. We need to have a conversation about early access to the idea of becoming a college graduate. Students start to fall off after the 8th grade and have a diminished vision of where they want to go in terms of higher education, along with a drop in skill level. We need to understand that and give them a vision of postsecondary education. How do we give young people the opportunity to apply themselves to their chosen endeavor? Maybe there should be different diplomas, some with different specializations, such as vocational, honors, global or international diploma. These questions can be asked and answered within a p-20 system. How do we invest in the adults in the education system? Maybe it is time to merge the K-12 and higher ed world regarding STEM. Are we going to connect students with STEM occupations? Maybe we should create environments so there are models of STEM work. We don’t have a model for that yet. He stated that he looked forward working with Rob Saxton and other educators.
Acting Deputy Superintendent Rob Saxton addressed the board. He stated that it was strange to be sitting in this chair as he used to be the board’s superintendent advisor, so he is a little familiar with the board. He is pleased and honored to be working with board members, Gov. Kitzhaber, and Dr. Crew and all of our partners in education. It is a hopeful time in education. He has started to make a list of changes that are coming in our direction; the details have yet to emerge.
· The Governor is the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
· We have a target: 40-40-20.
· We have an appointed Oregon educator as a deputy superintendent.
· We have Dr. Crew hired as the Chief Education Officer and the OEIB who is overseeing an effective birth to graduate school education system that will lead us to the 40-40-20 goal.
· School districts have a budget and achievement targets.
· We have a waiver from the federal law, based on our plans and our work. As part of the waiver we’ve identified priority, focus, and model schools; ODE will help priority and focus schools improve.
· We need to revise a new report card that is easily understood by all.
· We are working on teacher effectiveness. Every district will have a pilot in place on teacher evaluation and effectiveness by July 2013.
· We need to deliver the Essential Skill set, and make sure that students are earning a meaningful diploma and are college and career ready.
· We need to be involved in ESD reform. We need to hire an ESD czar; that person will work to propose a re-design of ESDs to ensure that the size, technology and business functions pulls us toward 40-40-20 and would help with struggling schools, teacher effectiveness, staff development, and perhaps much more.
· We need to have a Department of Education that continues to enforce compliance, but in a supportive way.
· We need to support struggling schools, improve teacher effectiveness, and deliver high quality data to help schools.
· We need to help schools implement the Common Core State Standards and the Smarter- Balanced assessments.
· We need to identify key leverage points of students, so students can maximize their opportunities: making sure that students are ready to learn; students are reading by third grade; they are ready for rigorous study; and that there are good transitions for students through kindergarten, middle school, high school, community college and universities and careers; and that they are college and career ready.
· We need to improve funding, change how funds are spent and cost structures, including PERS, and have more stability for funding.
· We are talking about making big system changes, so that it delivers the outcome we want. It will be important to include people who can close the achievement gap, and take input from all groups and communities. Achieving the goal, ensuring all students are successful—this is a big piece of work.
He is excited to be here, working toward this big change. He wants open communication and move forward positively. All will need to pull together if we are going to achieve this.
Discussion:
· Wyse stated that he felt very hopeful with the team now in place, and the work that is being built upon.
Information/First Reading
A Networked Approach to Identifying, Supporting, & Intervening to Improve Schools
Identifying Priority & Focus Schools
Jon Wiens, Accountability Education Specialist, ODE
Wiens reviewed the new method for identifying “focus” and “priority” schools (slides). He described the prior accountability system, Adequate Yearly Progress. Those measures were based on participation in reading and math; percent meeting the standard in reading and math; attendance rates; and graduation rates. The percentage of students that was required to meet standards went up each year. ODE is responsible for providing supports for schools that failed to make AYP. Without the waiver, many schools would fail, and ODE does not have the resources to intervene in all those schools.
With the waiver, they can lose AYP and states can propose their own system of school accountability, supports, and interventions. The waiver will allow the state to target about 15% of schools. There are three classes of Title I schools: priority schools, the 5% with the lowest achievement/graduation rates; focus schools, the next lowest 10% and achievement gaps; and model schools that have high performance, high growth, or high graduation rates.
As recommended by the workgroup that worked on securing the waiver, Oregon now includes individual student growth—all students now, not just those below standards. Schools are rated based on five factors: achievement, growth, subgroup growth, graduation, and subgroup graduation. Each category has five levels, with five being high achieving and one being low. The four subgroups being focused on are American Indian/Alaska Native; Black; Hispanic; and Pacific Islander. These groups are combined into one subgroup; this grouping results in every student being counted (separately, some schools do not have enough of these students to count in statistics). Before, if a school failed in any one area, the school failed. Now, there is an overall rating. For example, “growth” is heavily weighted in elementary schools and “graduation” is heavily weighted for high schools. Focus and Priority schools are low in both achievement and growth. Model schools are strong in both areas.
Discussion:
· How the new system is being communicated to school districts.
· Are OAKS targets set high enough?
· How individual student growth is calculated.
· We had more students take the ACT this year; this results in lower overall scores. Nevertheless, Oregon outperformed the national average.
Federal Waiver Provisions
Whitney Grubbs, K-12 Policy Analyst, Office of the chief Education Officer
Tryna Luton, Director, School Improvement & Accountability, ODE
Amanda Whalen, Executive Asst. to the Superintendent, Portland Public Schools
Luton introduced the panel.
Grubbs described the new achievement compacts (don’t have this handout-get from Grubbs). While Oregon has focused on failing schools, now we will also look at schools that are doing better than their peer schools, with the same amount of funding. This process will tell us, in addition to individual school level, to how districts are doing. Performance trends will tell what is happening to the districts over time. High expectations are needed by educators and the community. The OIEB office is looking carefully at the achievement compact targets. Should we look at all schools or just Title I schools? As a state, we want to serve all kids in all schools. Numbers will not tell the whole story. They will look deeper to see if schools are engaging parents and their community. ODE has a limited ability to perform interventions and support the Common Core State Standards. How can we have regional support centers? How can we link colleges of education and all parts of the system together?
Luton reviewed the specific interventions (slides). They brought together school representatives from the Focus, Priority, and Model schools and explained to them what this designation meant. Overwhelmingly, school staff wanted more information. The waiver request also includes college and career ready expectations; differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; effective instruction and leadership; and a reduction in duplication and unnecessary burden. She described three levels of intervention: level 1: coaching and support; level 2: directed use of resources; and level 3: intensive direct intervention. There are 60 focus schools; they will be looking at what level of support those schools need.