STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONOctober 16, 2008

Public Service Building, Room 251-A/B255 Capitol St. NE, Salem, OR 97310

Members Present Duncan Wyse Chair Alan Bruner Advisor, K-12 Teacher Rep.Brenda Frank Vice Chair Mary Spilde Advisor, Community CollegesArt Paz 2nd Vice Chair Paul Fisher Advisor, Community CollegesJerry Berger Board Member Rob Saxton Advisor, K-12 AdministratorsNikki Squire Board MemberLeslie Shepherd Board Member

Members ExcusedLew Frederick Board Member

Other ParticipantsSusan Castillo Supt. of Public Instruction Cheryl Kleckner ODE Education SpecialistCamille Preus CCWD Commissioner Tryna Luton ODE DirectorKrissa Caldwell CCWD Deputy Commissioner Carla Wade ODE Education SpecialistEd Dennis ODE Deputy Superintendent Kate Dickson Chalkboard ProjectDoug Kosty ODE Assistant Superintendent Tony Alpert ODE DirectorDebby Ryan ODE Executive Specialist Morgan Allen ODE Legislative DirectorJan McComb Board Administrator Phyllis Guile ODE DirectorSalam Noor ODE Assistant Superintendent Don Dorman Oregon School for the DeafSue Hildick Chalkboard Project Colleen Mileham ODE DirectorCindy Hunt ODE Legal Coordinator Elizabeth Rousseau-Susan Daggett ODE Education Specialist Rooney Oregon School for the Blind

Preliminary BusinessCall to Order/Roll Call/Flag Salute/IntroductionsChair Duncan Wyse called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Wyse called the roll. He then led the room in the flag salute and asked the audience to introduce themselves.

Comments, Agenda ReviewChair Wyse stated that there would be a focus on the new diploma. Also, the board would hear testimony for the decision on the Oregon School for the Blind (OSB) and the Oregon School for the Deaf (OSD) decision.

Committee UpdatesThe UEE subcommittee had a phone conference on Tuesday, October 14. There was an opportunity to hear and approve plan for next year. The UEE meeting agenda was updated last month. There were a few minor revisions. It was stated that there will be a packet in advance of the November 7th UEE meeting. The November 7 meeting was planned to be for joint boards. Members could participate by phone if necessary.

Superintendent UpdateSuperintendent Castillo called attention to photos on the wall that were done by students from central Oregon. The project was to expose high risk students to a rich art experience.

Castillo gave an update on the report card: Report card went out for the 10th year. There were groups of schools that were satisfactory.

1

Some schools scored lower than previously. That showed an urgent need for diploma work. If children were exposed to rigors, they would do better.

High quality teacher report was going in direction they wanted to see.

Castillo stated that ODE was nearing a settlement with Union Baker ESD. There had been issues after a Secretary of State’s audit. Recommendations had been made. Union Baker ESD was to repay state school fund.

Castillo and Dennis went on a three-day trip to eastern Oregon. They discussed the new diploma and did some recognition of good work going on there. They also met in The Dalles with community leaders and business leaders. Conversations about the diploma work were positive. They went to McLaughlin High School in Milton-Freewater where there had been good work on closing the achievement gap. They had a diploma meeting with leaders in the Pendleton area. There was great turnout and conversation about the diploma. They went to Joseph Elementary School, in Joseph, to recognize the school for going above and beyond what was required in wellness polices. A $500 check, from the Oregon Dairy Counsel, was provided to the school. Their nutrition program was excellent—they bought local products, which were healthier food for kids. Their trip ended at Wallowa. Castillo advised everyone to tell their legislators that they supported the diploma work.

Castillo went to Gladstone on October 13, where she recognized a wonderful partnership between Gladstone and Hats off to Reading. The Hats off to Reading program was a free summer literacy program conducted at two local apartment complexes. Head Start staff, kindergarten teachers and Gladstone high school students read to children weekly in their home community, provided specific literacy enhancing instruction to the children’s parents and provided 12-15 quality books for each child to keep and read at home. Castillo stated that this was a best practices example when all parts of the community came together and put the children at the center. The superintendent at Gladstone was a shining example of what happened with strong leadership.

There were seven partnerships that had been named as recipients of the 2008 Outstanding/School Partnership Awards. The 2008 Outstanding Community/School Partnership Award Recipients were:

Clackamas County Head Start and Gladstone School District for their Hats Off to Reading program

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and Siletz Valley Schools for their Siletz Tribal Community School Partnership

Dental Health Solutions for Children and Salem-Keizer School District for their Salem Keizer School District Dental Health Solutions for Children program

Lincoln City Community and Lincoln City Schools for their Backpack Food Program Metropolitan Family Service, Stand for Children, and North Clackamas School District for the

North Clackamas After School Task Force Salem Chamber of Commerce, Keizer Chamber of Commerce and Salem-Keizer Public Schools

for their Ready to Learn-Ready to Work program. Winston Area Community and Winston-Dillard School District for their Winston Area

Community Partnership (WACP)

Discussion:

Pendleton had concerns with the diploma requirements. They were encouraged to communicate with ODE and the State Board of Education.

Member ReportsNone

Public CommentJeanine Johnson Johnson distributed a hand out. She stated that she was a resident of Bend, Oregon and a teacher of visually impaired students with the High Desert ESD and the Central Oregon Regional Program. She said that she was not speaking on behalf of the OSB board, but wanted to share information that was a result of her own research work. Jeanine shared the following information:

2

Blindness and vision impairment was one of the lowest incidence disabilities in the country. The population of our country was estimated to be 305 million in October 2008. The number

of blind and vision impaired (BVI) was 21.2 million. The small population of BVI students in Oregon was a diverse group. Factors included the

nature and degree of vision loss, age of onset, occurrence of additional disabilities, and the degree of the academic ability.

It was apparent that there could be no cookie-cutter approaches, programs or placements for this group.

Johnson shared further information regarding teaching the BVI. She listed the following information: The sense of vision for the BVI was one of two distal senses, the other being hearing. Distal

senses connected us with the world outside ourselves. It had been estimated that 80 to 90% of education was visual in nature. Because of sight limitations, BVI students had a different reality. Blindness and vision impairments were frequently a disability of speed. An issue that students faced was the lack of accessibility of materials in the appropriate

format (large print, Braille or audio materials). The least restrictive environment may not have been in a community school or regular

education classroom. In every way, those classroom environments were set up for students with normal vision. Even though their teachers worked hard, those teachers usually were unfamiliar with teaching BVI students and were learning how to do so on the job.

Issues in the field: The field of education of blind and visually impaired children was going through a

transformation. Due to technology and medical advances, there had been a tremendous increase in children

with multiple disabilities. ELL students who had vision impairments had very unique educational circumstances. There was a huge national shortage of teachers of the visually impaired.

Issues for placement at the Oregon School for the Blind: Currently in Oregon, there were two placement options available to BVI students. BVI students

could receive vision related services in the home and the community school or the Oregon School for the Blind. There were significant hurdles for IEP teams and families to overcome in order to select placement at OSB.

Distance and travel time negatively impacted decisions to place children at OSB. OSB did not have a weekend program. That was eliminated during the 2003-05 biennium due

to reduction in state funds. Some students from eastern, central and southern Oregon had to travel up to 16 hours per weekend in order to attend the school.

There appeared to be a lack of understanding of the services that OSB offered. OSB did not currently have a core academic program. It was imperative that we continued to have the full spectrum of placement options and

services available to our BVI students.Master plan:

The Oregon State Legislature had set the stage for the creation of a Board of Directors for OSB and OSD.

It was stated that there should be input from all stakeholders. The board was asked to honor the legislature’s request for comprehensive information. The board had not been able to concentrate their efforts on the Master Plan because they

were consumed with the co-location issue. Their board should be able to complete their task of developing a five-year master plan for

both schools. Funding issues:

Funding had not kept up with the needs of the schools. Decisions must be made based on the present and future lives of our BVI children.

Final Comments: Johnson stated that we needed to think outside the box for services for BVI education and

rehabilitation. We needed to change the way that we educated our BVI children. Johnson asked the board to take the co-location legislation proposed by ODE off the table until

the OSB Advisory Board could develop a path to the future.

3

Margo LalichLalich submitted testimony to the board. She stated that she was a parent of a student who had attended the Oregon School for the Blind since 2004. Lalich discussed the Oregon School for the Blind:

OSB was a campus that provided a sense of place that was unique to students who were blind and visually impaired.

OSB provided an environment that fostered collective identity, protected the cultural heritage of a community, and promoted cultural awareness.

Identification and appreciation of a sense of place was something we expected and accepted as critical to the positive educational experience of any student.

Lalich stated that a decision to co-locate OSB and OSD disregarded the importance of a sense of place. The decision had been made prematurely without the OSB Advisory Board having had an opportunity to develop a comprehensive plan as charged by the legislature.

Lalich stated that it was naïve to ignore the fact that operating the schools separately was costly; but, it was presumptuous to assume that these two unique populations would continue to thrive once they were co-located.

Lalich stated that the superintendent’s plan was premature and disregarded the intent of the legislature in establishing the Oregon School for the Blind Advisory Board.

Information

Diploma Update Salam Noor, Colleen Mileham, Cheryl Kleckner, Susanne Daggett, ODE

Noor gave an update on diploma implementation: The ODE Diploma Coordination Team, with representatives for all ODE offices, met monthly to

coordinate diploma implementation and communications. Guidance was provided on a regular basis through monthly publications such as the

Superintendent’s Update, the Superintendent’s Pipeline and monthly newsletters; the Moving Education Forward brochure, which had been distributed in schools and among stakeholder groups; diploma presentations to Education Services Districts (ESDs) and fall conference presentations.

Math standards were progressing very well – they were on the ODE website for public input. The K-12 science Oregon content standards were posted on the ODE website for public input. Members of the Assessment of the Essential Skills Review Panel (AESRP) had been selected

and met on October 14 and 15. They began the process for identifying additional assessments and state criteria for local assessment options. They started the process to develop a reading scoring guide for a local assessment option.

Credit for Proficiency Task Force recommendations would be presented to the State Board in October as an information item.

ODE was working with the Northwest Regional Education Lab and ESDs to develop a roll out and implementation strategy for math and science instruction professional development. A statewide advisory group convened to develop a plan of action.

There was student peer-to-peer training with Oregon Association of Student Councils.

Discussion: The documents and materials were translated into multiple languages. There were concerns from districts and schools about requirements that would take affect July

1, 2009. ODE had communicated in multiple ways that the law had changed. COSA would like to pursue a legislative fix to grandfather those students.

There was a need to identify students, now, and to help those students’ complete credits before June 30, 2009.

Field helped develop language to help and guide districts. There were implementation challenges. If a senior, in 2008, had enough credits to graduate, but in May of 2009, that student was

short one-half of a credit, typically the school would still graduate that student and allow making up the credit. However, HB 3129 stated that students that did not graduate by June 30, 2009 were subject to new requirements - they could not receive a diploma if they did not

4

have enough credits. What percentage of students would fall into that category? It was stated that 8% of students fell into that category.

Discussion It was stated that this issue could go to the Education Subcommittee, which was meeting

right now. How can we make sure we know unintended consequences of the diploma requirements? COSA had proposed a legislative concept to the 2009 session – it was shared with a legislative

committee yesterday, October 15. There was communication with the field that these were the issues that we faced. The need to shine a light on the kids that did not meet standards in 8th grade. Whether ODE should constantly remind school districts about these timelines. The value of getting the messages out in a variety of formats and to many different people. How students could recover credits when they failed in a subject area. Schools needed to find

an alternative method for recovery. It was important to look at alternative pathways for a student to earn or recover that credit.

Whether to work with AG’s office to try to understand the intent of the legislature. The value of communicating with school counselors. Counselors were a major interface in

communication with students. Ultimately, they were the cheerleaders to keep kids on track. It was stated that ODE was working with counselors. There was a meeting with Oregon

Counseling Association planned for Friday. They were also talking to student groups.

Credit for Proficiency Suzanne Daggett, Colleen Mileham; ODE

Mileham discussed the Proficiency Task force Summary and Recommendations. In December 2002, the State Board of Education approved a policy as an option for school districts, Districts may award credit based on proficiency. During 2004-05 and 2005-06, seven pilot sites, with support from the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) established internal structures and external connections to support credit for proficiency opportunities. In January 2007, the board approved the policy: A key feature of the future diploma will be wider use of proficiency, ensuring that all students will have the opportunity to choose to earn credit by demonstrating proficiency based on state content standards. The Implementation Task Forces (ITF) would make recommendations. The Credit for Proficiency Task Force was appointed and met from February to June of 2008 and developed recommendations for the State Board of Education’s consideration. In-class credit for proficiency emerged as a third option in approaching the notion of proficiency based learning environment. In September, 2008 the board heard reports on in-class credit for proficiency by representatives of Redmond and Scappoose High Schools.

Task force recommendations that resulted from the task force work: Definition and required elements for implementing Credit for Proficiency. Timelines for school district implementation and accountability. Guidelines for school district policy development. Processes and procedures for local implementation. Resource and professional development needs.

The Task Force indentified three required elements for statewide implementation of Credit for Proficiency:

Standards – what students were expected to know and be able to do. Proficiency – targeted levels of achievement based on state, local, national or international

criteria. Sufficiency – amount and variety of evidence necessary to clearly show the student is

proficient.

It was stated that the Task Force recommendations would be presented to the State Board for consideration in the fall of 2008 and would inform the Board’s policy discussion during the fall and winter. They would work toward a goal of a revised Credit Options OAR in February of 2009. Task Force members and implementing school districts would be available to the Board for additional comment and information.

5

Discussion: What policies would help schools implement proficiency based learning environment? What were the policies and guidelines to help districts move in this direction? There was discussion on requirements, scope of opportunities and timelines. There had to be clarity around knowledge and skills. Student had to know and understanding what they were suppose to learn. Taskforce worked on how we defined credit for proficiency. What were the standards for career and technology? Task force recommended that content standards were a must. At the district level, how was the process determined? Sufficiency – how to prove that the student met standards? What was the amount and variety

of evidence? Used projects, quizzes, variety of things in classroom instruction. Teachers were engaged. It was stated that it should not be too tightly prescribed. Access for students: what about students that cannot access? There was access for all

students in the state. There was an opportunity for them to learn with out the artificial barrier of time.

Last month, the board had responded to Scappoose and Redmond. They appreciated all the excitement that went with presentation.

Does the board agree with three elements: standards, proficiency and sufficiency? Cannot have proficiency without sufficiency. Schools will ask for definition of credit for proficiency. Add other words to mix: maximum and minimum. Talk about rigor, not sufficiency. Start with existing system. What embodies a credit in that? How prescriptive or how flexibly does the board policy communicate to districts? How was going beyond basic knowledge modeled? What was credit for articulating something

at a higher level? Regarding sufficiency: it was not just about quantity; but, about quality and circumstances of

learning. It was stated to use the word mastery, assessments, or applicability rather than sufficiency.

Sufficiency meant barely accurate. On proficiency – don’t use the words shall or must; use the word may. Local school district

should decide what they were going to do. This policy suggested that schools and districts had responsibility to provide opportunities to

everyone. Was the burden on student or district? Should this be required for all classes? If so, it gets into funding issues. Should it be made

available for online class? School had to pay for online class? Districts had to decide what they would accept. They had to own what they were doing.

Scappoose and Redmond owned what they were doing. Task force wanted to leverage a more proficiency based system because it was best practice

for student learning. Districts had the flexibility to determine one class? Multiple classes? What was the policy lever to move the system toward a more proficiency based system? Should there be a policy that all districts have to have a policy for credit by proficiency? We needed clear picture of where we were taking the system.

New Education Technology StandardsSalam Noor, Tryna Luton, Carla Wade, ODEOregon Department of Education was currently developing Educational Technology content standards. Educational technology standards were presented to the board for a first reading. Some background on Educational technology standards:

Standards were designed to align with the 2007 National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS*S).

They focused on 21st Century teaching and learning. The International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) had been a leader in the

development of educational technology content standards for students. In 2000, the ISTE published National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology, which became the guide for technology integration.

6

The development of new Oregon Ed Tech standards began in May 2008 with the Oregon Ed Tech Professional Development Cadre reviewing the ISTE NETS*S and making recommendations for Oregon Educational Technology Standards. Regional meetings were held across the state of Oregon.

Discussion: This was something that had happened in collaboration with field. Timeline had not been identified yet. Remaining five essential skills would be worked on by

Taskforce in field. Technology permeated everything done in school. This was an information item – first reading. They would bring back for approval in December.

Assessment of Essential Skills Review Panel Update Doug Kosty, Tony Alpert, ODE

The issue before the board was the appointment of Essential Skills Review Panel and a report on their first meeting. Alpert provided some background:

OAR 581-022-0615 directed the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint a panel to make recommendations to the State Board of Education on the Assessment of the Essential Skills. Over 65 nominations for the panel were received with many highly-qualified individuals eager to serve. An ODE cross-office committee went through a rigorous process that resulted in the 23 members who had been appointed to the panel.

The Assessment of Essential Skills Review Panel (AESRP) held its initial meeting on October 13 and 14. The panel was presented with their charter and began work on several key issues.

Further meetings had been scheduled for November and December, so that the panel would have recommendations which were due to the State Board at their December meeting.

Alpert discussed the Charter: It was stated that the purpose was work toward the goal of a system with a high degree of

technical adequacy and equivalent vigor between assessment options, as practicable. Members were appointed for a three-year term. There was focus on additional phasing in of Assessments of Essential Skills, criteria for local

assessment options, additional assessment options, achievement standards used to determine student eligibility for the high school or modified diploma and data collection requirements.

Deliverables: Criteria for local assessment options – December 11. Meetings were scheduled for October 13 and 14 and December 8 and 9. A long distance

conference meeting was scheduled for November 13. Reporting structure: The AESRP reports to the ODE Diploma Implementation Coordination

Team were scheduled to follow each meeting and the State Board of Education meeting in December 2008 and June, 2009.

Timeframe: Initial work in the Essential Skills of reading, writing, speaking and applying math was scheduled to be completed in the 2008-09 school year.

Discussion: Panel members that were appointed by superintendent were diverse and powerful. Looked for geographic representation, expertise with diverse populations. Variety of levels of organizations was represented. There were representatives from

community colleges, Oregon University System, private sector, superintendents, high school principals and teachers. There were creative, complex discussions with variety of viewpoints.

Hewlett Packard only private sector representative? No, also Science Factory and NW Regional Lab – tried to balance a lot of different voices and still keep a balanced size. It was requested that they get more ESDs on the panel.

It was asked how the state testing policies and procedures, that were currently in place, be modified?

How could English language learners be better served in this process?

State Tests Revisions; OAR 581-022-06107

Doug Kosty, Tony Alpert, ODE

This was the board’s first reading of the proposed revision to OAR 581-022-0610. Kosty discussed the proposed amended rule. He stated that the rule created clear state guidance for school districts on the administration of the Oregon Statewide Assessment, including both the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) and the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA). The rule would be supported by a companion rule that ODE was developing to address more explicit requirements for which ODE was accountable regarding test development. Issues that had been raised:

In Section 11, whether to allow school districts requesting a waiver from the secure browser requirement to administer OAKS using a paper administration. (Yes).

In Section 12, whether to allow students to administer OAKS using a paper administration to individual students not on an IEP or 504 Plan. (Yes).

Discussion: It was more critical that there were clear rules to make sure the system was being

administrated. Last year, a substantial number of students did paper and pencil tests, not by choice. The

vast majority took tests online.

Audit and other Financial Appeals; OAR 581-001-0100Ed Dennis, Cindy Hunt, ODE

Dennis discussed the proposed/amended rule. It established the process to be used by the department for addressing overpayment or underpayment of state funds to district, school or program.

The issues raised were: What types of overpayment or underpayments should be applied to the rule? The rule applied

to overpayments and underpayments of State School Funds from closed years based on information received in an audit or other report.

Should there be a minimum threshold for recovery of amounts? Yes, the rule established $750 as a minimum.

How should the district, school or program be heard? The rule allowed the district, school or program to request an in-person meeting.

Should there be a statue of limitation for recovering amounts? The rule established a time period. ODE must receive the audit or other report within two years of the date a year closed. The superintendent could waive this time limit.

Who within ODE would make the determinations? The superintendent, deputy superintendent or assistant superintendents as determined by the superintendent.

Discussion: It was stated that ODE was trying to create consistency from district to district. Districts owing a large percentage of money could extend payments over ten years. Lessons from audits were that districts could ask for a public meeting from ODE – very

transparent. Districts could ask for mediation. Was it still set up to allow a fair amount of inconsistency? Under state school fund, ODE was not allowed to collect interest, even on pay-back. This was the first time the rule amendments had been before the board. The process established by the rule would not require additional ODE staff time. The Superintendent and ODE Staff recommended adoption of the rule amendments at the

upcoming December meeting.

Oregon School for the Blind/Oregon School for the Deaf Co-location Decision AppealCindy Hunt, ODE; Morgan Allen, ODE; Elizabeth Rousseau-Rooney and Bradley Kimbrough, Oregon School for the Blind; Don Dorman, Chair, Oregon School for the Deaf

The issue before the State Board of Education was whether the board should uphold, modify or overturn the decision of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Superintendent) to pursue enabling

8

legislation for the co-location of the Oregon School for the Blind (OSB) and the Oregon School for the Deaf (OSD) on the OSD campus in Salem.

State law required the Superintendent to provide free training and education services in schools located in Marion County for children who were blind or deaf. State law allowed the Superintendent to order a change in the purpose and use of the schools if it was determined that a change in purpose and use would better enable the state to meet its responsibilities for the education and training of children who were blind or deaf. State law allowed the Board of Directors of the OSB and the Board of Directors of the OSD to appeal to the State Board of Education (SBE), a decision of the Superintendent to change the purpose or use of the schools. The SBE may uphold, modify or overturn the decision of the Superintendent. The law that established the OSB and OSD Boards of Directors and the appeals process was enacted by the 2007 legislature.

Hunt stated that there would be a presentation from Morgan Allen, Elizabeth Rousseau-Rooney, Bradley Kimbrough, and Don Dorman. After all presentations, there would be a five-minute rebuttal period.

Allen discussed Superintendent Castillo’s rationale for combining the schools and asked for support. He gave some background on the appeal:

Issue of special schools’ futures was first raised during Superintendent Castillo’s tenure during the 2005 Legislative Session.

In 2005, the Legislature adopted a budget note that required ODE to evaluate both co-location at OSD and closing the schools and contracting out the programs.

The State Schools Study Committee was formed to help answer the questions laid out in the budget note. The committee recommended co-locating the two programs on one campus and in March of 2007, the Oregon Department of Education released the State Schools Study report, which included details on the recommendation.

During the 2007 Legislative Session, no legislative action was taken on the recommendation. ODE contracted with consultants at Innovation Partnership to report on the cost effectiveness

of co-location. The report concluded that co-location would allow optimal shared use, operating savings, and the rehabilitation and use of existing buildings.

On June 5, 2008, Deputy Superintendent Ed Dennis sent a letter to the OSD Board Chair and the OSB Board Chair, which notified them of the Superintendent’s decision to move forward with legislation that would allow her to co-locate OSD and OSB on one campus.

The OSB and OSD school boards had the right to appeal that decision to the State Board of Education.

Superintendent Castillo stated that she arrived at her recommendation out of concern for providing high quality education for students in special schools. She stated that it was a very difficult decision to make. She had been searching for the best solution. After three years, she arrived at this recommendation.

Allen stated that co-location was the best path to achieving the ultimate goal of providing each student at the schools the best education possible. There were six primary factors that Superintendent Castillo believed in for the need to co-locate OSD and OSB. They were:

1. Enrollment at the Oregon School for the Blind had decreased significantly over the past decade.

2. Buildings at both OSD and OSB were aging and had growing deferred maintenance and seismic safety needs that needed to be addressed in a timely manner.

3. Costs per student were increasing at a significant rate.4. Co-location provided the opportunity to self-finance critical upgrades at a time when state

resources were scarce and funding from the legislature was unlikely.5. There were a low number of students who were visually impaired/blind who attended OSB due

to the availability of services from local school districts and/or increased numbers of students served through regional programs.

6. There would be cost savings from consolidation of the two programs onto one campus.

Discussion:9

How many classrooms were needed to conduct programs? Was there a five-year projection of fundamental elements that would create an understanding

of physical structures? Funding needed to be a part of this. This was a narrative that was more of an economic expedient plan, rather than focusing on

students. This was a plan that talked about real estate; but, there was a need to look at collaboration

with the community. This looked like full speed ahead based on a land transaction. There needed to be a more thoughtful conversation on requirements of the two schools. The

statement on sense of place resonated. Enhancement of two programs could not occur unless there was a problematic analysis. This

should not be a real estate transaction. Parents wanted to make sure that the facilities were the best possible. The legislature had the

funding to invest into both schools. The choice was to do nothing and let the schools deteriorate. It was stated that we should look at all options. It was stated that policy barriers should be removed. There was a statutory policy barrier and a state board policy barrier. Where would students go while improving the buildings? Were there examples of programs that had co-located? Eight other states had done this. Not

talking about shutting down programs. Current model was not going to work. There were many states where programs had been located on one campus.

How large were the operating savings? Look in summary reports in packets. 1.3 – 1.4 million dollars.

Presentation from School for the BlindElizabeth Rousseau-Rooney, School for the Blind Advisory Committee

Rousseau-Rooney stated that she was replacing the board chair who had medical issues that prevented him from attending the meeting. She stated that she was speaking for the board and the blind community. Rousseau-Rooney stated the Oregon School for the Blind Directors (OSB Board) unanimously opposed the decision of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Superintendent) that the Oregon School for the Blind (OSB) and the Oregon School for the Deaf (OSD) be co-located on the OSD campus. She stated that:

The decision was premature when considered against the legislative charge to both the OSB and the OSD Boards of Directors, which was to conduct a comprehensive review of the schools and to adopt a five-year master plan for the schools.

The OSB and the OSD Boards had not had adequate time to complete this charge and they believed the master plans would inform the Superintendent and the legislature that co-location was neither viable nor in the best interests of the students.

The Superintendent’s reliance on several reports, including the State Schools Study Committee Report (SSSC), staff report on the State School’s Study Committee (SSSR) and the report from Innovation Partners was focused on the operational costs of the programs and facilities without regard to the reported recommendations for further and more comprehensive study.

The OSB Board requested that the State Board of Education allow the OSB Board to complete its comprehensive review and development of a master plan and to consider this work in advance of any decision by the Superintendent that OSB should be co-located on the OSD campus.

HB 2263, which passed in July 2007, created the OSB and OSD Board of Directors. The house bill directed the OSB Board of Directors to among other things:

o Conduct a comprehensive review of polices and procedures of the Oregon School for the Blind.

o The review was to be done in conjunction with ODE.o Based on the review, they were to make recommendations to the Superintendent

about policies and procedures of the school that related to programs, services and employment of staff for the school.

10

o Adopt a five year master plan for OSB, which would be presented to the legislature at the beginning of each legislative session.

She stated that this substantial task was to include ODE and statewide stakeholders. The legislative charge required an understanding of the role of the OSB in the continuum of services available to Oregon students who were blind or visually impaired. A simple drag and drop approach to co-location had been suggested. That term, borrowed from computer graphic design, negated the opportunity of appropriate redesign that would come from a comprehensive review and plan.

Rousseau-Rooney concluded with the following points: The creation of the boards provided, for the first time in the long history of OSB, that persons

with a stake in the provision of services to children who were blind or visually impaired participated in the planning for these services. The board took its statutory duties seriously and understood the importance of collaboration and open communication with ODE, regional programs, local school districts, partners and stakeholders.

The planning charge to the OSB Board was an opportunity to heal misunderstandings, rebuild trust and to move forward with mutual respect. The outcome would be the design and implementation of programs that would deliver the best outcomes for students.

The OSB Board respectfully requested that the State Board of Education provide them with the opportunity to complete their charge by overturning the Superintendent’s decision to co-locate OSB on the OSD campus.

Discussion: It was asked how the board was doing on the master plan. There had been a lot of work done on gaining more understanding of regional programs and

budget process. The OSD and OSB boards needed to make a master plan to review procedures and programs.

There had been a strong recommendation for a master plan. The OSD and OSB boards had made tremendous progress in understanding their burden. It

was stated that it was a process that would take more time. Once their boards had a master plan, co-location may not be the best outcome. There was no

way of knowing that until they completed the master plan. It was stated that the two boards were not resisting change. They were asking for opportunity to manage when change would happen.

The two boards were asking for an opportunity to finish work of gathering information and to make a master plan.

Timeline for a programmatic analysis to be 24 additional months was difficult to grasp. It would be useful to get a shorter timeline.

Advisory boards were substantial contributors to the process. Continuum of services was important. There was a need to re-visit weekend programs, which was a big reason for the drop in

population. The state school study report strongly recommended that the master plan be developed for

delivering services that would best serve the student population.

Don Dorman, Chair of Advisory Board of Directors for School for the Deaf

Dorman stated that he had over 20 years in education. He had worked in regional programs and in state schools. He had worked in schools that were co-located. Dorman stated that over the last eight months, the OSD Board had purposefully begun its legislative charge to conduct a comprehensive review of policies and procedures of the Oregon School for the Deaf and to develop a five-year master plan for the school. Dorman reported on the work completed to date:

The board had met a total of six times. They adopted bylaws (January 2008). They elected a chair and a vice chair to serve through June 2008. They also adopted a board

mission statement and incorporated the mission statement into the bylaws (March 2008). The board held a joint meeting with the OSB Board of Directors on April 18, 2008. They appointed a budget subcommittee. The board appointed members to a joint OSD/OSB Board of Directors Subcommittee.

11

They reported to the Senate Education and General Education Committee on February 19, 2008, regarding board progress to date.

The board reviewed the Secretary of State Audit Report on the State Special Schools and submitted recommendations to ODE.

They adopted a work plan through December 2008. They elected new officers for the July 2008 – June 2009 board year. They adopted the first Annual Report.

Dorman stated that at this time, the OSD Board recommended the following actions be taken by the Superintendent:

Adopt and include into the ODE proposed agency budget to DAS, the proposed 2007-2009 State Special Schools Budget and the Policy Option Package addressing seismic and deferred maintenance concerns.

Complete a comprehensive feasibility study to include a cost benefit analysis of various co-location scenarios.

Review and revise the ADA Master Plan for the OSD campus for compliance with current law and adaptability to an appropriate renovation and facilities upgrade plan.

Continue to fully inform the board of issues of concern to the operation and success of OSD. Direct ODE to continue to provide administrative, research and consultative support to the

OSD Board’s comprehensive review of OSD policies and procedures and to the development of a five year master plan.

Discussion: How can you know what was needed if the work had not been done? There was encouraging talk about planning and feasibility studies. Oregon Department of

Education and the OSB and OSD boards were talking about a lot of the same things. There needed to be a team of people that could bring a group of stakeholders together. If the SBE did not want to take this forward to the legislature, there would be a wait of a

couple of more years—we were now looking at minimum of five years for anything to start happening.

Legislative intent was to set up two advisory boards. Were there alternative answers from OSD and ODB boards? Legislature would not come up with money for brand new schools. Sell both properties and coming up with something else? School for the Blind was an historic site—was there a possibility of preserving it from that

perspective? Tremendous money would be spent in co-location. Results of master plan would make an

impact on the decision. There were three points for this co-location: decreased enrollment, aging buildings and cost

per student. There had been population changes in OSB and OSD. There was a reference to the Center

Street facility and how everyone knew it was not working, but no one would do anything about it until they reached a crisis point.

Were the two boards (OSB and OSD) having conversations with each other regarding co-location? Yes.

There was a great risk if some decision was not made. There was a question about staffing. It was stated that no ESD had anything close to the level

of staffing at OSD and OSB. What were the costs of staffing? Was there a reason for the disproportionate amount of staffing? Operational costs per student were high. The boards needed to look at that when planning

and looking at co-location. Legislation should be drafted to establish the trust fund. Also, should ask for dollars to do

seismic updates and address safety issues. Can we take simultaneous paths to allow the schools to complete their plans and continue for us to look at a bigger solution?

Is the board required to make a decision at December meeting? Legislation had to be introduced by December 15, if that was the decision.

Not certain that we should support a seismic update at this point. Another option might be that both schools be closed. What’s best for students? Seismic

updates important for many schools in Oregon. What best insures that we get someplace?12

Current conditions at OSB were not safe. Have to do something. It was stated that legislation for a trust fund should move ahead regardless of what happened

now.

IVY Charter School Sponsorship RequestPhyllis Guile, ODE

The issue before the board was whether to sponsor the Ivy Montessori Public Charter School. Guile gave some background:

The Ivy Montessori Public Charter School was a comprehensive first through eighth grade school located in the Portland Public Schools District.

Their program would merge the Oregon Curriculum goals with the Montessori scope and sequence.

If a school district board did not approve a proposal to start a public charter school, the applicant could request that the State Board of Education review the decision. The Portland Public Schools denied the application for sponsorship.

Guile stated that mediation was unsuccessful and there were no suggestions for revision to the application to the school district board. ODE staff conducted a substantive review of the proposal using criteria set forth in statute. The review panel was made up of internal and external members with expertise in curriculum, school finance, governance and special education. The review indicated the proposal did meet the criteria established by the State Board of Education for sponsorship. She stated that staff recommendation was that the board adopted this resolution at the December 2008 meeting. Guile stated that members of the Ivy School Development Group and Portland Public Schools were invited, today, to address the board.

Ivy Montessori Charter School Presentation:Gabi Groshong, Lisa Larpenteur, Andy Idsinga, Tammy Kennedy

Kennedy thanked the board and stated that their presentation would summarize who they were, what they were proposing, how they would achieve their objectives and why they deserved state sponsorship.

The entire Ivy School design team was made up of 20 people. They had been working together for two years to make their vision a reality, which showed

their passion and commitment. Mission of Ivy school was to enable children of diverse backgrounds to learn and grow at their

own pace by offering them a developmentally appropriate and challenging academic Montessori environment.

Montessori had deep roots in low achieving students. Montessori originated in Italy for underserved and disadvantaged children.

It was stated that by incorporating the Montessori model into the public school system, it would bridge the achievement gap.

In hundreds of schools, the Montessori curriculum had been successfully aligned to meet state standards.

In a Montessori environment, students were active participants in a learning environment. Students had freedom of choosing their work, but they had responsibility – they were

expected to set time tables and due dates for their work. They collaborated with the class room guide and peers to make sure that they were progressing toward the academic goals set before them.

They knew they could not do any of this without careful financial management. They did have a financial plan – they had a conservative figure for their budget that showed

they could operate the school in a way that would allow them to achieve their objectives with adequate contingency reserves.

They had been awarded a federal incentive grant that would help them with the initial purchase of educational materials, staff development and facility improvement after which they would be able to successfully operate.

They had strong support from community leaders, educators and parents.

13

Through their extensive and ongoing community outreach efforts, they had formed strong ties with numerous non-profit organizations that worked with underserved and under privileged families from diverse backgrounds.

They had gathered 267 survey responses in support of Ivy, 81 letters of intent to enroll and ten letters of support from community leadership organizations.

She explained why the State Board of Education should sponsor Ivy School. They believed that they had something to offer to bring students back into the public school system. Students would have a choice.

PPS currently offered students a multitude of innovative options; however, Montessori was absent as one of those options. Based on their research, it was a choice that parents were demanding.

It was a shame that in Portland, Oregon, a Montessori education was only available to families that could afford private school.

They believed that Montessori should be available for everybody regardless of income level. They asked the board that they vote, according to staff and superintendent

recommendations, and approve their proposal for the Ivy School. If approved, they were well equipped to hit the ground running for a September 2009 opening. They wanted to assure the board that they had a detailed implementation plan and the expertise to execute it.

They had a curriculum that was fully aligned to state standards. They had drawn up policies and handbooks. She stated that they understood facilities, building codes, health and safety issues. They did not require a great deal of handholding from ODE or district staff.

They wanted to make it clear that although they were asking for the board’s support, it was and has always been their goal to form a long term partnership with Portland Public Schools.

It was only after a lengthy and unsuccessful approval process and mediation process that they found themselves at this meeting.

If the school was approved, they would make every attempt to build a positive working relationship with Portland Public Schools.

They looked forward to working with the board to build the very first Montessori charter school in Portland.

Discussion: Location of the school was in N.E. Portland – they had a site on 42nd and Prescott. They were

working on financing a facility that was for sale – waiting for SBE approval to implement that. They did have zoning approval. Sometimes the number of occupants within a facility would take them out of zoning

compliance. It was stated that was not an issue. It was a 7000 sq. ft. building and would meet their requirements for the first three years.

In their outreach plan, they focused on understanding exactly where the people who were interested in public Montessori came from. What they found was that it was from all throughout the district.

When they gathered data through surveys and through actual letters of intent to enroll, they used that data and calculated all the people that were likely to enroll. Then, they matched up where the student currently went to school and whether or not there might be an impact on those schools. They presented that as a part of their proposal. The tables showed very little impact. For most schools it might have been only one or two students spread all across forty schools. They tabulated data on students that were already in private schools. They found that some people were considering going back in to public schools if they had the Montessori option.

It was asked why Portland Public Schools did not support them. It came down to one really big issue and that was the enrollment size of the school. They had a very detailed plan to grow the school into 240 students consistent with the Montessori model having multi-age classrooms. Also, financially, because they did not get full funding as a charter school, every student counted. When the district proposed a cap of 120 students, they looked at what that would do to their budget. When they looked at that, they realized that the school would be destined to fail.

It was a difficult decision for all of them to withdraw their proposal form PPS, but they all realized that they would be destined to fail if they agreed to that cap.

Enrollment in the school would be by lottery. The interest came from all over the district.

14

They wanted to spread their community outreach effort across the district because they were sensitive to the fact that a lot of kids coming from one particular school would have impact. They were trying to avoid that impact.

They mostly focused their community outreach and marketing efforts in NE Portland. Students could come from all four corners of NE Portland. They would have to figure out

transportation. Concerns of PPS regarding adverse impact criteria: PPS expressed a concern that the

Montessori marketing might unintentionally target primarily middle, upper and higher income white kids and have an adverse impact on their efforts to reduce segregation and to increase diversity.

Ivy School commitment had been to create a diverse environment that reflected the diversity that they had in the N.E. Portland area. Many people were not able to take advantage of a Montessori environment because they could not afford it.

One of the goals of their program was to insure that they had a diverse population. That was one of the most important things for them. They did not ask people, when they were filling out surveys or when they were filling out their intents to enroll, about race, ethnicity or income. They did not have a lot of racial and ethnic data as a result of that.

They believed their community outreach program was successful in reaching across north and northeast Portland.

Admission process was 100% lottery. PPS did not say Ivy School would have adverse impact. Need to define what adverse impact

really meant.

Portland Public Schools presentation:Kristen Miles, Jenni Villano; PPS

Miles thanked the board for the opportunity to speak to them, today. Miles stated that Cliff Brush, who was the PPS charter school manager at the time of the Ivy School application, was unable to be with them due to health issues. For that reason, he and Superintendent Carol Smith asked that the memo from PPS staff to the Superintendent of Public Instruction be read into the record as district testimony. Miles summarized, briefly, the memo:

PPS staff believed that ODE staff review of the Ivy Charter School appeal was incomplete because it did not yet include a review of the decision of the local district school board as was required by statute. The ODE staff recommendation only focused on the Ivy proposal.

PPS decisions regarding Ivy were described in its reviews of Ivy’s proposal by PPS staff and by the superintendent.

In July, the district submitted copies of its reviews and resolutions to ODE for analysis and evaluation of the district’s decisions regarding Ivy. ODE staff recommendation acknowledged that the district was in compliance with charter school law and charter school application timelines. However, the ODE staff recommendation to the state board did not describe, analyze or evaluate the documents that PPS submitted for review. The review did not reach any conclusion about whether the PPS decision was justified.

The ODE staff review did not provide the state board sufficient information to decide whether or not to exercise its statutory option to recommend to the applicant and to the school district board the revisions to the proposal.

The State Board’s option to recommend revisions was an independent statutory provision. It did not depend on whether mediation was successful.

PPS felt that the state board needed to fully understand the reasons for PPS’s decisions about Ivy’s proposal. They believed that the state board did not have enough information to reach that understanding.

The ODE staff recommendations concluded that there were no suggestions for revisions to the applicant and to the school district board.

It was not clear how that conclusion could be reached without a description, analysis, or evaluation of PPS’s decisions regarding Ivy’s proposal.

The ODE staff review was factually incomplete and did not yet provide sufficient information for the state board to make a fully informed decision about its sponsorship of Ivy because it did not yet include a description of the interactions between PPS and Ivy that contributed to PPS’s subsequent decisions regarding Ivy’s proposal.

15

At a February 2008 meeting, the PPS board was about to vote on a resolution conditionally approving PPS sponsorship of Ivy. Ivy’s representatives had attended an earlier meeting with PPS’s subcommittee on charter schools. They had heard discussion of this resolution and they had received copies of it. Yet, at the last minute, at the PPS’s board meeting, they claimed surprise, they rejected PPS’s offer of conditional approval and they, then, requested the state board’s review. Those actions damaged the developing relationship between PPS and Ivy.

Prior to the draft resolution conditionally approving Ivy, in response to staff at PPS and board members, Ivy made voluntary revisions to its application. Those revisions did help inform the draft resolution conditionally approving PPS sponsorship of Ivy.

There were other interactions relevant to State Board of Education’s consideration of sponsorship not discussed in the letter. If the SBE was to reach a full understanding of PPS’s decisions regarding Ivy’s proposal, the information presented in any recommendation to the SBE must include a description of the interactions between Ivy and PPS staff and board members.

PPS believed a comprehensive examination and clear understanding of PPS’s decisions about Ivy’s proposal, including an examination and understanding of the interactions between PPS and Ivy, would fully inform the SBE’s decision making and lead to these options for SBE action:

o Make recommendations to PPS and Ivy about revisions to Ivy’s proposal. Those recommendations would be consistent with PPS’s draft resolution conditionally approving Ivy’s proposal.

o If the PPS Board did not agree to the SBE’s recommendations, deny sponsorship and encourage Ivy to re-apply for PPS sponsorship.

o Alternatively, if PPS Board did not agree to those recommendations and if Ivy agreed to SBE sponsorship, sponsor Ivy with conditions similar to those in PPS’s draft resolution to approve Ivy conditionally.

Discussion: How would the State Board of Education get a recommendation to sponsor a charter that had

conditional approval from their local school district? Portland was headed in the direction of doing a conditional approval, but before they could

vote on that, Ivy withdrew their proposal from Portland. After that happened, PPS and Ivy contacted ODE to ask what their next step could be. ODE sent both PPS and Ivy their options based on statute. Ivy had a choice to make at that point:

o Ivy could request an appeal of the denial.o Ivy could resubmit an amended proposal to PPS. o Ivy could submit a charter school proposal to another school district. o Another choice was for Ivy to bring this forward to the state board.

This was a legitimate application based on the school board denial. The process the board had to go through was to hear the applicants and it was up to the school district to explain why the board should not accept it.

The SBE wanted to know what the basis was for the denial and why PPS thought the board should not entertain Ivy’s application.

The original PPS denial was based on several things: Ivy’s marketing plan, their proposed location, their proposal of serving grades K-8 (there was little evidence that the Montessori method was effective in the later grades), their alignment with standards at the upper grades and finally, their enrollment number.

The last recommendation by PPS was to approve the application with the condition of enrollment capping. At that meeting Ivy withdrew before there was a vote.

How did PPS arrive at the number count for the cap on enrollment? Neighborhood impact was one concern. It was stated that this information should have been in the materials that the SBE had received from PPS.

It was important for the SBE to know the basis of the denial so they did not have to guess what it was. It was stated that this was PPS’s opportunity to explain why the SBE should not approve the Ivy application.

PPS staff and board wanted slow growth of the Ivy School and felt that Ivy’s enrollment projections were too quick.

It was asked how the slow growth model was interpreted.

16

Charter schools in the PPS district that had been most successful had started out with smaller numbers per grade. The enrollment number that PPS proposed was in alignment with what other charter schools had done in their district.

Past experience with other schools had been an important element in the PPS decision making.

It was stated that this would be back before the SBE for a decision at the next meeting. It was stated that there were two completely different ideas of the situation. Ivy stated that

they really wanted to work with PPS. Ivy’s goal was to be a charter school with PPS and to work together. The enrollment cap that PPS wanted to put on Ivy would not allow them to be successful. Ivy School was willing to enter into a good faith mediation process with PPS. There was a meeting that Ivy felt was successful. They had another mediation meeting set up. PPS did not participate in the second meeting. Ivy School had tried to come up with a compromise in their revised proposal.

PPS said that during the mediation meeting all the issues were brought up. It was clear that there was still a divide between the district board and Ivy on what should have taken place. The district did end the mediation.

A concern was expressed about the capacity of State Board of Education and their staff to oversee charter schools throughout the state.

One of the primary relationships was between the state board and this school. Once Ivy appealed to them, the state board did not have authority to direct PPS to charter the school. Part of the review process that was done with this school included the material that Portland submitted that was part of their evaluation of this charter, originally.

The question was asked about how many charter schools were locally chartered in Oregon. There were a total of 88 charter schools, two of which were state schools.

It was asked how critical the size factor was that seemed to be the breaking point in the PPS, Ivy negotiation. What was the average size of the 88 charter schools? Would get back to the board with an answer on that.

It was stated that there was a possibility of reviewing the law and considering some modifications to the law as we were approaching the next legislative session that could help redefine the relationship between sponsors and applicants.

It was stated that with the current economic conditions, increasing the oversight of state sponsored schools would be a challenge. That had nothing to do with the merits of what they were looking at; but, it would be an incredible challenge for ODE capacity wise.

National Professional Development StandardsKate Dickson, Chalkboard Project; James Sager, Office of the Governor

Sager stated that they were at the meeting to bring back to the table the conversation they had at the August retreat, which was when they ask the board to consider endorsing a set of national standards for professional development. They presented a copy of the legislative concept to the board. The working groups that came up with this were Chalkboard, ODE, and advocacy groups. What they came up with was two major components:

A web base system where professional development opportunities would be posted. School districts could look at this schedule and calendar for opportunities.

A feedback loop to go back into the system to share with others what worked and what did not work.

The feedback they got from the field was that this was what principals and superintendents across the state said they really wanted. They would have an oversight committee that would actually review the different proposals coming in from vendors, universities and school districts against the standards that the board would endorse. That way they could help make sure that the choice of quality was greater. Another component of this would be to help expand the statewide delivery system of professional development opportunities. Sager discussed National Staff Development Council’s (NSDC) standards for staff development:

Disaggregated student data would be used to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress and help sustain continuous improvement.

Multiple sources of information would be used to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact.

17

Educators would be prepared to apply research to decision making. Adults would be organized into learning communities whose goal would be aligned with those

of the school and district. Educators would be prepared to understand and appreciate all students, create safe, orderly

and supportive learning environments and hold high expectations for their academic achievement.

Educators would be provided with knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders appropriately.

It was asked if this could be brought before the joint boards. Yes.

The Education Enterprise Steering Committee would help districts, administrators, teachers and staffs continue to improve student achievement in Oregon. Their charge was:

Develop and maintain a public web site for posting and sharing of professional development opportunities.

Web site would:o Display a calendar of professional development programs being offered across the

state.o Post feedback from users of the various programs.o Provide contact information for the various programs. o Give a list of program offerings that had been identified to meet standards.

Provide coordination for school improvement professional development and informational and educational technology.

Sager went on to explain the structure that would be used. There was appropriated from the State School Fund, beginning the 2009-2011 biennia, the sum of $700,000 to be matched by contributions from Oregon’s ESDs of $300,000. The fund was also permitted to request and receive private contributions.

Discussion: Dickson commented that she supported the work. There were 50,000 educators in Oregon.

These standards created first steps around quality professional development. There was high quality national work that had already been done. Each standard from the

NSDC had a large volume of documentation and research. Context of standards required leadership. High quality professional development did not happen in isolating teachers, but in bringing

teachers together. This would help teachers learn how to use disaggregated data. There was a commitment of the national standards to equity. It was stated that we need to support our educators. This was a leadership opportunity. It was stated that this good work should be given some visibility. The timing of this was such that since there was not another state board meeting until

December, the Governor would have announced his budget. A concern was expressed regarding instructional time in the classroom. Because so much

time in the school calendar was dedicated to professional development, it needed to be done well.

AdjournChair Wyse adjourned the meeting at 5:52 p.m.

HANDOUTS & MEETING MATERIALShttp://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=1697

18

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONOctober 17, 2008

Public Service Building, Room 251-A/B255 Capitol St. NE, Salem, OR 97310

Members PresentDuncan Wyse Chair Alan Bruner Advisor, K-12 Teacher Rep.Brenda Frank Vice Chair Mary Spilde Advisor, Community CollegesArt Paz 2nd Vice Chair Paul Fisher Advisor, Community CollegesJerry Berger Board Member Rob Saxton Advisor, K-12 School AdministratorsNikki Squire Board Member

Members ExcusedLew Frederick Board MemberLeslie Shepherd Board Member

Other ParticipantsSusan Castillo Supt. of Public Instruction Andrea Henderson OCCACamille Preus CCWD Commissioner Emily Smith OCCSAKrissa Caldwell CCWD Deputy Commissioner Greg White OWIB ExecutivePhyllis Guile ODE Director Drew Hinds ODE Education SpecialistDebby Ryan ODE Executive Specialist Morgan Allen ODE Legislative DirectorJan McComb Board Administrator Elaine Crawley CCWDKaryn Chambers ODE Educational Specialist Helen Maguire ODE DirectorCindy Hunt ODE Legal Coordinator Steven Huillet ODE Pupil TransportationPatrick O’Connor Oregon Coast Community College_________________________________________________________________

Preliminary BusinessCall to Order/Roll Call/Flag Salute/IntroductionsChair Duncan Wyse called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. Wyse called the roll. He then led the room in the flag salute and asked the audience to introduce themselves.

Comments, Agenda ReviewWyse reviewed the agenda. There were a couple of items from the consent calendar that would be pulled: 4.2 and 4.3. They were going to swap student success and career readiness so that student success would go before the break.

Commissioner ReportPreus stated that Pat O’Conner, from Oregon Coast Community College, would join the group to talk about capitol construction. The main thing that Preus wanted to talk about was capital construction and to add some information to what Castillo had talked about, the day before, regarding the budget situation. She would also talk about where they were with enrollment numbers and FTE.

CCWD finished their audited full time enrollments for last year. It was a protracted process in that when they did the audit, they received all the information from the colleges during the year, but at the end of the year, they checked it out. They used to only do spot checks, but not a full blown audit.

In 2001, they went on site to every college and did a thorough review of what it looked like on paper. Since then, they established a full time FTE audit committee that looked at areas of risk. A good example of what they worked on was the duel enrollment program, which started with SB 300.

Now, they did not do on-site, but desk audits. It was less interruptive for the colleges and less costly for the department.

This year, as during the last five years, they looked at adult continuing education. The 2002 legislature, in one of their special sessions, decided that certain adult education classes would

19

not be reimbursable. Every year CCWD made sure that they were in agreement on what was reimbursable and what was not.

They also looked at apprenticeship, an area where there had been many years of dialogue with the Bureau of Labor and Industries and joint apprentice committees, as well as colleges to make sure that what the colleges were asking for in reimbursement was the trend that was happening.

They also looked at cooperative education. Many professional technical programs had on the job training. There were some boundaries of how much could be claimed for any one student in any two year program. They found a couple of colleges that had exceeded their boundary and they were negotiating on how to reduce that number.

Final audit numbers: o Head count – 367,000 to 380,000o Over 12,000 was up 3.4%o Reimbursable FTE was up 3.6%. They went from 86,000 – 89,000 FTE.o There were some colleges that were down a little, but the major enrollment growth

area was seen in central Oregon at 12.6%. o Good news was that almost universally, there was college growth.

CCWD did a survey on where all the colleges were this year: There had been a lot of increase in financial aid applications – almost 20% increase. Community Colleges were in double-digit enrollment growth this year. What that meant in a fixed pot of money was that every student was now worth less. Preus

stated that she was having conversations with college presidents about how to pay for that growth.

Everyone had thought is would be larger schools like Chemeketa and Lane that would have large growth; however, one example was 12% growth at Central Oregon Community College.

That rolled out to the question of what did the revenue forecast look like. Some of the enrollment growth was from people that had lost jobs and were seeking training

at the community college; but, there was also an increase in the number of younger students that were in a transfer.

Preus introduced Dr. Patrick O’Connor. O’Connor stated that he was there to talk about capital construction. O’Connor discussed the North Lincoln County new facility. Preus distributed pictures of the new facility. O’Connor talked about the work, what had been done and what they were still doing. There was a $24 million bond to build a series of facilities. There was a 22,000 square foot building at the north campus. That facility opened three weeks ago. He stated that there had been a boost in enrollment and a better relationship with high schools. There was a plan to build a new building in Waldport, which should be done in the fall of 2009. They had a close relationship with the business community. He invited the SBE to tour the facility if they were in the area. North County facility was the first tobacco free community college campus in the state.

Discussion: When talked about fixed dollars and students, what about capital improvement budgets in

this kind of economy? Preus stated that there was bond debt service to finance seismic construction. It was asked how much the opportunity grants might have contributed to enrollment increase

in community colleges. Probably a lot. Community college students tended to apply at more than one place for financial aid. Many community college students didn’t pick up their financial aid. Pick up rate was less than

50%. With the shared responsibility model, there was an outreach plan to students to apply for and

pick up their financial aid. At an emergency board meeting, $4 million was approved to ensure that all students for need

based financial aid got it. Now, CCWD did not believe that was enough. The connection between auditing FTE and growth of FTE was important. Taking action was

essential. It was not a surprise that growth occurred. It was stated that Oregon was on the path to equalization. That was a huge goal for the state,

so that schools could work together. 20

Less money and enrollment growth would cause huge problems between schools working together or not working together on who gets what.

Audit of FTE was essential for a level playing field. The FTE steering committee helped CCWD know which areas were to be focused on. Agency’s budget when left session in 2007 had two budget notes. One was about

performance indicators. The second was about the distribution formula. Students needed to be served in all parts of the state. Budget adopted was a student based budget – mechanics of state budget and the essential

budget level had no relationship to what community colleges asked for.

Public CommentLaurie Adams, Springfield SD Adams thanked the board for letting them be there. She stated that they were there as a result of action item 2.1, Children’s Choice Montessori Charter School’s petition to reconsider the denial that the board had already made.

When Springfield’s board considered a charter application, they looked at what was in the best interest of students, quality education, safety of students and behavior support systems.

In their original decision, when they denied the Children’s Choice application for a charter school, there were facility issues and zoning challenges. They were operating the current facility outside of zoning ordinances.

The facility was on a busy street, which caused them to have great concerns about the safety of students.

There was questionable judgment in pulling students out of school to picket the administration building where there had been unacceptable student behavior.

Since the original decision, those issues had not substantially changed. No land use applications had been submitted for the conversion of the existing day care

facility on Main Street to a private school. One of the state board’s biggest concerns of zoning had not been addressed. They believed

that was a bigger process than Montessori folks presented. They ask the board to further deny the application.

Jocelyn Borden, Springfield Montessori school.Borden thanked the board for letting them speak. She stated that she attended the school board meeting when Montessori’s application was discussed. Borden stated that she would discuss the extent to which the application met the ORS 338 and also the relationship with the district:

Neither ORS 338 nor the relationship with the district was an issue of concern in the initial process with the district.

Regarding the criteria, governance was never an issue. Their bylaws had been drafted by an attorney and had met all the requirements that were under Oregon non-profit law.

Facility was not grounds for denial. The work required to use the current facility had been overstated by the district.

They had demonstrated financial stability. The district stated that they did not need to provide standards of behavior; however, they

adopted the behavior model of the Springfield school district. They had complied with program reviews for years. The student demonstration had never been talked about by the district until the main

meeting with the State Board of Education, in Salem, a year later. There was not an unruly, out-of-control demonstration. Borden believed that the district brought this up as a cheap attempt to discredit them.

Borden stated that there should be a right to peaceful protest. It was their belief that they met all the criteria of ORS 338. The NCLB law required that there was an alternative sponsorship option. Facility was not a

reason, under law, to deny. They were told when they went to the state board meeting in May that they were not going to

be allowed to present any new information, that the board would only consider all the documents between March 9 and June 25, 2007, when they were in their process with the district. And yet, the district presented new information about the facility and commented about the children’s demonstration, which had not been a part of the record.

21

They asked the state board to take another look at the application and consider their request for sponsorship.

Action

Children’s Choice Montessori Charter School: Petition for Reconsideration of Vote to Deny SponsorshipPhyllis Guile, Cindy Hunt, ODE

Hunt stated that in June, the board voted to deny sponsorship to the Children’s Choice Montessori Charter School Sponsorship. As a result of that vote, staff sent to Children’s Choice and the school district, a letter informing them of the state board’s decision and the reasons for that decision. Under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act, that letter became an order. Children’s Choice then had the right to ask the state board for a reconsideration of that order. When ODE received the reconsideration from Children’s Choice, they took a look at what procedure was used when reviewing the application and any new information provided in that motion.

Guile discussed the review: All review processes were followed. Children’s Choice had asked the SBE to reconsider the decision to deny their sponsorship. It was ODE staff’s recommendation that the board did not reconsider their decision to deny

the sponsorship.

Discussion: It was asked why ODE made that recommendation. There were no missteps in the process

that the board had taken; the board had information from the school developers and the district. The process was followed appropriately.

There was a question regarding different forms, different criteria and did that provide basis for reconsideration. No. There were no irregularities.

Chair Wyse asked for a motion to reconsider the decision. Hearing no motion, the segment was closed.

Stakeholder Reports

Oregon Community College AssociationAndrea Henderson, OCCA

Henderson distributed a draft document that had not yet been approved by the OCCA Board. She stated that the board would adopt it at their December meeting. Henderson asked the board to forward any suggestions they might have on the draft to the OCCA Board. This was the draft legislative positions for the 2009 session. This document guided their lobbying efforts as they moved through the 2009 session. The document identified what they were planning to support in the upcoming session:

Funding – OCCA would support a balanced increase in the public investment in community colleges for operations, capital, and student financial assistance that met the post-secondary education and training needs of all Oregonians.

Access – OCCA would support efforts to create opportunities for and remove the barriers to access to post-secondary education and training for all Oregonians.

Leadership Structure – OCCA would support a community college structure that reinforced local control to serve local needs while maximizing responsiveness and collaboration across the educational enterprise at the local and state levels.

Quality Education – OCCA would support efforts that would allow community colleges to provide quality education that was responsive and accountable to the community as demonstrated by student and community satisfaction and success.

Workforce – OCCA would support a comprehensive workforce development strategy that recognized the fundamental role played by community colleges as providers of workforce training and education.

22

Collaboration – OCCA would support efforts to promote collaboration that was efficient, effective and sustainable among Oregon’s community colleges and their parents, including all segments of education, policymakers, business leaders and elected officials.

Discussion: With the “green” economy we were starting to reform the work place and the governor was

really supporting that. It was stated that we should align with green, clean energy economy and that would have a relationship with some of the solar and wind technologies that some of the community colleges were involved with.

OCCA was talking with many of the colleges about the efforts they were working on. It was pointed out that this legislation position piece was an internal document and was not to be passed out to the legislature.

In OCCA’s messaging pieces, they have a focus on green industry and what was being done with solar and wind.

Henderson stated that the presidents and President’s Council was the best it ever was. They have had incredibly positive conversations.

The draft document would be adopted in December. Henderson asked the board to e-mail her with questions and suggestions.

Regarding the distribution formula: there was a perception that more FTE got them more money; but it didn’t. That message needed to get out.

There was a connection between buildings and education. It made an incredible difference in the learning environment.

State and municipal bonds were being sold in the state – they were held for almost a month, but they got a good deal.

Oregon Community College Student Association (OCCSA)Andrew Fries

Fires stated that at their first meeting, not yet held, they planned to set goals. They were working on the Support Fund and having a student voice in the capitol. When students went to the capitol, it worked well. It worked out better than when they

knocked on doors. They would focus on capital construction, Community College Support Fund and full funding

for the Oregon Opportunity Grant. An OCCSA representative would give the SBE goal updates. Some of them had been working on voter registration drives.

Oregon Workforce Investment BoardGreg White, OWIB

White distributed a handout regarding the quarterly Oregon Workforce Investment Board Meeting (OWIB) Report. This report was distributed quarterly after each OWIB meeting. This was the report from the September 26 meeting.

At the September 26 meeting the board heard a presentation by Graham Slater on the current situation of job growth and the Oregon economy. Discussion at that meeting included questions of how the economic bailout played out psychologically with the Oregon public.

OWIB focused on the legislative agenda. James Sager gave an overview of the next revenue forecast at their September 26 meeting.

More emphasis needed to be put on the adult workforce component. It was noted at their meeting that OWIB’s top priorities, the Career Readiness Certificate and

expanding Career and Technical Education were well aligned. Sager and Preus recently had a conversation with Labor Commissioner Avakian. There was an

interest in expanding apprenticeship, and potential governance changes at the OWIB level. 163 people had earned their Career Readiness Certificate (CRC). OWIB was a major contributor to the establishment of the Oregon Healthcare Workforce

Institute (OHWI), who presented their accomplishments, program goals, developing projects and 2009 legislative proposals at the quarterly OWIB meeting.

23

OWIB’s Communications Committee had been carrying out the preliminary steps of a youth outreach campaign to inform youth of the many opportunities available in high skill wage occupations. The first phase was completed, which involved youth focus groups and research.

The future funding of this program was discussed. It was stated that the future funding of the website startup would be $60k. The entire project for two years would be around $300k.

Discussion: It was asked what the top priorities were. The Career Readiness Certificate and expansion of

career and technical education were top priorities.

Consent Agenda September 2008 Board Minutes Instructional Materials in K-8 Mathematics, OAR 581-011-0141 (temporary rule) Students with Disabilities OAR Language Update Reappointment of member to Private Schools PreK-12 Advisory Committee Community College Program Approval: SWCC: Phlebotomy Technician (Certificate of Completion) Oregon Council for Online Learning: Disbursement of Assets Arts and Technology High School: Disbursement of Assets Columbia County Education Campus: Disbursement of Assets Updated Liaison List Standards for Education Service Districts OAR Division 24 revision

Action 4.2 and 4.3 were pulled from the agenda to discuss.

MOTION: Berger moved to adopt staff recommendations for the items on the consent agenda; Paz seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed 5-0; Frederick, Shepherd excused.

4.2 Commissioner’s TravelCommissioner Preus drew the board’s attention to an updated version of her request to travel.

MOTION: Squire moved to approve the commissioner’s travel request; Berger seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed 5-0; Frederick, Shepherd excused.

4.3 Supplemental Plan for Klamath Falls City SchoolsSquire pointed out error in the recommendation. The plan was for the Klamath Falls City Schools, not the Sutherlin School District.

MOTION: Squire moved to delete “Sutherlin School District” and replace it with “Klamath Falls City School District.”

VOTE: The motion passed 5-0; Frederick, Shepherd excused.

MOTION: Squire moved to approve the supplemental plan for Klamath Falls City Schools as amended; Berger seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed 5-0; Frederick, Shepherd excused.

Information

Career Readiness CertificateCommissioner Preus, Elaine Crawley; CCWD

Crawly stated that she was the project coordinator for CCWD. The Oregon Career Readiness Certificate (CRC) assessments were being used in selected Oregon sites to verify skill proficiency and readiness for further education, training and careers. Crawly gave some background on the CRC:

24

The CRC system used a nationally recognized system of assessment and supporting curriculum. The foundation for the Certificate was built on three ACT Work Keys assessments in:

o Reading for Informationo Applied Mathematics ando Locating Information

Those assessments were a tool for Oregon’s youth and adults to demonstrate proficiency in essential skills that were the foundation to success in the knowledge-based economy.

Current sites that provided CRC skill assessment included:o Students and Emerging Workers at Lebanon High Schoolo Dislocated Workers through Clackamas Community College Rapid Responseo New and Incumbent Workers through:

Portland Community College WorkSource Oregon centers in Linn, Benton, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties.

Crawly stated that as of October 1, 2008, 163 Oregonians had earned a CRC. This number included high school students, job seekers, newly hired applicants, dislocated workers, apprentices, and current workers. A policy goal was to ensure that Oregon citizens had a clear and consistent message that the demonstration of Essential Skills indicated an individual’s readiness for college, career and life.

Discussion: For next steps, how to better connect workforce and adult education? There was a connection between virtual learning and seat-based learning. A menu of resources and services were available on line. It was important to raise skill levels and document those levels for employers. Students that excelled in career readiness met the SAT.

Student Success: Culture of EvidenceCommissioner Preus, Connie Green, Elizabeth Lundy; CCWD

The issue before the board was that each month, CCWD would take to the State Board of Education (SBE) data and issues that affected student success at their community college. October’s data was dual credit success. Also, included was the implementation of the student success plan. Green gave some background:

Dual Credit courses were community college classes offered in high school for high school students.

Oregon’s Dual Credit programs created the opportunity for a student to take college-level courses while still in high school.

Dual Credit was a viable option for qualified students to begin post secondary learning early and it could contribute to meeting Oregon’s 40-40-20 goal.

The Task Force recommended that:o Dual Credit programs be continued.o A common set of standards be used to govern these programs.o The pilot study of students’ subsequent academic performance be institutionalized and

carried out regularly.o The pool of teachers that were qualified to participate in Duel Credit programs be

expanded.

Discussion: Were there any negatives about dual credit? The Dual Credit Task Force stated that dual

credit was doing great. Some students were retaking a writing course because they thought they needed a better

writing skill. 35% of students retook calculus. Lundy had been doing research on the dual credit program over the past 10 years. Student

population had grown 30% at Linn Benton Lincoln Community College (LBCC). Was high school graduation an end for a student or was the student in the middle of doing

something more because of dual enrollment?

25

Dual enrollment provided rural school students more of a grasp of going to college. They learned how to be good at college by taking a college course in high school.

Repetition was good for a student at risk. Sometimes students were advised to take a class, again, while they were learning to be college students.

College credits that were achieved while in high school could be used anywhere. High school principals were becoming more aware of dual credit. One principal had wanted all

of his students to have the opportunity to earn a year’s college credit while in high school. If students got a solid background in high school with college credits, it enabled them to do a

five-year college program faster. That could save money for students. It was asked if colleges had an alternative for students other than re-taking a course. Yes,

some students might just need two or three tutorials. When an on-the-cusp student took a placement test for community college, there would be a

conversation regarding a refresher course or the use of a tutoring center. There was no consistent pattern.

There were a higher percentage of dual credit students in smaller schools than in larger schools.

Governor’s Task Force on Veterans’ ServicesKrissa Caldwell, CCWD

Caldwell discussed the Governor’s Task Force on Veterans’ Services, established by Executive Order 08-08. She gave some background:

Governor Kulongoski had convened a Task Force on Veterans’ Services in April of 2008 to conduct a comprehensive review of all policies related to veterans and service members, particularly the Oregon National Guard.

One of the Governor’s key directives to the Task Force was to examine post-secondary opportunities, impediments, and suggestions for improving access and affordability of education.

There were an estimated 360,000 Oregon veterans with service that extended from the 1930s.

The task force met weekly through the spring, then traveled throughout the state gathering information from formal presentations and twenty-four community outreach forums. The task force recommendations had been adopted for the 2009 legislative session and would be provided to their congressional delegation to pursue changes at the federal level. The interim report to Governor Kulongoski included a list of draft recommendations, including the following recommendations for education, employment and reintegration:

Regarding education, the task force recommended that there be 18 new VSO positions for placement at public university and community college campuses. The task force also recommended to waive out-of-state residency requirements for veterans attending public institutions to help facilitate full realization of the new GI bill benefits.

For employment, the task force recommended that there be an increase in disabled veterans’ outreach programs. There was a recommendation that there be development of a public education campaign that supported Oregon Hire Vets program. Also, that there be a development of a state recognition program for employers that hired vets. In addition, a state facilitation of a private sector veterans’ employment contract.

For reintegration, it was recommended that there be development of regional mini-summits, expansion of community based reintegration outreach, increased reintegration team staffing and a memorandum to Congress requesting full funding of the Oregon-Soft Landing plan.

Oregon’s community colleges had developed innovative partnerships and programs to serve this segment of the community. A few examples included: Clackamas Community College partnered with the Oregon National Guard on a career fair in the fall of 2007 and developed an on-campus and online career program to assist soldiers and spouses. Clatsop Community College worked with the Armed Services to help them in their educational endeavors. Columbia Gorge Community College awarded two physical education credits for a DD214 (honorable discharge). Lane Community College developed a Veterans Center on campus and had an excellent program. Mt Hood Community College offered veterans personalized service through the veteran’s service office.

26

Discussion: The main issues raised by the task force included: help for veterans and their families to

navigate Oregon’s education system, credit transfers from military coursework and credit from other states, and scholarships and financial aid.

There had been 30 trips around Oregon to talk to veterans about what was happening in their communities.

There were 360,000 veterans in Oregon. There had been conversations about education employment reintegration. It was stated that compared with the GI bill, what our veterans were getting was abysmal. Post-traumatic stress syndrome was discussed. There was a concern for women veterans. Oregon had an active effort for reintegration. Medical reimbursements for veterans in Oregon were less than on the east coast. There was a need to develop a profile of National Guard veterans and what they actually got

compared to an active service veteran.

Board Management

Board Work PlanJan McComb, Board Staff

McComb stated that at the August Retreat, board members brainstormed on their priorities and staff organized those ideas. These goals would form the basis for the board’s self-evaluation next summer. Wyse suggested that they make their goals concrete. He stated that they needed to think through decisions on diploma implementation. He asked what the board wanted to hold itself accountable for. The Executive Committee and staff would review the list and condense it. The budget picture was different now than in August – needed to keep that in mind.

Information, cont.

Child Abuse Training and Reporting OARHelen Maguire, Cindy Hunt

This was a first reading for a proposed new rule, requiring school districts to provide training on the identification, prevention and reporting of incidents of child abuse. In developing the rule, several issues were raised:

Whether school districts were required to provide training for educators, parents, community members and students. (Yes).

Whether employees of the school district having reasonable cause to believe child abuse had occurred were required to report the information. (Yes).

Whether there needed to be policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the statutes. (Yes).

In 2007, Senate Bill 380 amended the Oregon revised statutes. This rule placed the requirements relating to the identification and prevention of child abuse into Division 22 rules and made the requirements a part of the required standard for school district. The Superintendent and ODE staff presented this information for the first reading in preparation for recommendation of adoption at the December meeting.

Discussion: By placing the rule in Division 22, someone could file a complaint if the school district did not

follow through. This was for education—this made certain that mandatory reporters in school system knew

their responsibilities. How many incidents were reported across state? DHS and law enforcement would have those

statistics. What costs were school districts going to have because of this rule? Will vary from district to

district. DHS sent a training CD to districts, free of charge.

27

There was child abuse training on the Oregon School Districts virtual web site. It was stated that some schools may hire trainers. Knowing what rules and laws cost school districts was important. There were cumulative costs of employee time and instructional time. Oregon law stated that DHS confirm with the reporter of child abuse as to what happened. Was there a mandatory requirement for staff to be properly trained on these issues? (Yes,

annual training.) OSBA came out with model polices that school districts could choose to adopt. Hearing was scheduled for November 21.

Action, cont.

Request for Timeline Waiver – Southern Oregon ESDCindy Hunt

This item was pulled. We did not get a petition.

Chair Wyse adjourn the meeting at 12:14 p.m.

Written ReportsStrategic Fund Request – Tillamook Bay CCCommissioner Preus

28

These meeting minutes were unanimously approved by the state board on December 12, 2008.