trauma-informed pilot steering committee charter · 1 trauma-informed pilot steering committee...

1

Trauma-informed Pilot Steering Committee Charter

Background House Bill 4002 (2016) directed the Chief Education Office (CEdO), in collaboration with the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and the Department of Education (ODE), to distribute funds to school districts and education service districts for a pilot program that uses trauma-informed approaches to decrease rates of school absenteeism. Schools that use a trauma-informed approach enhance their ability to recognize signs and symptoms of trauma in students, families, and staff. Schools using a trauma informed approach respond fully by integrating knowledge about trauma and cultural responsiveness into policies, procedures, and practices for the purpose of resisting the potential reoccurrence of trauma and promoting resiliency.

Representatives from Chief Education Office (CEdO), Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and the Department of Education (ODE), will collaborate in a Steering Committee to plan, study, and implement a pilot program to decrease rates of school absenteeism by using trauma-informed approaches to education, health services, and intervention strategies that are based in schools and leverage community resources.

Theory of Action Findings from the field of implementation science indicate that the early stages of implementation must build consensus, develop staff competencies, and establish organizational capacity and commitment. Thus, important foundational components of trauma-informed schools are professional development training and organizational support, which ensure that all school personnel realize the impact of trauma, recognize the need for trauma-informed practices, and develop the skills to create a trauma-informed environment. The pilot’s overall implementation strategy includes the following;

Technical assistance for organizational support for change and healthy community partnerships

A building-level Trauma-informed School Coordinator (TISC) who (a) coordinates professional development in trauma-informed practices for all staff, (b) provides on-site coaching in the use of trauma-informed strategies and continuous improvement models, and (c) participates in existing building and/or district meetings, and in policy and practice decision-making meetings to communicate and disseminate school-wide Trauma-Informed practices/processes.

Collection of data to monitor/guide implementation via formative and summative assessment approach.

To measure and evaluate the implementation strategy at each school, Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory (2003) is used to guide data collection and analysis procedures.

2

According to Rogers, there is a process through which new innovations and ideas become diffused and adopted within wider social networks. To understand how this occurs in context, we examine how knowledge is disseminated and commitment and competence is built among school staff.

Using this approach, it is hypothesized that a smaller group of staff will be more eager to learn about and willing to adopt trauma-informed practices than others – these staff are called program “champions” Through a Social Network Analysis (SNA) methodology, we plan to examine if these champions are also “opinion leaders” – individuals within a network who could influence others not because of their formal leadership roles, but by their exposure and accessibility to others.

Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory (2003) identifies five categories of adopters: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (see diagram below; see Table 1 for estimated categories of adopters at each pilot site). While we could safely assume that champions exist across the Innovators, Early Adopters, and Early Majority categories, we would like to explore if there could be Opinion Leaders across the same three categories, and whether Champions can also be Opinion Leaders.

By examining the characteristics of the champions and adopters, we hope to: (1) study the diffusion pattern of trauma-informed conversations/practices at each pilot site; and (2) gather data that can help leaders plan more strategically for future investments regarding professional development/learning approaches to maximize trauma-informed practices in a systematic and sustainable manner. For example, if a champion turns out to be less influential than another staff member who happens to be a centrally located opinion leader within the certified staff network, it would be worthwhile for leadership to collaborate with the champion and the opinion leader to strategically plan dissemination of trauma-informed practices/conversations and plan professional development series that maximize the opinion leader’s social capital.

3

In this way, this approach may have implications for the process of determining who champions and opinion leaders are, especially with respect to maximizing opportunities for knowledge dissemination and strengthening staff development. Additionally, this will provide insight into the importance of networks within the school structure and how these networks subsequently influence consensus, competencies, organizational capacity, and commitment to trauma-informed approaches. Findings will assist in the development of procedural guidelines and potential processes surrounding the establishment of a leadership and learning structure for staff as trauma-informed practices are replicated, expanded and scaled.

Table 1. Estimated categories of adopters at each pilot sites.

Estimated count

Category of Adopters

% Main Characteristic CHS THS

Innovators 2.5 Enthusiasts 2 5

Early Adopters 13.5 Visionaries 13 27

Early Majority 34.0 Pragmatists 33 68

Late Majority 34.0 Conservatives 33 68

Laggards 16.0 Skeptics 16 32

N school staff

(2016) 97 197

Charter

Trauma-Informed Pilot Steering Committee Composition

The Trauma-Informed Pilot Steering Committee will be comprised of members representing each of the three agencies: CEdO, ODE, and OHA. If a member can no longer regularly attend, a same-agency designee must be made in that member’s place. Staff from CEdO responsible for the evaluation of the Trauma-Informed Pilot will attend each meeting, but are not voting members of the Committee. This ensures integrity of the research and evaluation to the extent possible and ensures decisions are objective, equitable, and representative of all agency perspectives.

Purpose and Responsibility

The role of the Trauma-informed Pilot Steering Committee is to:

Make decisions about and evaluate progress of school Work Plans, budget requests, and pilot school’s deliverables required as conditions of funding;and to

Advise and/or provide feedback on interim evaluation processes/procedures and the final Legislative report (more formally as a collaboration between CEdO, OHA, and ODE).

4

More specifically, the Trauma-informed Pilot Steering Committee shall:

1. Have a working understanding and knowledge of the Domains, Goals, and Objectives*

developed by CEdO, OSBHA, and the pilot schools (see Appendix 1 & 2).

2. Monitor each pilot school’s Work Plan (submitted to CEdO every two months).

3. Evaluate the progress of the following pilot school’s deliverables that are required as

conditions of funding for activities beginning July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019:

a. Resource Map

Final due date: April 30, 2018

b. Environmental Assessment Plan

Draft due: August 31, 2018

Final due date: April 30, 2019

c. Family and Student Engagement Plan

Draft due: 2 weeks after the first of each month, during the term of the

Agreement & March 15, 2018 (Reflection report & Work Plan)

Final due date: May 31, 2018

4. Review and provide recommendations on any pilot school requests for the following

situations:

a. Work Plan activities that may change significantly due to unforeseen

circumstances and new learnings based on data (formative and summative

assessment). The Committee will establish a process to approve or alter pilot

schools’ requests for any major changes on the Work Plan (to be outlined in

“Approach to the Work” section below).

b. Pilot school submission of requested use/changes on inter-category fund transfers exceeding 10% of each budget category: (a) training/conference registration fees; (b) training related costs (travel, lodging, etc.); (c) TISC salary and benefits; (d) cost of hiring substitutes; (e) library and supply (reference books, stationery, fidget toys); (f) technology (hardware, software); (g) student engagement activities (e.g. speaker).

For these requests, the Steering Committee will use the a change process (see

appendix 3) and the pilot sites will use a Change Request Form (see appendix 4).

5. Collaborate with CEdO and Technical Assistance (OSBHA) on the and the final report that needs to be submitted to the interim committees of the Legislative Assembly related to education no later than October 15, 2019. The report must provide individual and comprehensive evaluations on the outcomes of the pilot programs and include any recommendations for legislation based on the results of the pilot programs.

6. Provide feedback on interim evaluation processes on an ad-hoc or needed basis.

* Domains, Goals, and Objectives are subject to change if necessary.

Assumptions Evaluation Process and Procedure The scope of the research questions, data collection, and analysis procedures need to be

5

flexible and responsive to the many contextual factors that are not within researchers’ and pilot schools’ control.

The integrity of the research evaluation and reporting process is protected to the extent possible via the objective decision-making and advising role of the Steering Committee.

Relationship between Trauma-Informed Approaches and Chronic Absenteeism Trauma-informed approaches in schools are connected to chronic absenteeism partly due

to studies that found students with high Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) had increased risk for academic failure, chronic attendance problems, persistent school behavior problems, and poor reported health (Blodgett & Lanigan, 2015).

Implementation of Whole School/School-wide Practices Based on findings from the field of Implementation Science, we believe important

foundational components of trauma-informed schools include professional development training and organizational support, which ensure that all school personnel realize the impact of trauma, recognize the need for trauma-informed care, and develop the skills to create a trauma-informed environment.

Using implementation timelines in other more mature school-wide programs like Response to Invention (RTI), we suspect a similar timeline for use and practice of trauma-informed approaches (if not longer): 1-2 years for initial adoption and implementation; 3-5 years for sustained implementation and durable outcomes to be realized; and after 4-5 years for sufficient capacity for scaling and continuous regeneration to occur (Sugai, Horner, Fixsen, & Blasé, 2010).

The number of initiatives focused on improving student outcomes may compromise or challenge the ability of pilot schools to appropriately resource and manage state and federal initiatives (existing and new). Trauma-informed practices will be one of the multiple “initiatives” that the pilot schools need to manage simultaneously with possible overlap of other existing or new initiatives (e.g., PBIS, Restorative Justice).

Lessons learned from aligning trauma-informed practices into the existing school system may be applied to other initiatives.

Leadership support and stability (particularly from the superintendent and/or principals) is not always predictable nor within the schools’ control, potentially challenging process or procedure as outlined in Work Plans or contracts.

Staff support is necessary to ensure successful and sustainable implementation, requiring continuous evaluation throughout the pilot.

Pilot schools have a small group of “Champions” (strong supporter of the trauma-informed programs) who are important when implementing any new programs (e.g. Trauma-informed practices). However, “Opinion Leaders” (staff who influence the opinions, attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and behaviors of others) are believed to be even more influential in the dissemination of trauma-informed practices, necessitating an evaluation of staff networks beyond the pre-identified cohort (i.e., “champions”).

Some school staff may already be implementing successful or promising elements of trauma-informed practices that are improving student outcomes and graduation rates, although practices may not be systematically documented and examined for effectiveness.

School administration, staff, health community members, organizations, and other key stakeholders want to support the implementation of trauma-informed practices.

6

Approach to the Work Incorporate the Oregon Equity Lens (see Appendix 6), into all aspects of the

Trauma-informed Pilot Steering Team efforts.

CEdO will share updated Work Plans to Steering Committee members every two months.

Steering Committee members will meet monthly beginning February 2017 through September 2019 to:

Discuss, evaluate, and/or approve or alter any updated Work Plans

Evaluate the progress of the Resource Maps, Environmental Assessment Plans, and the Family Engagement Plans

Review and to make decisions regarding pilot schools’ requests on major changes on the Work Plan and Budget

Advise and/or provide feedback on interim evaluation processes/procedures and final Legislative report (more formally as a collaboration between CEdO, OHA, and ODE).

Decisions and recommendationswill require a majority vote from members in attendance along with a majority vote to be considered approved and/or altered.

Final decisions for changes will be coordinated with and approved by CEdO’s Chief Education Officer (see Appendix 5).

Scope and Timeline The Steering Committee will meet regularly and work across agencies until completion of the final report, due to Legislature on October 15, 2019.

Outcomes and Deliverables Committee created process to review pilot schools’ request for major change on the

Work Plan and/or budget during the 2017-19 biennium.

A final report to the interim committees of the Legislative Assembly related to education (no later than October 15, 2019). The report must provide individual and comprehensive evaluations on the outcomes of the pilot programs and include any recommendations for legislation based on the results of the pilot programs

Members Chief Education Office Lindsey Capps, Chief Education Officer

Cheng-Fei Lai, Research Analyst (staff)**

Laura Lien, Research Analyst (staff)*

**Assume project management and the research and evaluation roles *Assist in the research and evaluation for the pilot

Oregon Health Authority Chelsea Holcomb, Child, Adolescent and Family Behavioral Health Services Manager,

Integrated Health Programs, Health Systems Division

Kathleen Burns, Policy and Program Development Specialist, Child and Family Behavioral

Health, Integrated Health Programs, Health Systems Division

7

Kate O’Donnell, SBHC Systems Development Specialist, School-Based Health Center

Program, Public Health Division

Oregon Department of Education Jeremy Wells, Education Specialist, Office of Student Services

Robin Shobe, Accessibility Specialist. Digital Innovation Team. Chronic Absenteeism,

Operations, Data & Grant Support, Office of Teaching, Learning & Assessment

Risks ● Turnover/changes within pilot schools, including administration and leadership, as well

as OSBHA (technical assistance provider) and CEdO (evaluation team) ● Turnover/severe illness/other extended absence of key staff:

• Pilot schools (particularly TISCs and key implementers/leaders in each cohort) • OSBHA (particularly Maureen Hinman) • CEdO (particularly Research Analysts) • Trauma-informed Steering Committee members

● School climate declines or does not improve within the timeframe of the pilot ● Schools’ historical and existing system of operation, communication, and culture

declines or does not improve within the timeframe of the pilot ● Low/slow staff buy-in at pilot schools ● Funding is reduced or removed from statute ● Severe weather and/or natural disaster that interferes with timely decisions, data

collection, analysis, and reporting ● Low staff, student, and/or family participation in data collection ● Timeframe of pilot too short to evaluate or discern sufficient change, growth, or

dissemination of knowledge of trauma-informed practices within pilot schools ● Under-resourcing or loss of research capacity within CEdO ● Schools’ non-compliance in producing deliverables as agreed on the IGA

Charter Acknowledgement: ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________ Lindsey Capps, Chief Education Officer, Chief Education Office Date ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________

Chris Norman, Health Systems Division Administrator, Oregon Health Authority Date

________________________________________________________________________________ ________________

Johnna Timmes, Director of Data, Operations, and Grant Management, Date

Oregon Department of Education

8

Appendix 1. Trauma Informed Pilot Goals and Objectives Trauma-Informed Schools Pilot - DRAFT Goals and Objectives as of 11/28/17

Goals: By the end of year 3 there will be… 2017-2018 Objectives

1) Strong sustained support from school board and leadership

School board has knowledge of what it means to be a trauma informed school

School and district administration as well as building leaders are actively engaged in the project

2) Academic and health policies, programs and services that are culturally specific and appropriate to promote equity

Assess current equity policies and initiatives and develop a plan for year 3

Explore partnerships with culturally specific organizations

3) Shared concepts and activities to facilitate open communication about experiences, incidents, and events

System in place for input/involvement from staff to leadership and back

Explore avenues for debriefing and facilitating restorative conversations. (new objective)

System in place for input/involvement from students and families to leadership and back

4) Staff actively use trauma informed strategies in interactions with students and each other (transferable skills - can apply it in areas outside of training)

Staff understanding and initial implementation of 2 shared concepts

Select staff master activities related to shared concept

Mastery is defined and measurement tool identified

Half of staff that have mastered key concepts are adapting concepts into their own strategies

Staff confidence in applying strategies is increased

5) Students and families have an understanding of how stress impacts the brain and how to increase resiliency

Provide initial education to a subset of students

Provide strategies and support to increase resiliency to a subset of students

Develop a plan for family engagement in year 3

6) Trauma informed lens is applied to existing and new school initiatives, policies, new hires, standards

Develop TI lens to be utilized in year 3

Assess benchmarks for planning and monitoring progress and a means to highlight accomplishments.

Align existing initiatives to trauma informed implementation work.

9

7) Streamlined and efficient processes with community service partners

Resource map created and gaps and inefficiencies identified

Streamlined data sharing consent process with healthcare and other providers

Relationships developed between local foster system, juvenile justice, intellectual and developmental disability, conflict resolution organization, and culturally specific providers, including exploration of opportunities for partnership

8) Robust systems in place to assure quality

Coordinators are proficient in understanding and use of improvement science

Mechanisms and processes for collecting data are established and data is utilized for evaluating short and long term change

Examine the data collected in years 1 and 2 and use it for year 3 and long-term planning

Standards of practice are defined and assessed

A financial mechanism to maintain Coordinator or a team housed within the school

Secure funding from local, state, or national funder(s)

Develop buy-in from local partners (will lay the groundwork for cost sharing)

Develop a summary of cost sharing models (e.g. SRO, mental health, DHS social workers)

Expected Outcomes: Improved student attendance, reduced referrals, staff/students reporting feeling safe, empowered, equitable, positive staff attitudes, students come to school learning ready, staff job

satisfaction

10

Appendix 2 Aligned Domains and Goals for the Trauma-informed Pilot Domain Goal

Sustainability & Committed Leadership: Organizational leadership acknowledges that an understanding of the impact of trauma is central to build effective learning environments and building culture and climate and makes operational decisions accordingly. There is also demonstrated commitment to planning, implementation and continuous improvement.

Strong sustained support from school board and leadership

Trauma informed lens is applied to existing and new school initiatives, policies, new hires, standards

Robust systems in place to assure quality

A financial mechanism to maintain Coordinator or a team housed within the school

Professional Development: A commitment to all staff and community partners working with the school to learn and utilize trauma informed knowledge, strategies, and approaches is built into the professional development plan of the school site/district.

Shared concepts and activities to facilitate open communication about experiences, incidents, and events

Staff actively use trauma informed strategies in interactions with students and each other

Policies, Procedure, Practice: School site/district policies and procedures reflect trauma informed care principles for staff, students, and families with a commitment to equity

Trauma informed lens is applied to existing and new school initiatives, policies, new hires, standards

Behavior Response and Supports: The school and district reflects a commitment to trauma informed responses and support to ensure that all students consistently receive positive behavioral interventions.


Streamlined and efficient processes with community service partners

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: A commitment to ensure that each and every learner will receive the necessary resources they need individually to thrive in school no matter what their national origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, differently abled, first language, exposure to trauma, or other distinguishing characteristic is applied to all decisions and activities that the school/district pursues.

Academic and health policies, programs and services that are culturally specific and appropriate to promote equity



Organizational Culture and Climate: A commitment to adopting a trauma informed mindset, key principles, practices, and activities is reflected in the schools culture and climate.


Cross Sector Collaboration: There is a demonstrated commitment to including community partners in efforts to develop a trauma informed school. (removed PTO and

Streamlined and efficient processes with community service partners

11

anything specific)

Student and Caregiver Education and Engagement: There is a demonstrated commitment to including the central users of the school, students and caregivers, in efforts to develop a trauma informed school through education and continuous feedback.


Students and families have an understanding of how stress impacts the brain and how to increase resiliency

Academic Instruction and Assessment: A commitment to utilizing trauma informed academic practices in instructional method, educational services, and school resources.


Appendix 3. Change Request Process The Steering Committee revieww and provide recommendations to changes requested by the the pilot schools by examining the following:

Requestor

Date

Description of the change being requested

Description of the reason for change

Description of alternatives that have been considered

Description of risks associated with change

Estimation of schedule, resource, and cost impacts to implementing this change

Description of the impacts on the quality of the implementation plan

Steering Committee will then review and provide recommendations, in consideration of the Equity Lens (see Appendix 6), to pilot school’s Pilot Leadership Team** within 5 business days on matters related to workplan and/or budget adjustments and their potential impact on the goals, objectives, and/or activities for overall alignment.

If desired, pilot schools may then submit a revised workplan and/or budget request using the Change Request Form for review by the Steering Committee for approval within five business days.

Revised workplan and/or budget requests will be reviewed by the Steering Committee via an in-person or phone/video conference meeting, whichever is most expedient. Subsequent decisions to approve or deny revised requests will require Committee consensus, and will be communicated back to the associated Pilot Leadership Team within within five business days.

** School Leadership Pilot Teams shall consist of (a) Superintendent/School Principal or an appropriate/equivalent designee (who has attended at least 80% of the monthly meetings throughout 2017-18); (b) TISC (90-100% attendance); staff who provide direct services to students and/or families such as counselors or school psychologists. This team shall strongly consider involving SBHC staff as well. These teams shall communicate with their school’s Implementation Team (or a representative) on a regular basis on matters related to the plans and progress of trauma-informed work.

12

Appendix 4. Change Request Form

Change Request Form

Requestor: Date:

Describe the change being requested:

Describe the reason for the change:

Describe all alternatives considered:

Describe potential risks associated with this change:

Estimate schedule, resource, and cost impacts to implement this change:

Describe the implications to quality on the implementation plan:

Disposition:

Approved by the Steering Committee Rejected Deferred

Justification of approval, rejection, or deferral(to be filled out by the Steering

Committee):

13

APPENDIX 5: Change Request Review Form

CHANGE REQUEST APPROVAL

Requester: Date:

Trauma-informed Steering Committee Approval:

Name Signature Date

14

APPENDIX 6: EQUITY LENS

Chief Education Office Vision Statement

Our vision is to build and coordinate a seamless system of education that meets the diverse learning needs of students from cradle to career, and ensures each student graduates high school with the support and opportunities to prosper.

Equity Lens: Preamble

In 2011, the Oregon Legislature created the Oregon Education Investment Board, which had a vision of educational equity and excellence for each and every child and learner in Oregon. The OEIB believed that we must ensure sufficient resource is available to guarantee student success, and that the success of every child and learner in Oregon is directly tied to the prosperity of all Oregonians. As the Chief Education Office, we continue this critical work started by the OEIB and reaffirm that the attainment of a quality education strengthens all Oregon communities and promotes prosperity, to the benefit of us all. It is through educational equity that Oregon will continue to be a wonderful place to live and make progress towards becoming a place of economic, technologic and cultural innovation.

Oregon faces many growing opportunity and systemic gaps that threaten our economic competitiveness and our capacity to innovate. The first is the persistent gap of student growth as measured by graduation rates, state assessments and daily attendance for our growing populations of communities of color, immigrants, migrants, and rural students navigating poverty. While students of color make up over 30% of our state- and are growing at an inspiriting rate- our opportunity and systemic gaps have continued to persist. As our diversity grows and our ability to meet the needs and recognize the strengths of these students remains stagnant or declines- we limit the opportunity of everyone in Oregon. The persistent educational disparities have cost Oregon billions of dollars in lost

economic output1 and these losses are compounded every year we choose not to properly address these inequalities.

1 Alliance for Excellent Education. (November 2011). The high cost of high school dropouts: What the nation pays for

inadequate high schools. www.all4ed.org

Oregon Equity Lens

http://www.all4ed.org/

15

The second opportunity gap is one of growing disparity between Oregon and the rest of the

United States. Our achievement in state benchmarks has remained stagnant and in some

communities of color has declined while other states have begun to, or have already

significantly surpassed, our statewide rankings. If this trend continues, it will translate into

economic decline and a loss of competitive and creative capacity for our state. We believe that

one of our most critical responsibilities going forward is to implement a set of concrete system

changes and policies to reverse this trend and deliver a truly student-centric education system

that improves outcomes and opportunities for students across Oregon.

The primary focus of the equity lens is on race and ethnicity. While there continues to be a deep

commitment to many other areas, we know that a focus on race by everyone connected to the

educational milieu allows direct improvements in the other areas. We are committed to

explicitly identifying disparities in education outcomes for the purpose of targeting areas for

action, intervention and investment. We are simultaneously committed to identifying strengths

in communities and promising practices in our educational systems.

Beliefs:

We believe that everyone has the ability to learn and that we have an ethical and moral

responsibility to ensure an education system that provides optimal learning environments

that lead students to be prepared for their individual futures.

We believe that speaking a language other than English is an asset and that our education

system must celebrate and enhance this ability alongside appropriate and culturally

responsive support for English as a second language.

We believe students receiving special education services are an integral part of our educational

responsibility and we must welcome the opportunity to be inclusive, make appropriate

accommodations, and celebrate their assets. We must directly address the over-

representation of children of color in special education and the under-representation in

“talented and gifted.”

We believe that the students who have previously been described as “at-risk,”

“underperforming,” “under-represented,” or minority actually represent Oregon’s best

opportunity to improve overall educational outcomes. We have many counties in rural and

urban communities that already have populations of color that make up the majority. Our

ability to meet the needs of this increasingly diverse population is a critical strategy for us to

successfully reach our State education goals.

16

We believe that intentional and proven practices must be implemented to return out of school

youth to the appropriate and culturally sustaining educational setting. We recognize that this

will require us to challenge and change our current educational setting to be more culturally

responsive, safe, and responsive to the significant number of elementary, middle, and high

school students who are currently out of school. We must make our schools safe for every

learner.

We believe that ending disparities and gaps in achievement begin in the delivery of quality

Early Learner programs and culturally appropriate family engagement and support. This is

not simply an expansion of services - it is a recognition that we need to provide services

in a way that best meets the needs of our most diverse segment of the population - 0-5

year olds and their families.

We believe that resource allocation demonstrates our priorities and our values and that we

demonstrate our priorities and our commitment to rural communities, communities of color,

English language learners, and out of school youth in the ways we allocate resources and

make educational investments.

We believe that communities, parents, teachers, and community-based organizations have

unique and important solutions to improving outcomes for our students and educational

systems. Our work will only be successful if we are able to truly partner with the community,

engage with respect, authentically listen, and have the courage to share decision-making,

control, and resources.

We believe every learner should have access to information about a broad array of career

opportunities and apprenticeships. These will show them multiple paths to employment

yielding family-wage incomes without diminishing the responsibility to ensure that each

learner is prepared with the requisite skills to make choices for their future.

We believe that our community colleges and university systems have a critical role in serving

our diverse populations, rural communities, emerging bi-lingual students and students with

disabilities. Our institutions of higher education, and the P-20 system, will truly offer the

best educational experience when their campus faculty, staff and students reflect this state,

its growing diversity and the ability for all of these populations to be educationally

successful and ultimately employed.

We believe the rich history and culture of learners is a source of pride and an asset to embrace

and celebrate.

17

Finally, we believe in the importance of supporting great teaching. Research is clear that “teachers

are among the most powerful influences in (student) learning.”2

An equitable education system

requires providing teachers with the tools and support to meet the needs of each student, and a

dedicated effort to increase the culturally and linguistically diverse educators who reflect

Oregon’s rapidly changing student population.

Chief Education Office Case for Equity:

Oregonians have a shared destiny. Individuals within a community and communities within a larger

society need the ability to shape their own present and future, and we believe that education is

a fundamental aspect of Oregon’s ability to thrive. Equity is both the means to educational

success and an end that benefits us all. Equity requires the intentional examination of systemic

policies and practices that, even if they have the appearance of fairness, may in effect serve to

marginalize some and perpetuate disparities. Data are clear that Oregon demographics are

changing to provide rich diversity in race, ethnicity, and language3. Working toward equity

requires an understanding of historical contexts and the active investment in changing social

structures and practice over time to ensure that students from all communities have the

opportunities and support to realize their full potential.

Purpose of the Oregon Equity Lens:

The purpose of the Equity Lens is to clearly articulate the shared goals we have for our state, the

intentional policies, investments and systemic change we will make to reach our goals of an

equitable educational system, and to create clear accountability structures to ensure that we

are actively making progress and correcting where there is not progress. As the Chief

Education Office executes its charge to align and build a cradle to career education system, an

equity lens will prove useful to ensure every learner is adequately prepared by educators for

meaningful contributions to society.

The Equity Lens will confirm the importance of recognizing institutional and systemic barriers and

discriminatory practices that have limited access for many students in the Oregon education

system. The Equity Lens emphasizes historically underserved students, such as out of school

youth, emerging bilingual students (English language learners), and students in some

communities of color and some rural geographical locations, with a particular focus on racial

equity. The result of creating a culture of equity will focus on the outcomes of academic

proficiency, civic awareness, workplace literacy, and personal integrity. The system outcomes

will focus on resource allocation, engagement, communications, data collection and analysis

and educator hiring, preparation, and development. 2

Hattie, J. (2009), Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to student achievement. P. 238. 3

Oregon Statewide Report Card 2011-2012. www.ode.state.or.us

http://www.ode.state.or.us/

18

ADDENDUMS

Basic Features of the Equity Lens:

Objective: By utilizing an equity lens, the Chief Education Office aims to provide a common

vocabulary and protocol for resource allocation, partnership, engagement, and strategic

initiatives to support students and communities.

The following questions will be considered for resource allocation and evaluating strategic

investments:

1. Who are the racial/ethnic and underserved groups affected? What is the potential

impact of the resource allocation and strategic investment to these groups?

2. Does the decision being made ignore or worsen existing disparities or produce other

unintended consequences? What is the impact on eliminating the opportunity gap?

3. How does the investment or resource allocation advance opportunities for historically underserved students and communities?

4. What are the barriers to more equitable outcomes? (e.g. mandated, political,

emotional, financial, programmatic or managerial)

5. How have you intentionally involved stakeholders who are also members of the

communities affected by the strategic investment or resource allocation? How do you

validate your assessment in (1), (2) and (3)?

6. How will you modify or enhance your strategies to ensure each learner and

communities’ individual and cultural needs are met?

7. How are you collecting data on race, ethnicity, and native language?

8. What is your commitment to P-20 professional learning for equity? What resources

are you allocating for training in cultural responsive instruction?

Creating a culture of equity requires monitoring, encouragement, resources, data, and

opportunity. The CEdO will apply the Equity Lens to policy recommendations, and internal,

and external practices as education leaders.

19

Definitions:

Equity: Equity in education is the notion that each and every learner will receive the

necessary resources they need individually to thrive in Oregon’s schools no matter what their national origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, differently abled, first language, or other distinguishing characteristic.

Underserved students: Students whom systems have placed at risk because the systems

has operationalized deficit based thinking. Deficit thinking is the practice of having lower

expectations for certain groups of people based on demographics or characteristics that

they share. In doing so, an "at-risk" narrative is formed, in which students navigating

poverty, culturally and linguistically diverse students, and/or historically underserved

groups, and their families are pathologized and marginalized. This includes students who

are treated differently because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, dis/ability, and

geographic location. Many students are not served well in our education system

because of the conscious and unconscious bias, stereotyping, and racism that is

embedded within our current inequitable education system.

Race: Race is a social – not biological – construct. We understand the term “race” to mean

a racial or ethnic group that is generally recognized in society and often by government. When referring to those groups, we often use the terminology “people of color” or “communities of color” (or a name of the specific racial and/or ethnic group) and “white.”

We also understand that racial and ethnic categories differ internationally, and that many of local communities are international communities. In some societies, ethnic, religious and caste groups are oppressed and racialized. These dynamics can occur even when the oppressed group is numerically in the majority.

White privilege: A term used to identify the privileges, opportunities, and gratuities offered

by society to those who are white.

Embedded racial inequality: Embedded racial inequalities are also easily produced and

reproduced – usually without the intention of doing so and without even a reference to race. These can be policies and practices that intentionally and unintentionally enable white privilege to be reinforced.

40-40-20: Senate Bill 253 - states that by 2025 all adult Oregonians will hold a high school

diploma or equivalent, 40% of them will have an associate’s degree or a meaningful postsecondary certificate, and 40% will hold a bachelor’s degree or

255 Capitol Street NE | Salem, Oregon 97310 | 503.373.1283 | twitter: @ORLearns | education.oregon.gov

advanced degree. 40-40-20 means representation of every student in Oregon, including students of color.

Disproportionality: Over-representation of students of color in areas that impact their

access to educational attainment. This term is a statistical concept that actualizes

the disparities across student groups.

Opportunity Gap: The lack of opportunity that many social groups face in our common

quest for educational attainment and the shift of attention from the current overwhelming emphasis on schools in discussions of the opportunity gap to more

fundamental questions about social and educational opportunity.4

Culturally Responsive: Recognize the diverse cultural characteristics of learners as

assets. Culturally responsive teaching empowers students intellectually, socially,

emotionally and politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills

and attitudes.5

4

The Opportunity Gap (2007). Edited by Carol DeShano da Silva, James Philip Huguley, Zenub Kakli, and

Radhika Rao.

5

Ladson-Billings, Gloria (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children.

trauma-informed pilot steering committee charter · 1 trauma-informed pilot steering committee...

Documents