yes: - · web viewmiddle school exit tests of communication and language arts proficiency with...

State Board Leanings on Proposed Timeline Survey

Survey Results

January 15, 2009

1. The Board proposes delaying the Essential Skill “apply math” requirement until 2014, which also coincides with the timeline for the Algebra requirement. The delay is intended to provide districts greater flexibility in the use of resources and more time to prepare students for the mathematics requirement. Do you support the Board’s leaning to delay the Essential Skill in “apply math” until 2014? Why or why not?

Yes: 249 No: 58

Comments:

2014 is still a very short time line to adjust curriculum, staffing and LIMITED resources to address these unfunded mandates. As we start another devastating budget cutting cycle, the board needs to understand that increasing requirements while decreasing resources is a recipe for failure.

2014 is the due date for NCLB ALL students meeting standards) and for OR's higher math credit requirement. It makes sense to align the math essential skill to the same date.

A delay in the schedule is imperative. Districts will need time to implement the required professional development for teachers and administrators. Time is needed to develop the infrastructure to record and track success. Transcripts and student progress models need to be developed. We must first get clarity from the State Panel on the details of the “apply math” essential skill before we can implement.

A longer delay may be appropriate in order to prepare ALL of our students to meet this essential skill. This is the math curriculum adoption year. Many districts cannot even afford it due to budget shortfalls. We need time to implement a new core curriculum and design sound interventions for struggling students. The class of 2014 will only have one year in the new curriculum before they are off to HS and expected to meet this essential skill performance level. A level carried over from a previous system.

Abandon the misguided effort to force a Bell Curve population of children into an elitist career track.

Additional time will be helpful; funding is in limboAdditional funding and planning is required at every level in order to prepare for this change.

All expectations for the diploma need to be put on hold for the 2009-2011 biennium. The conversation about the diploma can be resurfaced in 2012 IF the budget issues are resolved.

Allow time to revamp programs to fall under math plus allow more teachers for math.

Allows more time to implement changes in programming for students who will need greater support to meet the requirements.

Allows staff time to fine tune instruction of problem solving rubric.

Allows us to delay some costs until (hopefully) better economic times.

Almost without question, additional resources will be needed to help students meet this standard and additional resources are not available.

Although I'm a strong advocate of high standards, I'm concerned about the standards truly leading to every individual becoming a successful adult. I previously served as a VP at a high school which was very successful in developing students who were gifted" in other areas outside of academics (ie constructionAlthough this may be necessary for smaller/rural districts working within current constricting budgets, Board recommendation language should encourage individual districts to meet/implement the math

Oregon Department of Education Page 1Survey Results - Summary


requirements earlier - in 2012. These larger districts should have the resources to do so, and then should work through collaboratives to help smaller/rural districts meet the requirements by 2014.

Any new graduation requirements that deviate from the current 22 credits should be temporarily halted until the results of budget deficiencies are realized. The 2014 timeline for math (Algebra I and above) and the 2012 timeline for science are unfunded mandates and only add to the potential problems for the coming school years. A math timeline of 2014 in regards to Algebra I and higher could potentially mean the need for more math teachers now to get ready for 2014. The same holds true for 2012.

Any student who begins high school at the pre-algebra level and then fails even a quarter of math between 9th and 12th grade, will be ensured of not graduating within 4 years. Many students are faced with retaking a course throughout their high school career. But to tell them they will not be able to graduate on time because of one failure is a grave disservice. I'd be happy to provide this group with some actual data as to the size of this particular sub group.

Applying mathematics in a variety of settings could go along with schools adding the additional requirement of a math credit. We are looking at our options for the third credit of math above Algebra I, applying mathematics in various setting could become a potential course for districts.

Appropriate reflection after the announcement of the budget constraints. The districts need flexibility in the implementation timeline.

I am aware of the scrambling districts are presently encountering to meet the requirement. Materials to satisfy the requirements are lacking by text book companies, which means district committees are developing supplementary materials for the requirements. This takes time and resources.

As an administrator at a small school, I feel that additional time will give schools more of an opportunity to ensure students truly can demonstrate proficiency.

Our High School has already made the curriculum adjustments necessary to implement the changes in the math curriculum and would not need more time for this. It seems as though it would be better to keep the timeline in place. Although I realize this has impacts on hiring and layoffs, it still seems like it would be a mistake to layoff a math teacher now and then need to rehire them later when the department has adjusted to the new requirements already.

At first blush, I am opposed to delays. But given the challenge districts may face in finding qualified math instructors, I understand why some may want more time.

Because schools have been using math problem solving (or should have been) for several years now, they should be able to offer this alternative (as opposed to OAKS for math) for students to meet this Essential Skill.

Better alignment and the ability to better address fiscal constraints that appear on the horizon related to staffing and course modifications.

better opportunity to create a comprehensive k-12 scope and sequence

Budget constraints for FTE math teacher to meet requirement untenable in the short term



Budget issues. Clarifications on alternative approaches to meeting math requirements.

Changes in math must be considered K-12. This will give us time to make those systematic changes.

We will still continue to move forward

Curriculum and scheduling adjustments to meet the current deadline are already being implemented in our district. Our students (and teachers) need to be challenged sooner, not later, to meet minimum requirements.

Definitely in favor of the rigor, but very concerned about the financial impact at a time when I know I will be cutting my district's budget (including staff and programs).

Delay is a political cop out. Get tough on essential skills now, not at some politically comfortable" time."

Delay is an issue that we will always face in this state as long as school funding is done on the way it is - so why wait. If the education of our students really requires these changes then it must be important enough to do now. Educational advancement in good economic times is always desirable, but sure screws the kids in bad economic times.

Delaying continues to encourage our schools to have lower expectations. Applying math can be done in many places, especially science.

Delaying the mathematics assessment until 2014 is an unnecessarily long period of time, and will likely lead to this never being implemented at all. There is no good reason that mathematics should be delayed any longer than either reading, or science. Three more years is plenty of time for districts, schools, teachers, and students, to get up to speed for an assessment at the Algebra I level. Oregon will drift behind the rest of our states if we do not proceed in a timely fashion in our mathematics assessment.

Demonstration of the Essential Skill, Apply Math, has little if any relationship to the current economic conditions in our State. If anything, if our State is to become a leader in the world economy, this type of skill must be demonstrated by those entering our workforce as soon as possible. There is very little direct relationship between skill demonstration and financial support of schools, but there is a direct relationship to the effectiveness of the teaching community.

Districts do not have the necessary resources to implement satisfactory remedial opportunities to ensure ALL students are well prepared to meet this requirement.

Districts have already begun to work with constituents on the Essential Skills graduation requirements. To take math off the list would make it seem that math is not as important as the other Essential Skills. Additionally, we have already minimized the math requirements when math problem solving was eliminated from testing. If we keep pushing requirements back, we lose our credibility.

Districts need more time to prepare considering all the other requirements expected of them.



Districts will probably have to make quite a few changes, including implementing the 2008 standards K-8 and purchasing the new adoption. Many districts will not have the money for this in the next couple of years.Due to budget concerns it may take longer for these skills to be implemented due to staffing considerations.

Due to the economic issues districts are going to face, it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible to increase results while decreasing staffing levels.

Education leads to a better economy!

Essential Skill in apply math" will be further honed with the postponement of the requirement until 2014. This year's 7th grade will be better prepared when they get to be seniors in 2014."

Far too many kids of color are tracked; we need to ensure that all kids are being untracked immediately.

For reasons listed by the state. The additional time will allow us to ensure that our implementation plan is well thought out, communicated to all stakeholders, and seamless in operation.

For the reason of being prepared and not starting something half a____ed. that will eventually be going away because it did not work.

For the reasons stated in the rationale.

Funding challenges make hiring additional staff and providing more extended day/extended school year opportunities nearly impossible. This will give us adequate time to have students prepared with aligned curriculum in the K-8.

Funding is a serious concern for us in maintaining our programs. We may strive to implement them locally, but we have a leg up on the rest of the state in terms of student performance levels. Obviously, this is a local school board decision.

Given limited resources and given the number of students impacted negatively, I support delaying the math portion of the graduation requirement.

Given the available resources for many small district this seems to be a prudent move

Given the budget issues we face as a district, we will need a minimum of .5 FTE in the math department. We are looking at reducing staff significantly, so this is not a feasible option. Students who struggle with this essential skill will need more intensive teaching to get them to a passable level.

However, the Board should consider administer the test to 11th grade students for purposes of participation and performance for AYP and State Report Card purposes. It will only be after 11th grade that students will have the three requisite years of math.

I also feel the proposed math requirement for a diploma is too demanding. A large % of students will be unable to meet the requirement of three years of math at the Algebra level and above.



I am not sure what the original date timeline was, nor what the term means, but I think we are currently doing this standard. How it is measured is unclear to me.

I believe it will be difficult for students and teachers to make that much progress so quickly.I believe that by aligning the “Apply Math" Essential Skill with the Algebra and above requirements makes more sense in planning curriculum and program changes."

I believe that the board will do what the board will do and the rest of us will have to deal with it. We still have a situation where we are trying to solve an ADAPTIVE PROBLEM (improving teaching and learning) with a TECHNICAL SOLUTION (adding more time, credits, requirements, classes, etc.)

I believe the additional time will allow instruction to teach the necessary skills to be successful with the Algebra requirement.

I believe the harder we continue to make graduation the fewer kids that will graduate. SPED kids should be afforded the same opportunities but high school is becoming punitive for them.

I believe we are sending a mixed message to our students. Kids (and parents) already feel it is okay to be bad at math and we are continuing to build on this if we say to them, You are right

I believe we need to address this issue sooner, rather than later. It is critical that we provide the appropriate level of math instruction for our students.

I do not believe we know how to meet this requirement, and so more time for implementation is crucial.

I feel the delay severely damages your credibility. Leadership at the top is essential for support from the bottom. By delaying you are playing into the stereotype government that does nothing and people will believe this.

I support the extra time, because I don't support the algebra 1 requirement. I think that 3 years of math is great, 4 even, but let's be reasonable that there are students who will not be able to pass 2 years above algebra. We could offer some really engaging and relevant math courses. Let's think outside the box!

I support this delay; however, I would also encourage delaying the implementation of the required 3 years of math at Algebra 1 or higher. If the purpose is to give more flexibility, delaying this but maintaining the other is counterproductive.

I think it aligns the changes in math with one another. My only concern is the continued flux it keeps us in, thus blurring the picture for students and parents.

I think that move back the requirement, would be overloading the math requirements all in one year. This is not an intelligent move. The students are already being stressed out because of the requirements, further requirements will add further stress

I think that you will see a huge increase in the number of drop outs, no matter when you put the requirement in. Math is difficult for lots of students and unless things are beefed up at the elementary level, we at the high school cannot be expected to fix the problem in just 4 years.



I think this delay for MATH ONLY makes sense. Alignment with the current algebra 1 and above date of 2014 also makes great sense. Very good choice.

I work with alternative ed students and it is going to be hard enough to reach the other essential skills so phasing this in will be good.I would also support a timeline that starts with an implementation of Algebra Ready" for all 8th graders by 2014

I would prefer that schools and districts use their time and resources to focus on improving math instruction as opposed to forcing kids to pass a test. We can improve skills without the use of high stakes testing.

I would rather see a common folks" language explanation of "essential skills" in this context. I see essential skills as thinking skills --- what else can be meant by the current language? What more than thinking skills are essential skills supposed to entail? This part of the requirement seems the least cumbersome to achieve."

I would recommend delaying all of the Essential Skills to provide time to create a system of local/regional assessments. I also believe that in order for all students to engage in Algebra or above content, we need time for K-8 to implement new practices.

If Algebra is important when we are wealthy, is it important when we are poor?

If cost is a factor and with the economy going down be a burden for schools to comply, I recommend we put it off a few years.

If the altitude of the math content that kids will have to apply must represent Algebra I and beyond, then I don't support this application" skill requirement to begin with. So delaying the requirement seems to be the next practical alternative.

If we aren't proficient in holding accountable for the current standards, it seems crazy to start in on the higher standard. I'd support delaying implementation in favor of increasing proficient students starting with a younger group so that when they get to HS that the expectation is reasonable. With changing standards in elementary, it is a long way off before we can expect to see a change in upper levels.

If you are going to take one out, math is the best choice. This one especially requires more time and resources.

In fact, we support eliminating it altogether, as it adds a layer of paperwork without adding any educational value. And the math requirement itself (algebra I or above) is ambiguous beyond all reason. Can we say what we mean and stick with something?

In the face of budget restraints that influence schools' abilities and the socio-economic impact that our current economy puts on the families of students, I think that this is too much at this time.

It allows time to cope with the recession, and also to accommodate to new priorities in the Obama administration.



It also may be necessary to delay it further. Making such a requirement will adversely effect districts financially!

It gives us more time to shift our curriculum and hire staff to support the diploma changes. With the current economic situation, this will be harder to implement with fewer dollars.

It is difficult for small, rural schools to recruit the new higher math teachers that is required by the new standard.

It is too late. we have already spent the money and added staff to meet this requirement, The class of 2012 is already in High School. If we were going to delay, it should have been done 6 months ago. We have already changed policies, schedules, met with parents, and set up tutoring for kids after school. To change the dates now would undermine the schools efforts to meet this requirement in the future.

It makes sense that the essential skills requirement should be in line with the Algebra 1 and above requirement. Also, due to the timeline on the math adoption changing, and the lack of funding in our district for the adoption, this gives our district more time to get the needed materials and training to meet the state's new requirements.

It should be delayed longer or not implemented at all. Many of our students will not be capable of passing an Algebra II course, therefore they would be non-graduates.

It takes many years for student preparation to flow from elementary school through high school...we need time to make sure that students are being ramped up earlier in their education so that it isn't as much of a shock when they reach high school.

It will be good to give extra time to adjust school curricula.

It will give us time to look at how we can implement with declining enrollment and not being able to hire additional staff.

It will take this amount of time to transition course offerings and prepare all students for these more demanding classes. This is the most significant change in expectations I have seen in 30 years as an Oregon educator. Our district is working to move all students to this level but much work is left to be done.It would make sense to have these requirements begin at the same time.

Look at the research on the lake Woebegone Syndrome

Many people believe that “if it isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it”. The current timeline has NOT been shown to be “broken. The same folks might also agree that preparation and planning can overcome or circumvent obstacles that might otherwise throw a mission off course.” If we truly fear that the new diploma requirements could be thrown off course, let’s do some serious planning and preparation before we announce our lack of confidence in our mission or, even worse, give up the mission altogether.

Many schools are in survival mode and reducing staff and programs. In light of the current economic status of the nation and the state, any changes that require additional manpower and time to study, design and implement will be hard to proceed with.



Many students are still entering high school unprepared for Algebra 1 content.

Many students will require extra time (summer school etc ) to meet the standards and I don't foresee new money to offer these programs.

Math should follow same timeline as R, W and S...putting it off does not force schools into compliance.

More time for planning, implementation, and textbook adoption.

More time for us to develop strategies to get students through algebra II. Most of our students of our students at this point don't take more than two maths.

More time is needed to properly implement

More time needed for the K-5 realignment to prepare students for new standards.

More time, better able to plan. Also need clarity as to expectations.

Most of the nine essential skills can be found and/or are already embedded in most curricula. To further delay implementing these essential skills, which students need now, sends the message that perhaps they are not really that essential." I don't see the point in delaying "apply math."

Much more realistic decision based upon current student performance. We must be prepared for alternative graduation options for students as parental pressure will be much more significant than previous accountability measurements, ie AYP, State Report Card.

My school and feeder schools had an idea this was coming and have been preparing for this. To keep postponing will cause students to not want to pass or try to pass the state test. We as teachers do our very best to keep students on track and excited to do the test. But all they want to know is do they need it to graduate. But if we do delay it then the testing report card should be for the 11th graders and not the 10th graders to ensure that the majority of our students have had geometry.

Need math teachers in our area!

No money=no way. We need FTE to make this happen.

Of all the subjects, math most depends on a sequence of building blocks therefore it is reasonable to allow the earlier grades to make the changes needed to hit the target as desired.

One new math requirement is enough at the present time. Apply Math from an assessment perspective needs to be reviewed. To use the math problem solving work samples equivalent items need to be developed and inter-rater reliability needs to be established. Math Problem solving was removed from NCLB due to reliability and validity concerns. If each district or teacher develops their own prompts with a lack of inter-rater reliability districts will be open to legal action based on varying standards for a d

Other department requirements do not state what level the student has to accomplish for the credits.



Our children need to be prepared for education beyond high school; this delay could affect their ability to qualify for scholarships and/or entrance requirements. Further, those who don't continue their education need the Essential Skill(s) to make it in the workplace.

Our district will face at least $1.5 M shortfall for 2009-2010 and may have a shortfall for '08-'09. This delay will help us as a district.

Our students are going to be too far behind if they delay. The world is passing them buy.

Our teachers could use more time to prepare. We're in the middle of a math adoption, and we'll still be getting familiar with our materials in 2012.

Please provide money along with the extra time to implement the new math requirements. Also, please provide resources for vertical teaming to ensure our success in meeting the new requirements.

Provide time for elementary and middle school teachers to teach the skills at the developmental level.

Regardless of funding we need to address this in a highly successful way. sometimes time is the answer. Let's not change horses mid stream.

Should delay science also.

Since I wasn't in favor of the new proposals in the first place, I'm in favor of putting off applying them.

Small school districts already have difficulty in filling teaching positions for core subject areas, the increase in math will add to that problem. There is already a shortage of good math teachers and this will create a bigger hole to fill. In addition, for small districts, adding core required courses reduces the elective offerings due to the lack of staffing to offer elective courses.

Sounds good to me. More training is required and possibly hiring more math teachers.

Students in Special Education have an extremely difficult time with math, in general. With the elimination of classes lower than Algebra, we have had to give them a huge amount of support just to get through Algebra. If they have to get through 2 classes above Algebra to graduate, we will be giving a lot of modified diplomas out. There is simply not enough FTE to support this and we need to research and study this issue before we implement it as a graduation requirement.

Students should be expected to meet minimal math skill requirements that are not tied to seat time. Higher level math skills are not essential life skills.

Support for other district that may not have sufficient human resources and capabilities to put this in place.

The Alg. 1 and higher requirement is not possible for about a 1/3 of our students. This needs to be addressed as a K-12 issue, with many years of training, finding great curriculum for all ages, etc.



The Board should delay the diploma requirement until 2014 but require assessment of the essential skill apply math" beginning with the class of 2012 and after and also require that the level of performance achieved by each student be recorded on his/her transcript.

The current financial crisis makes it impossible to proceed

The delay is a good idea not only because of budget constraints. Unfortunately, there are too many students in the class of 2012 who would not be able to meet the math requirements in time. The system needs to change from the bottom up so students are not 4-5 years behind when they reach high school.

The delay would allow for more time to prepare students for the math requirements especially if there is a delay in the overall implementation of the math requirements. Also, this would also give us time to prepare budget wise for the additional resources.

The financial crisis will make it nearly impossible for school districts to expand programs and prepare students and teachers to successfully implement the new programs

The intent for the delay reflects needs in the field. Also, the proposed delay aligns in part with the Assessment of Essential Skills Review Panel's Recommendation 1 that the reading essential skill requirement begin with the class of 2012 and that the other essential skill requirements begin with the class of 2014.

The method of how students will show proficiency in the Essential Skill of applying math" has NOT been fully defined by the state. Implementation must at least be delayed until the full definition is in place for an incoming freshman class.

The need for additional training of current FTE's and the need for 'additional teachers' and 'student options'; is much more relevant than changing grad. requirements! That has been a no-brainer since ballot measure 5 passed in 1991. QEM first, graduation changes down the list!!!

The new requirements in math require much work in transition. They new standards are a positive switch overall but the work involved and the resources needed are quite daunting. Pushing the Essential Skill requirement out is a good thing however with the timeline for Algebra I and above content remaining the same, the budgetary impacts are still significant.

The state can't wait to bring its students up to speed with competition worldwide. We will continue to fall behind other states and countries. The money needs to be found within the existing structure to make this happen.

The students I work with have not been in school consistently for up to three years. They are missing instruction and understanding in key math areas, many being basic skills. For students in alternative school settings the delay is imperative.

There is too much tumult going on right now for the freshmen to be held to such a standard.

There was definitely a need for more time to prepare students to pass this test.

There will never be a “good" time. The momentum is present.



This is a reasonable response to the current budget challenges.

This is a significant increase in the graduation requirements and the more time to build supports for students the better.

This is much more realistic given the current economic downturn.

This may help districts from being required to hire new math teachers during the economic crisis we are facing.

This slows the impetus we already have in place.

This will allow the time for districts to recover and adopt curriculum after we are out of the budget crisis. 2016 might be more realistic.....

This would be helpful, owing to the need for HQ teachers who are also able to provide rigorous sheltered classes for ELLs at the lower grade levels.

This would weaken the overall argument that this is needed. If we know we should have it then we should move forward.

Though we will be ready on time, others may not and may need more support.

Time for quality planning and implementation will be appreciated.

Time is of the essence. We need to begin sooner than later.

Time is on our side if we delay. Who knows what the future will bring - better or worse?

Timeline is a burden with limited finances.

To allow enough time to get all levels of education moved toward these new goals.

To prepare students for this high stakes event, teachers need time to rework curriculum so as to better prepare students for this change.

Understand the Board's reason for delay. We will continue progress toward “apply math" opportunity.

Waste of time. Delay it indefinitely.

We are already behind where we should be for the job market, a delay simply has more kids unprepared for what is required

We are already in the process of shifting all of our entry Algebra courses to the Algebra 1 level, and the testing and work sample components are in place.

We are concerned about resources and as a result our ability to prepare student for this requirement.



We could use more time to prepare teachers and students for the requirements. In addition, we will need to reallocate budget resources to meet this requirement.

We currently offer advanced algebra and algebra to all of our 8th graders. Any delay" of the Essential Skills in math will not alter our district math plan."

We delay too much already... a delay will just be business as usual...

We have already eliminated other staff positions such as librarians in order to hire a math teacher to meet these requirements so delaying it will not help us. It is too late. What would be helpful is to offer free training and professional development to districts to assist them in meeting these requirements as well as transition staff mindsets.

We have already told students and parents of the OAKS requirement for the class of 2012 to graduate. Don't change it!

If anything, see how things look around May 2012. If you stop progress now, a lot of kids will stop working, and parents will support our cause less.

we have been working toward the current timelines - my feeling is that by pushing them back ODE loses credibility and the next deadline will be either pushed back or eliminated. Budget has little to do with this preparation.

We have made tremendous strides in raising the expectations for student competency and success. Just as our district is now making hard fiscal adjustments to ensure we do not lose ground, so also I would encourage the state Board to be responsive. Take the foot off the gas pedal so that districts won't fall off the bus during this hard economic time.

We need a commitment to rigorous academic expectations to prepare students for jobs of the future, not the past.

We need to assure that courses contain math at the appropriate rate and level so that students make gains in those courses. We otherwise run the risk of conducting rudimentary review of basic math concepts.

We support delaying the timelines for required implementation. We will continue unabated in our efforts to prepare our population of high-risk youth with low prior achievement to reach the goals. With a delayed timeline, we have a better chance of meeting the standard when expected. Nothing will change in our efforts and goals. What will change is the likelihood that we will succeed.

We'd also support implementing this essential skill by 2012.

While the rigor is much needed, the delay is critical in light of recent budget revenue shortfalls.

Why delay any further? Delays in these programs usually mean permanent.



Why not" is best answered by "Why?" It may seem like math is the biggest challenge we have but that is not true. I support high standards and a system of accountability

Will require hiring more Math teachers to accomplish. That means less teacher allocation to some other area - most likely reducing elective choices for students. I would like to see math goals accomplished without reducing art, PE, music, second language, etc.

With decreased funding, it becomes more difficult to implement any new requirements.

With the budget cuts and declining enrollment in this and other isolated areas, districts are struggling to meet current math requirements with math faculty. There needs to be more specific guidance and professional development from ODE on what “apply math" means and how it can be assessed.

With the postponed release of math standards for grades 9-12, a delay to 2014 would give more time to develop appropriate and standardized activities with which to demonstrate “apply math." We know from experience with math problem solving that it is difficult to standardize the application of math skills. What is accepted in one district may be very different in rigor and alignment to standards than in another district.

Without the funding and professional development to make these changes I am afraid it will result in a negative impact for kids.

I support delaying it BUT in actuality this should NOT be a part of the graduation requirement at all. This requirement will cause the non-graduation and drop out rate in Oregon to skyrocket and for no good purpose. Add this requirement does not make us more competitive in the world market it only holds people back from proceeding with a path in their lives.

Yes, we are in the process of adopting the K-8 math materials this year and will not do 9-12 until next year, but that is budget dependent. Teachers need professional development to learn how to teach the new focal points and students need time to learn before their diploma depends on it.

Your math requirements are stupid, anyway. Postponing stupidity is usually a good thing. What do you mean leaning?" What am I really saying "yes" to here?"


2. The Board proposes maintaining the current timeline for:►Proficiency in the Essential Skills reading, writing, and speaking in 2012►Science – 3 credits in 2012►Algebra I and above content (3 credits) in 2014.

Do you agree with the Board’s leaning to maintain the current timeline for the remaining diploma requirements?

Yes: 173 (58% of respondents)

No: 125 (42% of respondents)


2. The Board proposes maintaining the current timeline for:►Proficiency in the Essential Skills reading, writing, and speaking in 2012►Science – 3 credits in 2012►Algebra I and above content (3 credits) in 2014.

Do you agree with the Board’s leaning to maintain the current timeline for the remaining diploma requirements?


3. What resources does your district need to move forward on implementation of these requirements within the current timeline?

a. Essential Skills reading, writing, and speaking

Have adequate resources: 89

Resource needs (comments below): 188

we have strengthened our high school curriculum and course offerings, which exceed the level needed to meet all diploma requirements and essential skills.

It is the right direction, but more resources and time are needed given the current environment.

Staff development funding for training and calibration

$$ for more staff

4 credits of English have been in place for a long time.

A few additional sections to teach Math Workshop for juniors and seniors who have yet to meet state standards as demonstrated by passing the state test.

A reading and writing curriculum for the district--we have none. A plan and curriculum for middle school students who are seriously behind in reading.

Additional classroom as well as curriculum development time, and supplies will be needed to help current freshman who are not on target to meet these requirements in the next 3.5 years. Depending on the number of students who will require remediation additional monies for FTE will be necessary.

Additional dedicated funds for staff and a state curriculum would facilitate instructions. Resources for special classes at both the middle and high school.

Additional FTE for additional instruction and smaller class sizes

Additional FTE so that other areas are not reduced.

Additional funding

Additional funding

Additional funding for staffing and specialized curricula geared toward additional offerings and tutoring for students not meeting the essential skill performance level in those areas. Additionally, funds are needed to provide proper training/support to make sure that staff are prepared to implement (design prompts, administer assessments, etc) and score alternate assessments. The district also needs resources to design and implement a tracking system for the essential skills assessments.

Additional funding in general....reductions due to lack of state funding have greatly reduced students options in our school.

Additional funds to support additional reading teachers to work in conjunction with English teachers. Also need teachers who are endorsed in reading--it is extremely difficult to find people with the endorsement.




Without the endorsement, we don't meet the HQ requirement and to really target kids with reading difficulty you need someone with reading credentials.

Additional math teachers funding. In light of budget cutbacks, the proposal is a recipe for creating a teacher shortage.

Additional money for hiring teachers.

Additional reading instruction at the middle school level, additional writing instruction at early high school level (9,10)

Additional reading specialists

Additional resources are needed for staff development.

Additional staff in Math, English and Science to create remediation

Additional staff in science and math with professional development and guidance on alternative ways to document proficiency in these areas.

Additional staff training first and additional staff, will be needed also.

Additional Staff/Staff time to train and teach rubric for reading work samples that students will need to complete if they fail the OAKS test.

additional staffing and class sections.

Additional staffing and training of current staff will be necessary to facilitate this implementation. With fiscal constraints this seems an impossible task.

Additional staffing for remediation--longer days and summer school

Additional teacher at the high school level.

Additional teachers, but am concerned they will come at the expense of elective teachers and elementary staffing.

Additional training for all secondary teachers to teach writing and provide feedback to students using the writing scoring guide.

Adequate funding for the upcoming school years so no staffing cuts will have to be made. If the current predicted cuts outlined by the governor hold (or the legislature cuts more) even the current English staffing might have to suffer. Oregon needs to find STABLE funding! Our district cannot afford to LOSE staff and programs; we need MORE, not LESS.

Adequate funding...increase in funding to match with extra requirements in specific content areas.

adjust staffing and course alignment/standards to new requirements





Allowable practices to award essential skills credit needs to be circulated. Credit by Proficiency implemented here.

An alternative to the ES reading is not currently available. The Reading Scoring Guide, that was never fully implemented, will need further developing and schools/districts will need to have an opportunity to fully train staff in its use BEFORE it is used as an alternative to the OAKS reading. However, speaking and writing should go forth.

As a middle school principal, resources really are the time and dollars needed for professional development, especially in plotting a linear progression of subject area from middle to high school. While the standards are clear, realistic implementation is not

Best Practices on what will work. What SPED and other students will need to do in order to meet the proficiency timelines

Better funding to provide technology/resources to aid in instruction.

Carnegie credit acquisition tied to attendance clock hours; Regional residential mental health beds for children; de-link special populations from expectations beyond their ability

Charter school now operate with only about 70% of the funding regular public schools get, and out of that we have to pay for facilities. It would be very helpful to have access to a special additional fund to improve our capacity with respect to achieving new standards.

Continued and increased support for students who struggle.

Core reading curriculum, writing curriculum, and speaking curriculum. Time to plan and time to collaborate, also professional development resources. Literacy Coaches

Dependent upon legislative funding. We need to maintain current programs first.

Development of essential skills sets, requires additional time an training for staff. Small schools have limited access to sufficient certified staffing.

Districts must have room to maneuver to protect existing core programs and respect programs that are important to the community. Until we can be assured of some semblance of adequate and stable funding, it is not reasonable to constrict the options districts and communities have to navigate this current financial crisis. Like most other districts with declining enrollment, we face an even greater challenge in prioritizing what stays, what goes, and what gets changed. Having to add more complicates our workDistricts will need significant funds for two activities: 1. Adding additional remedial English classes for double dosing" during the school year and adding extended school year remedial classes; 2. Hiring additional teachers to administer and score potentially large numbers of re-test work samples.

Don't know




First, for example, clarifications of these: data collection and reporting requirements, any changes to work sample administration, training requirements once the reading assessment is developed, and any additional costs to the district to administer approved assessments other than work samples. Second, given budget concerns, a careful study of the options and costs to score the additional work samples for students who do not meet the skills through OAKS (e.g. district staff v. contracts with others).

Free professional development to assist districts in using the most efficient methods to reach these goals.

FTE

FTE for writing support

FTE to have smaller classes for struggling readers.

FTE. This will not be possible at the current staffing levels.

Full steam ahead is crazy in our economic environment with us cutting resources rather than supplementing areas that can help meet benchmarks.

funding

Funding for continued professional development in these areas.

funding for staff development and the staff to implement it

Funding is inadequate

Funding to hire additional staff needed.

Funds for staff development around the new addition to the graduation requirements. Also, staff needs time to be brought up to speed on work samples, state rubrics, cut scores, etc.

Funds for staff to develop infrastructure and reporting/tracking systems for our 10,000+ senior high students. Time is needed to develop resources and supports for ESL learners.

Guarantee continuing school improvement grant money. The supplementary ed services this district has put in place to assist those students who are not meeting CIM level assessment has been funded through the SIF. The increased requirements without poor districts ability to provide related supplementary services is unfair to students with disabilities and English Language learners

I am not certain what we will need but assume we do not have the resources readily available.

I am not in a position to answer this for the district.

I am not in a position to know this answer

I am not sure yet. But additional resources never hurt!




I am responding as an alternative ed teacher. The most relevant resource is time--time to catch these thrown away" kids up to a standard whereby they can be successful community members. Maybe

I am unable to respond to this question as my contact with the High School teachers, curriculum, etc. in this content area is extremely limited.

I believe many districts need more resources to assist ESL students and students who are not currently meeting benchmarks.

If students do not leave middle school with grade level skills in these areas, how will they be able to meet the 10th grade benchmarks? If this is the requirement at the high school level then students should not be allowed to enter 9th grade until they have demonstrated mastery of 8th grade skills in this area. This means we will have to stop socially promoting students.

In order to implement these requirements, our school would need to hire more employees (educational assistants), especially in the field of math, to assist the struggling students in the classroom.

In order to teach these skills to second language learners, districts need more flexibility to double up" English Language Arts support along with ELD classes. These additional requirements place a huge burden on students who too often don't have any electives anyway. Would the state be willing to provide additional financial support for evening or summer classes for recently immigrated students to have a chance to graduate in 4 years??"

intervention programs at periodic intervals 5-10 to have students meeting grade level benchmarks: summer school, Saturday school, extended day, year-round school

It is always useful to have additional training options for new staff members, and cross-scoring opportunities for the writing samples.

It is critical that adjustments be made for ELL students who join our state and school district late in their educational career. We are working on a specific proposal to send to ODE with suggestions.

Literacy Coach - Staffing and money; Staffing (funding for Tutorials)at least 3 staff members; Staffing (one period of extended school year)for 2 staff members for 3 months

Longer school year

Fewer tests for state/federal data collectors

More teachers = smaller classes

More $ for computers and textbooks

Many schools, parent, and students have a misconception that CIM like work samples are gone. So it isn't even on the radar of many teachers and principals to develop building assessment plans or how to track and document.




Middle school exit tests of communication and language arts proficiency with consequences for not passing will resolve many problems at the high school level.Modified diploma requirements (language as currently proposed), is extremely ambiguous and generates many unanswered questions. Opportunities to discuss this issue needs to happen with the involvement of teachers and districts. As a district currently developing proficiencies, we know this is extremely expensive in terms of teacher time. Financial support would ensure the work continues to move forward, especially for smaller districts.

Monetary Resources, Alternative Reading Assessment, money for additional teachers, money for training of current teachers, time to research curriculum changes

Money for facility remodel, summer school opportunities will be needed.

Money for the kind of time it takes to do adequate assessments for ALL students, even those who come to the high school less-than-ready to achieve at the standards that have been established.

money is necessary to prevent the loss of other programs such as wood shop, arts, etc.

More after school/before school tutoring and writing labs, which will require more staff hours to keep up with student needs.

More assistance in terms of staff, instructional materials, technology and focused pro. dev. in order to minimize the achievement gap for special groups of our very diverse student population.

More materials and strategies for students who are special ed and ELL

More professional development is needed. As a small school district with limited resources already, it is difficult to meet all of the division 22 standards, let alone additional curricular requirements. Staff development for curriculum design, remedial practices, and implementation procedures would be the primary needs.

More secretaries to keep track of 'non-essential' paperwork.

more staff and money

My concern is with the Writing Requirement. Our District is currently focused on the alignment of Writing instruction K-12. We need more time. Other Concern is the validity of the State Scoring Process. Suggestion: Play Districts for subs during the regular school year to have trained current teachers score writing samples. Have current grade level teachers score their specific grade level.

Need better assessment tools for reading proficiency. Need more time to implement a system to support speaking assessments for graduation.

Need to know well in advance what assessments qualify for certifying Essential Skills in reading, writing, and speaking.

Needs of ELL and Low income students need to be addressed.




No cutbacks

Now that we know the what we have to doOffering the required coursework is no challenge and is already being done. The additional paperwork for the so-called 'essential skills' requires more support staffing of some sort...clerical, I suppose.

Oregon needs stable adequate funding for the whole school enterprise. These increasing standards are built upon an effective school system K-12. We anticipate cuts to the budget this year that will interrupt our progress for the students who graduate in 2010 and 2011, and in 2012, 2013,2014 and beyond.

Our district will need to add some resources to allow for the remediation required for both writing and speaking. I would assume approximately 2 FTE per high school (we have 2 high schools).

Personnel

Planned Professional Development strategies/opportunities for K-12 educators coordinated by ODE, ESDs, Community Colleges, and Higher Education providers.

Planning and textbook adoption

Professional development

Professional development at all levels

Professional development for all staff on scoring rubrics

Professional development needs to be similar and mandated for all appropriate staffing. Principals included so we know what to look for.

Professional development opportunity and funds for staff

Provide specific math classes (not spec. ed.) for those students unable to pass Algebra 1 etc. to acquire life math skills such as saving money

QEM funding levels

Recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers in the area of mathematics in our rural districts is a continuing problem.

Release time or time outside of the work day for planning and to in-service staff.

Resource needs are particularly in the areas of teacher in-service training. No new staff should be necessary to teach thinking skills in the classroom unless essential skills means more than thinking skills within content and context.

Secondary reading specialists.

Smaller class sizes, more discretionary dollars, and more teachers.




Smaller classes, more teacher training and collaboration time to better curriculum and teaching methods

Specific and detailed guidance about a number of implementation issues and questions that have been posed by districts around the state. Many of these issues are already know to ODE staff and an effort is underway to identify others so that ODE staff can address these in a timely way for ALL essential skill areas.

Staff development time to develop alternative means for students to show their proficiency, especially in writing.

Staff to scaffold students in after school programs.

Staff/scheduling for students at the high school level who have not achieved the essential skills to date.

Staffing, curriculum and training are not funded for this mandate. We can easily meet the first, but the second and third are not possible with present levels of staff.

State developed and field tested common performance tasks, scoring criteria, and proficiency level expectations that balance local flexibility with statewide comparability needs. A statewide staff development and support system would also be helpful.

Students need to stop being socially promoted to high school when they lack the minimum skills needed to perform high school level tasks. Presently students begin high school with, on average, 5th grade level skills, and we spend HS years doing remedial work.

Students that are migrant and ESL will have a hard time meeting these requirements. We need more FTE, teachers and funding.

Support for students with communication disorders that makes the speaking requirement difficult.

Teachers - and their union - must be willing to work the same days and hours as teachers across the nation for the same salaries. Our students pay too high a price.

Teachers -- Money.

Teachers and administrators will need training in the reading work sample assessments.

Teachers, not administrators, need time to collaborate on what practices would help students meet needs. It would be helpful if teachers were allowed to work on implementation rather than have district administrators mandate" changes without practice to guide them.

Teaching training in effective remediation instruction and research-based curriculum.

The 2012 timeline for ES Speaking continues to be unrealistic. It should be moved to 2014, as originally considered by the Board.




The first need is for ODE to develop a reliable and valid assessment system to measure students’ attainment of essential skills specifically for the purpose of meeting the diploma requirement. OAKS, SAT, ACT and classroom work samples were not developed to be an exit exam and using as such is an inappropriate test use. Given the current timeline and resources can ODE develop and implement such a system? Once developed then districts will know what additional resources are needed for implementation.

The increased load of testing and/or Essential skill evaluation will eat up classroom time and FTE. We need the creation of additional funding directed specifically towards reaching these goals without having to take FTE from the current allotment.

The resources to schools are being cut. We just don't have the ability to respond to these initiatives when we are under funded!

The QEM level of funding is needed to provide the significant intervention that many failing students need to meet these requirements. After school tutoring is currently in place, but only because of grant funds. Those will disappear, and the state is not providing anything to help us continue helping struggling students. This is simply undoable.

The role of ODE has changed over the years and has essential become a monitoring tool for the federal government. Technical assistance simply does not exist to any beneficial level as compared to 10-15 years ago. We will need to receive increased technical assistance from ODE to help staff understand the change and how to implement these changes. We will also need funding (which equals time for staff planning) to plan for and staff these unfunded mandates.

The speaking skills for tracking without having an actual class is difficult to track with the larger high schools

The speaking work sample does exist currently in our schools, but since it is the only method for assessing what is now a graduation requirement, the challenge of moving from a situation where it was tied to an optional certification (CIM) to a diploma will be significant and may create unforeseen challenges at schools. A rich on-line resource for training and calibration of scoring would be a minimum support needed.

The students that are having problems with the new requirements will need summer school and after school help. Money to fund these programs. Also we will need to hire extra science teachers for the three year science requirement.

There are likely needs at the secondary level.

This is already happening with the current work samples and opportunities given our students.

This needs to wait. The man power and the resources are going to cost money.

Time and money for professional development for teachers.

Time for planning the implementation




Time to work in teams (both within the building and between buildings)to modify our curriculum

time to plan, to assess, to brainstorm with colleagues, to plan some more

time/dollars to create interventions for students not meeting proficiency in a timely mannerTraining for certified and classified in interventions for EBISS/RTI plus the materials.

Training for staff on Essential Skills and expectations for documentation.

Training in the yet-to-be-approved reading scoring guide, as well as clear language from the Essential Skills assessment committee on ways the district can implement an assessment of the reading requirement through methods that might not be on the current list.

Unable to give an adequate response

unknown; I am not a school administrator or a teacher

Unsure of the needs

Videos of speaking with accompanying scores awarded to calibrate scoring; suggestions of ways to meet reading, writing and speaking standards OUTSIDE of Language Arts; Interventions for students not able to read proficiently including Professional Development for content area teachers and highly effective intervention materials/systems for students lacking reading proficiency.

We always need more text books and supplies

We are current with textbook adoptions. Need to maintain staffing levels that keep classrooms under 25 students and offer remediation and enrichment opportunities.

We are in an environment of severe budget cuts. This would require a lot of early intervention investment. Also need more money for educational aides in the classroom. These mandates end up causing a lot more time, money and energy to be spent from the administrative end and technological end. Our resources are being cut but we are being asked to add more tasks to our jobs.

We currently have adequate resources. If major cuts are forthcoming, it will be difficult.

We have sufficient staff and course offerings to meet these requirements, but could do so better with smaller class sizes and additional elective courses.

We have adequate resources to do this at this point -- cuts would probably impact that.

We have resources; what we need is the desire.

We need a just society with equitable wealth distribution. You get right on that, OK?

We need a regional or statewide bank of local (non-OAKS) assessments that meet the rigor and validity standard. If one district's assessments are easier than another, then it defeats the purpose of raising standards for the diploma and hurts children in the process.




We need a stable funding source from year to year- long range planning and short term planning in this environment the past 5 years has not been possible

We need additional guidance on the portfolio

We need funding for interventions to prepare students to pass this test.

We need locally or regionally developed alternative assessments for students that cannot demonstrate mastery on the OAKS.

We need more FTE to support smaller class sizes so there is class time to permit all students the opportunity to master public speaking in many different subjects. It is not okay to have large classes in any subject area.

We need more local personnel formally trained to score work samples using the Oregon State Scoring Guides in Writing and Speaking. Training is available; the issue is paid time for participation, especially for classified aides.

We need more materials that would be user-friendly for our low achieving students. At the same time these materials should continue to target the rigors of the Benchmarks for all.

We need more personnel.

We need more staff and smaller class sizes. We need summer school funded every year for kids. All kids should be able to go to school in the summer if these choose.

We need more staff to implement targeted interventions for students who are not at grade level. We have found that by giving students targeted instruction, they perform to a higher proficiency level on assessments both in and out of the classroom.

We need more teachers. The lower level students need more class time to prepare, so we need more FTE.

Teacher made work samples are not a reliable way to test essential skills, so the state should give more direction on what is a suitable way to test these skills.

We need more time to create system for assessing Speaking -- rubrics, professional development for content teachers, curriculum to help students reach the Speaking targets.

We need political resources... every school district has the resources to meet this mandate... they simply have to stop doing things that aren't mandated by the State Board... this means local community wishes for non required things (advanced courses, remedial courses, athletics, etc) would need to be cut and people with the political power that are imposing these new requirements need to say this.

We need targeted resources for this initiative in order to assist our schools, in particular reading.




We need to add a speaking class so that students have time and instruction to become proficient in speaking.

We need to be able to maintain monies for professional development.We need to figure out how and in which courses to assess speaking. Individual buildings have had leeway to assign speaking to specific content areas. Teachers of those courses have not necessarily received adequate training in assessing speaking.

We need to have all our teachers(not just Language Arts teachers)sharing in this area, so we need professional development opportunities for teachers to work together. The ability to extend the school day or to pay teachers extended contract may not happen because of the current budget situation.

We need to know what the alternative assessment measures will look like so that we can support such measures at the elementary level.

We need to prepare not only the incoming freshman students but all students that are coming in at the early grades.

We will need additional FTE, so added state funding.

We will need to hire additional staff who have the correct certification to teach the classes that need to be offered.

Will need additional coursework for students who are not on target in reading, writing, speaking, but this is less of an issue than math

With so few students meeting the writing assessment, we will need to add remediation courses in this area.

With the projected revenue shortfall, staffing will be impacted. With highly qualified requirements and reduced staffing potential, implications for providing adequate instructors may pose significant problems.



b. Added science credit


Resource needs (comments below): 182

$$ for more staff, need more training, $$ for lab materials

A loosening of the licensure requirements would be helpful here.

Add more science classes or make

Additional FTE

Additional FTE in science. Increase and upgrade science number of science classrooms/labs

Additional FTE to provide the 3rd credit opportunity for all students

Additional funding for materials, curriculum, staff, and technology

Additional funding for staffing for new/additional science offerings. Additional funding for textbooks/materials/supplies. Additional funding to upgrade classroom space for lab work.

Additional funds for science staff

Additional funds to buy staff development time so that elementary, middle and high school levels coordinate their efforts.

Additional math teachers funding. In light of budget cutbacks, the proposal is a recipe for creating a teacher shortage.


additional professional development and additional science classrooms/labs

Additional Science Labs and teachers.

Additional science teachers to accommodate the additional students taking classes.

Additional staff may be required as planning, course preparation and implementation proceed.

Additional staff would most likely have to be hired to facilitate the required additional credits for students.

Additional staffing to address increased science staffing requirements.

additional staffing needs for enrichment, labs, remediation--longer days & summer school




Additional teachers to account for the increase in required credit. Having to wait for a teacher to retire from an elective offered to hire an additional science teacher is not a good plan.Additional course selections

Adequate funding for the upcoming school years so no staffing cuts will have to be made. If the current predicted cuts outlined by the governor hold (or the legislature cuts more) even the current science staffing might have to suffer. Oregon needs to find STABLE funding! Our district cannot afford to LOSE staff and programs; we need MORE, not LESS.

We also need help funding our new textbooks-our texts are outdated-

Adequate lab supplies, Smaller classes, more teacher training and collaboration time to better curriculum and teaching methods

Aligned texts

Professional development at all levels, especially when the new science standards are adopted in 2009


Already require 3 credits.

Although I agree that 3 science credits is an important goal, with the Highly Qualified Teacher categories in science, we do not have the staff to teach additional classes.

Approximately 83% of our students currently take 3 credits of science. It will require about 1 FTE per high school to meet the new science requirements

Are you serious? With the cuts we're looking at, I'll be lucky to maintain music and library resources. I can't meet all the demands on the budget.

As a principal in a K-8 school, I do not know about the adequacy of resources at the high school level.

At least one additional HS science teacher, and one more science lab.

Better policy makers. Please get rid of your current ones and get us a new batch.

Better prepared instructors. Start in Middle school and allow them to earn high school credits in middle school that meet new graduation requirements.

Budget cuts. Need more support with money to implement. This will cause the fine and applied arts to suffer in Oregon.

Charter school now operate with only about 70% of the funding regular public schools get, and out of that we have to pay for facilities. It would be very helpful to have access to a special additional fund to improve our capacity with respect to achieving new standards.




--clarification as to which, if any, professional/technical education classes will qualify for science credit (specifically in area of agricultural education)

--need more science teachers to handle extra load of students taking science classes with addedConsistent funding that we can rely on

Credits do not assure proficiency. The ODE logic is flawed. When high school graduation represents serious accomplishment, then student attention will be achieved.

Current district policy requires 3 units of science.


Depending on the sequence of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, we will need more HQ teachers in order to achieve this.

Districts should be able to successfully re-allocate resources to meet this requirement.

Don't know

Expanded options for meeting science requirements.

Extra classes will require extra funding.

Finding qualified and highly qualified/certified science teachers.

For low achieving students, hands-on-activities"

FTE. This will not be possible at the current staffing levels. At our school, many students take three years of science currently, but class sizes are maxed out. We need more FTE to teach the additional students.

FTE-additional monies required for increased enrollment.

Increased budget for equipment and labware

funding

Funding for staff development


Funding is ok but finding science endorsed people is difficult.

Funding is required for purchase of additional Science materials.


Funding to pay teachers, so we don't cut other staff to meet the need for science teachers.




Funds are need to purchase materials, textbooks and teacher resources. Time is needed to develop supports and resources for ESL learners

Funds for hiring.Half time science teacher, slightly larger science budget.

Have only one teacher currently at our high school

Having highly qualified science teachers to provide this extra credit for all students may present additional hiring challenges.

I am not sure what is new about the requirement. I teach at the elementary level, and so I am all about the changes in grade 3.


I don't have adequate lab now.

I think the additional science credit could place a burden on districts already challenged by finding licensed science teachers, lab space and additional assistance for students who aren't working at grade level.

I will need to use some teacher resources differently to create more science opportunities. Some schools will likely need more science teachers.

I'm sure FTE will be a huge resource need.

Improved lab facilities

In small schools, teachers with adequate preparation to effectively teach all the sciences are difficult to find. Teacher training will be crucial.

It is time that the State School Board and ODE look outside the box. Instead of putting enough money in the budget for every school district to be able to afford a full science curriculum (which will never happen for rural districts with small student numbers) Look to the rural ESDs to provide a consolidated service.

It's essential for state agencies to take stronger steps to provide training so teachers can develop the skills necessary to teach science and algebra to struggling students. For example, in my experience few of the recently graduated secondary school teachers have had any significant training in working with SPED or ELL students. That leaves it up to cash-strapped districts to provide training, release time, and additional follow-up support.

We are a small district with declining enrollment. We have one science teacher at high school teaching two classes of each subject. If required to teach an additional science, we would have to drop chemistry and physics for our college bound students.

Lab materials




Lab materials and budget for consumables to do labs.Longer school year

More teachers = smaller classes


may need additional science teachers

May require additional FTE in the Science Dept. This will mean cutting FTE in other areas if additional state funding is not available.

Middle School level

money for additional teachers, money for training of current teachers, time to research curriculum changes


Money is tight - for some districts, if they are unwilling to let go of other services/classes, they will have to hire an additional teacher.

More dollars for FTE and facilities modifications.

More FTE - class size are 40+ and students are failing Science at an alarming rate.

More funding to provide technology/resources to aid in instruction.

more lab facilities with current equipment; additional high-level, student-centered science teachers.

More science teachers


More staff will be required

More staff, materials and facilities to accommodate additional classes along with lab experiences. Labs are limited as well as funds to have lab experiences outside the classroom

More teachers should be hired since more class seats" will be filled."

Most of our students already take the required number of science credits.

Need science teachers in our area!

Need updated lab spaces.

Needs of ELL and Low income students need to be addressed.




None

Not only will we need to add teachers but labs and equipment.

Not sure.

Now that we know the what we have to do

One additional teacher; Staffing (funding for Tutorials)at least 3 staff members; Staffing (one period of extended school year)for 2 staff members for 3 months

Online curriculum allows us to be able to offer the classes. Whether our students will be able to actually pass a higher level of science is highly doubtful.

Oregon needs stable adequate funding for the whole school enterprise. These standards are built upon a productive K-12 system. We anticipate cuts to budget that will interrupt our students' progress.

our district needs more resources to adequately cover science in the lower grades, teachers are having to find their own resources

Our district will need more science teachers!

Our secondary administrative team will be meeting to determine the costs of adding the additional science course requirements to include FTE and textbooks/materials/labs.

PD


Please see above remarks applicable to science.

Potentially need 3 additional Science teachers because of the size and locations of our three high schools along with the highly qualified standards.

Professional development. Possibly additional teachers.

Questionable

District is woefully deficient in supplies.

Relax highly qualified requirements.

Reorganization of science classes and offering more courses/sections may require an additional FTE highly qualified in science

Requires another teacher and room.




Rooms and equipment for the new science teachers that will need to be hired.

Need additional qualified staff to teach the subjects or we need time to encourage staff to seek additional endorsements.

Schedule concerns.

Science FTEScience lab spaces need improvement in many districts, both in quality and quantity. Staff development is also needed.

Science textbook adoption year, please make sure we can afford to adopt new materials for new courses we would like to offer.

Serious lack of materials and teachers to meet all students needs.

Small schools have issues with scheduling for students. We try to offer elective science classes and this may be impacted if every child needs 3 science classes with the highly qualified requirement.

Small schools need additional teachers to meet the Lab science requirements. Finances are a huge issue. We need more science teachers and physical classroom space (classrooms that are Labs for science). If we hire a science teacher we usually can only keep them 1 to 2 years and bigger districts hire them.

space for lab science and funding for equipment and people.

Space is in an issue. We realize that this requirement can be met outside of the instructional day, however, our preference is to allow all students to meet this requirements within their instructional day. With work, sports, and other scheduling conflicts anything other than the instructional day becomes complicated and difficult to track. Therefore, we will need more classrooms to schedule students.

Staff to scaffold students in after school programs, and equipment for additional coursework.

Staff training

Staffing and facility (lab) implications.

Staffing dedicated to science will create cuts in other programs--especially electives.

Staffing ok now but could be a barrier in these economic times.

Staffing will be the issue. How many good quality science teachers are in the market? As a farming community, how do I tell my parents that we have to give up shop classes to offer more math and science?

Teacher preparation in this area has been sorely lacking and I believe it's not just in colleges but in our own realm (elementary and secondary) where instructors seem to lack in relaying information to students in a usable fashion.




The ESD has adequate resources but cannot speak for the districts.

The kind of money and resources that will help poorly prepared and poorly achieving students to reach the benchmarks. In addition to enough funding to provide adequate teachers and facilities, until the math requirements can be met by all students, many of the students will not have enough math to be successful in all levels of science curriculum.

The lab requirements will increase costs to our budget as will the professional development needs to train all staff K - 12. With our budgets being cut significantly, we will be unable to meet these demands in a manner that is effective.

The recognition that this will result in an increase in FTE, materials, and textbooks that is not consistent with a reduced or a stagnant budget.

The science requirement is problematic not only because of funding, but also because of the obligation we have to have NCLB highly qualified" teachers. We do not have access to a plethora of science teachers.


There had better be enough resources for a science class if we can afford football.

There is a huge need for hands on materials -- models, lab equipment, etc.

This is not additional, as we offer four years of science (and some take five).

This is very borderline in our district. I believe it is unwise to change at this time!

This requirement imposes a hardship on small districts like ours that our losing enrollment. Our HS enrollment has fallen below 350 students; more financial resources are needed to maintain the same quality of programs and quantity of offerings. It would be fair for our HS receive the small school adjustment (we currently don't qualify because we just shrunk to this size in the last 2 years).This requires more staff to implement. Given the budget crisis and the size of our high school it requires 1.5 FTE - this is not doable without compromising reading instruction at the elementary level. The trade off is not worth this - it needs to wait to be implemented.

This will require the high school science department to either hire new staff or greatly increase class sizes. This seems like an additional mandate without money. With budget shortfalls coming this is bad timing

Time

Time for teachers to plan, resources, and professional development. Science and Math coaches that are teachers.

To add requirements takes away from student electives.

Trainings to update staff to teach multiple courses when we can't afford to hire multiple teachers.Unable to give an adequate response





Unsure

We are a large district. We have already in place the resources (teachers, curriculum, courses and counselors) to meet all 2012 and 2014 requirements. These can survive moderate funding cuts.We are working to train our staff and re-write courses to meet this requirement. This requires an additional FTE at each high school.

We believe we'll need more Teacher FTE. The FTE is a real need since teachers of subject areas in which we expect a drop in enrollment are not endorsed to teach in any of the science areas. In addition, we are concerned we'll not be able to add FTE given the unpredictability of budget shortfalls.

We can ask for higher levels of preparation but also we need to support with all the resources necessary to do it.

We cannot maintain our Science teaching staff. They are overwhelmed by the requirements and lack of support for their job. These new requirements are going to result in the hiring of teachers who are not able to ensure that kids are learning the intended curriculum. What are we doing to attract and retain highly qualified Science and Math teachers?

We currently have Science specialists in grades 7 and 8.

WE do not have science classrooms to expand. 75% of our students already take 3 credit hours and every science classroom is used right now. To expand to the additional 25% requires that many more dedicated science rooms and the supplies that outfit them.

We have the resources but need longer days or more days in the year to cover every subject.

We need at least one more science teacher to implement another year of science--we are having trouble with getting two years with our present staffing. We also need students who have completed typical elementary and Mid. Sch. science programs.

We need funding for more teachers.

We need much smaller classes to support the directive to move towards scientific inquiry. Large class sizes are prohibitive for good lab experiences. I am more concerned about lab safety for younger students.

We need time to develop alternative curriculum for students who may not be successful in regular, lab science classes. For instance, we are developing a sustainability science" track

We need to add at least a .5 fte science teacher and/or develop science credit opportunities within tech ed courses, and this at a time when we are looking at deep cuts rather than add-ons.

We need to be able to maintain monies for professional development.




We need to modify existing and/or develop additional courses that will meet the science credit requirement, providing additional options for those students not able or willing to take Chemistry and Physics.

We should not make science a requirement unless we provide classes for all levels of students.We will definitely need additional sections which will be a stretch in that we have limited labs. We do have extensive Career Technical resources on site, but the teachers need to be science certified.

We will have to hire an additional science teacher and given this economy and the cuts I must make next year, it would be cutting another program that is good for kids or increasing class sizes that isn't good for kids.

We will likely need to add staff and expand lab availability.

We will need additional FTE (incrementally - many kids already satisfy this requirement)


We will need funding to hire an additional science teacher.

We will need to add one Physical Science teacher

We will need to find funding for another year of instructional material, time to change our master schedules, and provide for additional training in the scientific inquiry scoring guide.

We will need to hire additional teachers which will take more funding. We will also need to develop more elective classes that will fulfill the third year requirement.

We will need to hire an additional science teacher (or replace an elective teacher with a science teacher).

We will need to shift staffing resources from electives to science and hire additional science certified staff.

We would need to add more teachers or eliminate electives that students also benefit from.

While I am in favor of more students taking science, this seems like especially poor timing, especially in light of recent budget cuts. As it is currently, our science budget does not provide adequate funds for necessary lab supplies. By adding additional science credits without funding the Board is in fact hampering teacher efforts to provide adequate lab experiences. In addition, more FTE will be needed to teach the additional required classes, but funding for FTE is incredibly limited.

Will need new textbooks by Sept 2010. Need to maintain staffing levels that keep classrooms under 25 students and offer remediation, enrichment and appropriate lab opportunities.

Will require funds for providing science options (staff, materials, equipment).

With the present levels of funding and SIF cut this year and next, I do not think I can maintain staffing for science. I will be losing 1 teacher and we are in a hiring freeze.



c. Algebra I and above


Resource needs (comment below): 216

$$ for more staff

A majority of students are not ready to take Algebra I. We will need to double block students to help them get to the Algebra I level of math for them to be successful/graduate.

Abandon the misguided effort to force a Bell Curve population into an elitist career track.

Additional FTE for more students going beyond Geometry

Additional FTE for support. Options other than Geometry and Advanced Algebra to earn a regular diploma.

Additional funding for materials, curriculum, staff, and technology

additional math course options

Additional math staff


Additional resources to address staffing needs for remediation and support to students with regards to more rigorous math requirements.

Additional staff may be required as planning and course preparation and implementation proceed.

Additional staff would again most likely have to be hired to facilitate the required additional credits for students.

additional staffing (potentially 25 percent more)....

Additional staffing remediation, enrichment and longer days and summer school

Additional upper level math teachers

Adequate funding for the upcoming school years so no staffing cuts will have to be made. If the current predicted cuts outlined by the governor hold (or the legislature cuts more) even the current math staffing might have to suffer. Oregon needs to find STABLE funding! Our district cannot afford to LOSE staff and programs; we need MORE, not LESS.

Adequate funding to provide smaller class sizes and instructional support for ALL students attempting to meet benchmarks.

Again, staffing. I can only afford so many teachers. What courses do I give up and how do I find good quality teachers to teach the math?




Aligned textsProfessional development


As early as in the elementary grades the rudiments of Algebra need to be taught through manipulatives. The use of these materials will make Algebra relevant to the students' daily application.

As we will need new staff we need additional money and also need to have some support on increasing the number of math teachers in the state that would apply.

At least one additional math teacher

Availability of math teachers who can teach a variety of levels of math and do it well in this economy is critical.

Better prepared instructors. Start in Middle school and allow them to earn high school credits in middle school that meet new graduation requirements.

Better prepared students with a k-12 scope and sequence

Clarify what is comparable to and above Algebra I in a curriculum, and acknowledge and support relevant courses: consumer math, personal finance, economic math, etc.

Collaboration between elementary and middle schools. Teacher on Special Assignment as a coach.

Continued funding is necessary for the development of remedial programs for mathematics in Middle School and Early High School to promote more students to obtain the 3 credits of Algebra I or higher.

Currently students arrive in high school functioning at around 5th grade general math level. We need the middle schools to stop socially promoting students who are not able to complete Algebra 1, if we are to have time to provide 3 years at Alg 1 level or above

Currently, less than 25% of our 9th graders enter high school in Algebra 1 or higher. Staff need staff development and students need access to additional resources to prepare them to enter Algebra 1 at 9th Grade.


Districts do not have the necessary resources to implement satisfactory remedial opportunities to ensure ALL students are well prepared to meet this requirement in this timeframe.

Districts need immediate guidance on what and above" actually means in terms of eligible courses. Once the requirement becomes clear

Don't know about high school level, but upper intermediate math programs in district do not adequately address this strand, leaving teachers to find supplemental materials on their own. This can put more stress on middle school math teachers to teach what was missed in elementary.




Don't we already teach this?Enough funding for a math adoption- we have a team who has been working on this for the past year and have made a recommendation that would help us move forward for the new requirements but do not have enough funds to purchase the materials and training for the new program

Especially now that the guidance from ODE has apparently changed from Algebra 1 and above" course content to "above Algebra 1" content for math credits two and three

Even if the demonstration of essential skills in mathematics is delayed to 2014, schools will need additional resources to allow for the hiring of more highly qualified" mathematics teachers."

Extra classes will require extra funding.

First off, most districts were going to wait to adopt K-12 math curriculum instead of just K-8 in 2009. Without having a comprehensive K-12 curriculum districts won't be able to improve or raise the standard of math, it doesn't start in high school. Also, we budget cuts, curriculum adoptions will not be happening in the next two years - there will be too many students who won't meet this standard. It needs to wait.FTE

FTE for support classes for double dosing for struggling students.

FTE. This will not be possible at the current staffing levels.

funding

Funding for staff and books. Better resources at lower levels to better prepare students.


Funding support for interventions for students needing additional instruction in mathematics

Funding support to add additional sections of mathematics at various levels


Graduation should not be tied to this requirement. This could be the downfall for our State overall as more people will need assistance when they are non-grads and drop-outs. The financial impact could be great on a scales that you can't even imagine now.

Guidance for developing math courses that match the new HS math standards. Guidance for developing credit for proficiency. Financial and personnel resources for training teachers. Materials to use with students that adequately match the new HS math standards.

Have added 2.0 additional FTE in the last two years and are already implementing this requirement.

Have only one Math teacher currently at our high school




Highly qualified and certified teaching staff.

Hire additional teacher or have TSPC waive credential limits on who can teach at the Algebra I level without being penalized" for not being highly qualified.

I am a science teacher.

I am concerned about our special education students meeting this requirement. We don't want student on modified diplomas if we don't have to. We are a small school district and one teacher teaches Algebra I, II and III. Some students need a slower paced program with more reinforcement of basic skills. We are trying to build up our math program to ensure success for all students, but this takes time and money.

I am not in a position to answer this for the district.


I do not believe this goal is attainable without massive infusion of support staff and improvement in math instruction. The students we work with rarely have the basic skills to do algebra I, let alone geometry and algebra 2.

I don't agree with the Algebra I and above mandate, so one resource would be a better policy. Assuming this is not possible, then a concentrated statewide train the trainer model in evidence-based math models (like Cognitively Guided Instruction at the elementary level) and the inclusion of wise math educators as school improvement coaches in the OSIF model would be helpful.

I really think needs to be rethought, especially in view of the trend to move algebra down to middle school. I think that we need to look carefully at math to see what most students really need and will need out in the world. Then we need to make sure the classes are fabulous!

I would like to see a model that has been successfully implemented and look at the resources they used to implement it.

If students do not leave middle school with necessary pre-algebra skills, how will they be able to start at Algebra I? If this is the requirement at the high school level then students should not be allowed to enter 9th grade until they have demonstrated mastery of grade level math skills in 8th grade. This means we will have to stop socially promoting students.

If we are to follow an intervention model, educational support either needs to be restructured or additional opportunities need to be available to students. I believe the minimum number of days students are in school needs to be increased as that is the only true indicator (given everything else equal in implementation) impacting student learning. We add requirements, standards but truly the only thing that will make a difference is time.

instructional materials (monetary support) and Staff training




It is not necessary that all students demonstrate higher abstract thinking and problem solving skills. ODE should offer and recognize student diversity of skills with specialized diplomas.

It's essential for state agencies to take stronger steps to provide training so teachers can develop the skills necessary to teach science and algebra to struggling students. For example, in my experience few of the recently graduated secondary school teachers have had any significant training in working with SPED or ELL students. That leaves it up to cash-strapped districts to provide training, release time, and additional follow-up support.

Due to declining enrollment and less resources, we will be reducing staff. It took three years and some luck to find a teacher who is HQ and is a quality teacher. He came out of retirement.

Longer school year, More teachers = smaller classes


Looking at the K-12 construct, begin with the high school with backwards mapping of benchmarks and student outcomes from grade 12 thru K. Have a consistent spiraling math alignment, with common assessments throughout districts.

Many of our students may not be able to achieve 3 credits of math at Algebra I or higher. How is this going to affect the state's economy as well as college acceptances if we have as much as 50% of our high school students (statewide, not just my school) not earning high school diplomas?

Material recommendations/reviews to help the number of students who are below level due to a multitude of concerns, including a very transient population. Materials/programs that help students make up lost time and instruction.

Materials, rearrange course work and teacher development/hiring if necessary

Math standards grades 9-12 are critical to begin the development of courses with the required rigor. There should be other options rather than just traditional Algebra II. Highly theoretical coursework for this requirement would increase drop-out rates. The use of technology should replace much of the Algebra II paper and pencil skills. This will require new textbooks and equipment.

Modified Diplomas will increase. How will this affect a student's ability to graduate with a regular diploma?

Money for additional FTE to help students who are below the Algebra 1 level get there and to help students who will now have to take Algebra II Get support they need.

money for additional teachers, money for training of current teachers, time to research curriculum changes. time to articulate needed support from teachers at elementary and middle school levels so that students are better prepared


More Educational assistants would need to be placed in the math classes to assist struggling students on an individual basis.




More FTE to keep class sizes down

More funding to provide technology/resources to aid in instruction.More highly qualified teachers.

More materials and strategies for students who are special ed and ELL

More math teachers


More staff training, and additional FTE's needed.

More staff will be required OR we will have to cut programs currently in place to teach Alg. I coursework.

More teachers to create a program that will provide students the opportunity to meet the math graduation requirements.

More time will be necessary for a large number of our students

Much more coordination with K-12 for this to happen. They don't even have textbook recommendations for 9-12 in the upcoming math adoptions, and yet districts may be purchasing K-8 materials that do not address the need for higher level math skills. We can't FIX" all the deficits of students at the high school level."

Need additional time and FTE to horizontally expand options for students to meet requirements.

need another math teacher to allow flexibility in scheduling for algebra and better in 2014

Need continued funding for teacher certified to teach algebra in my K-8 school.

Need funds to add 1 fte math teacher, develop new Algebra I level courses, and create math credit opportunities within tech ed courses--again, at a time when we are actually in cut" mode."

Need math teachers and time.

Need more clarity around what alternative" math courses will be considered to meet the Algebra I and above criteria."

Need teacher training.

Need the time it will take for elementary students working with more rigorous mathematics to work their way up to high school

Need to develop alternate curricula for those who will not be able to complete the traditional third year of Algebra II. It can be done, but there needs to be time to build the curriculum. Time also means money to pay those who do the work.




Need to figure out other ways of delivering math curriculum using credit for proficiency in applied settings. The traditional Algebra I, II, Geometry track is not being taught in a way that our students are prepared to apply the skills. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLEASE!!!

Needs of ELL and Low income students need to be addressed.New elementary standards need time to show and impact at higher levels.

New materials K-8.

No cutbacks

No math teachers!

No problem

Not sure.

Now that we know the what we have to do

Once again, the additional requirement will shift FTE from electives to math classes. Additional math is the right thing to do, but finding highly qualified" math teachers is difficult and we will need funding for additional coursework or math exams for teachers to become highly qualified.

One additional Full Time Math Teacher; Staffing (funding for Tutorials)at least 3 staff members; Staffing (one period of extended school year)for 2 staff members for 3 months

Our district has middle school teachers teaching two core subjects - such as math & science. This is a drawback since they are usually generalists rather than specialists (ie few are certified to teach math alone). Our district would need time to adjust their hiring process and/or time for the teachers with general certificates to get certified in individual subjects. Only then could the scheduling be changed to have teachers assigned to only one subject - so they can push students harder in that area.

Our district will need more math teachers!

Our students need much reinforcement, explicit instruction, and time to practice skills that they missed in elementary/middle school because of their life situations. Materials to do this are needed.

PD


Planning. Teacher recruitment, training, staff development.

Professional development

Professional development activities and funding

Professional development, course realignment and curriculum materials




Qualified teachers -- especially in small, rural districts where candidate pools are typically small and sometimes shallow.

Questionable

Regular and charter public schools are all in the same boat here: As far as I know, not one state has succeeded yet in achieving this goal. I sure would like to hear from other states what really works. Meanwhile, we continue reinventing wheels.

Release time for planning and for discussions with the middle school.

Remember, this is a K - 12 issue. Although Algebra I is a high school class, the student preparation begins in Kindergarten. Resources are needed K - 12. We are looking at a new math curriculum however, we don't think we'll be able to fund it. We will need additional math teachers as well. Math remediation courses will need to increase. Time to plan the integration of math across the curriculum and how requirements can be met outside of the traditional math track will need to be carefully planned outRestructure K-12

Additional FTE; many students will need a de facto 4th year to meet requirement.

Schedule concerns.

Add to the issues above the state wide shortage of qualified Math instructors. We cannot currently staff our buildings consistently with HQ Math instructors. How are we going to staff at increased levels to deal with the new requirements?

Seriously depends upon what levels of math courses are approved by the state. For instance, we offer Statistics and AP Statistics. Obviously the latter would be approved, but what about the former?

Since this is such a significant change, more opportunities to talk with other districts and within our own district to develop assessments, clarify curriculum sequences, and hone best instructional practices are all welcome. This does take time and money.

Small Schools have a hard time retaining teachers. We need more math teachers but do not have the financial resources to hire more.

Smaller class sizes and/or tutors for those students not grasping the concept of algebra.

Smaller classes, more teacher training and collaboration time to better curriculum and teaching methods,

access to industry applications of learning

Smaller classes, more teachers, more support for students outside of the classroom of instruction. SUPPORT for students. Not all students have parents or environments where they can meet these requirements.

Staff development for CTE and math teachers. Additional math teachers at three high schools.




Staff for remediation

Staff to scaffold students in after school programs.

Staffing

Staffing and training. For the majority this works, but what about our resource room students and the few who do not get there?

Staffing in this small district is an issue, particularly for remediation and acceleration of student achievement at the middle school level.

Staffing requirements, remediation, and the need for staff development for teachers feeding into this level.

Start since kinder and above.

Strengthening math in K-8. More funds needed for staff development.

Student needs-

Students being pushed to learn these skills far sooner so by the time they enter our program, they are more ready to handle above algebra 1.

Teacher training in differentiated instruction particularly focused on math methods. Some HS level teachers lecture, demo, and provide time to do the work, but some students need guided practice w/ visuals and manipulatives to retain concepts.

Textbook adoption.

The district is adopting a new K-8 math curriculum aligned to the new standards this year. These standards are more narrowly focused on algebra readiness than the previous standards were. This curriculum needs time to work. One year (class of 2014 will be 8th grade next year) in the new curriculum will not provide students with the experience they need to succeed with this new HS requirement. We are also struggling to be able to afford a new adoption at this time and may have to delay the adoption.

The reality that numerous students will not be able to meet this standard will not be fixed by additional time. Having students meet the requirement of progressing to Algebra 1 would certainly be more realistic for students. We have begun to explore the idea of earning math credits in other related areas but the logistics of such a path are very complicated. It is an interesting vision but one it seems to me that was concocted by someone who has spent little time as a high school Principal.

The resources needed reflects the level at which students are arriving to the high school. It seems that ODE and others are trying to fix" a problem at the end of a journey rather than provide sufficient detours along the way for students not making proficiency in grades 3-8. Barrier testing


There needs to be a low level class that all kids can pass.




This change requires a systemic change and will need far more time than the current timeline allows.

This feels like a distant hope at this point. We do not have a plan in place that would lead to this over time (and I'm not sure we have seen any other district that is on track to do this either.

This is not a matter of resources...who doesn't have a math teacher? But there are no 'resources' that will prepare some students to achieve at this level. It is political grand-standing at its worst, and there will be pathways by which students will be allowed to subvert the intent of this rule.

This requirement is a political requirement, not an educational requirement. MANY students will NOT be able to meet the requirement, nor do they need such a requirement. It is not practical.

This will be a significant challenge for our lowest performing 30%. We will need additional staffing resources in math to offer remediation.

This will require modifications to a district's entire K-12 program. Districts must be able to purchase new materials in order to align their delivery. Due to the budget crisis, this is likely to not occur.

Time

Time for K-8 reforms and interventions to have an effect. Additional intervention materials and math specialists, like we have for literacy. That model has worked.

time for middle school teachers to plan in their classes to bring students to a pre algebra proficiency in the next two years.

Time is needed to develop resources and supports for ESL learners. Time and funding for staff development and curriculum development of applied mathematics courses at the Algebra level. Funding will be needed to purchase the student and teacher materials. Clarification for State Panel on course levels and rigor is still needed.

time to prepare students over the K-8 years so they are on track when they enter high school No time/staff for remediation if not.

Time: Oregon Math Standards have been a mile wide and an inch deep with algebra being only one of five areas. New more focused standards with an emphasis on algebra take effect next year and the OAKS test to measure the new standards the year after. The class of 2014 will be in the 8th grade next year. If the expectation is for students to start with algebra 1 in high school it would be reasonable to phase in the algebra requirements as students have the opportunity to be successful with the new standard

tutoring materials, one-on-one help


Unsure

Vertical Teams




Curriculum development time

We anticipate additional budget resources going to math workshops" and progress monitoring assessments of students not meeting math benchmarks.

We are working to train our staff and re-write courses to meet this requirement. This requires an additional FTE at each high school.

We believe we'll need more Teacher FTE. The FTE is a real need since teachers of subject areas in which we expect a drop in enrollment are not endorsed to teach basic or advanced math. In addition, we are concerned we'll not be able to add FTE given the unpredictability of budget shortfalls.

We have been working toward this, but because of declining enrollment (and the inequitable way this impacts our budget)and the NCLB constraints requiring highly qualified" teachers

we have lower courses for some students that need to be adjusted to algebra level

We have some concerns that the models for applied math are promising more than they can deliver. Systems to facilitate District to District collaboration on this would be very helpful. I know there are Board members who think industry will be helpful here, but our business partners are available only as the bottom line allows. Unless the State can make reliable, on-going partnerships financially attractive, donated time is a shaky foundation to build upon.

We must have a public commitment to stable adequate funding for the K-12 system. Predicted budget cuts this next biennium will interrupt the progress our students have been making toward these standards.

We need a bunch of jobs that require algebra 1 and above for our kids who graduate so all of this math isn't a giant waste of time. Get right on that too, OK?

We need curriculum for another course at the Algebra 1 level or above. The regular Algebra 2 material is not for everyone!

We need funding for more teachers and for interventions and tutoring.

We need resources to assure that the value added" math classes address standards and improve student learning."

We need to develop alternative curriculum for students not successful in traditional math classes. We are exploring the use of visual algebra and geometry instruction, and also the use of technology based curriculum.

We need to revise our curriculum and we need additional, if not new, textbooks.

We offer Algebra I currently.

We will have to employ additional mathematic instructors as current staff do not have open periods. Our scheduling attempts to place most math classes in a common period to allow movement for students.





We will need funding to hire an additional math teacher.

We will need more training and collaboration efforts between elementary, middle and high school in order to prepare for all students to attain this level of math across the board. Also needed are before/after school tutoring/math assistance, which will need more staffing.

We will need to add more high level courses and provide training for the teachers who teach them. we will need to review standards at each grade level needed to attain this goal.

We will need to develop a training mechanism, including printed material, that describes this requirement to parents. In addition, we will struggle with adequate class sizes for some of our electives when students who are in fundamental math classes are forced to drop electives to double up on math classes that put them in a better position to meet this requirement. We will also need to increase our textbook adoption fund, purchasing material we hope will help students catch up faster.

We would need additional staff to help in the remediation process as we have a high number of students who are well behind being able to get to algebra standards. We could conceivably use a lab environment, so would need additional hardware and software.

We would need to add more teachers or eliminate electives that students also benefit from.

we're working on a new math adoption which should cover this

We've already moved here

wider array of courses tailored to student ability - additional teachers to lower class numbers

Will adopt HS textbooks for 09-10 school year. Need to maintain staffing levels that keep classrooms under 25 students and offer remediation, enrichment and apply math" opportunities."

will need both math teachers and remediation programming

Will need to train teachers in the district so all students are able to make this jump. What do we do with those students who will not be able to get past Algebra 1?

Will require additional staff at both Middle School and High School. Need reliable, research based intervention instruments and strategies.

Would like a curriculum created that has content above Algebra I, but is not a traditional math class i.e. Geometry, Algebra II, Calculus, etc.

Would need much more information to give a definitive answer (e.g. results of studies of students' performances on state and local assessments, of staffing and materials needed to offer each student the post-Algebra 1 options, and of class sizes).


Additional Comments

Develop an alternative path for struggling students in math. We need additional funding from ODE directed for math staff development.

1-The Essential Skills Performance Level should be based on data, rather than selecting the old CIM performance level. Those tests and levels were not meant to act as a high stakes diploma tests. 2-Was OAKS designed for the purpose of determining essential learning skills for diploma attainment? If not, it shouldn’t be used. 3-Math problem solving and writing tests were not able to meet validation requirements for NCLB use, why should we use them to determine an individual’s readiness for HS graduation?

Additional resources will be needed to train personnel and hire added personnel to teach the courses required. We do not intend to delete advanced math to accommodate more Alg.1 students or science students for example. To accomplish this more personnel will be required.


Anytime a state board rushes implementation of a standard without funding adequate to improve the system of delivery, it shows painful disrespect for the work of teachers and the well being of students. The offer to delay in the face of declining resources is a sign of compassion and understanding. I welcome this token of good faith.

Appreciate the opportunity for input.

As a Business Advisory Team member (Oregon Superintendent's team)I am concerned that Oregon is going to continue to slide down the ranking with other states, especially Washington.

As a district, we have begun our work to increase graduation requirements. However, the time, personnel resource, and monetary requirements to pay staff for their time, impacts our budget tremendously. We believe new Oregon Graduation Requirements should be put on hold.

As a small k-12 district I can only afford 15 teachers k-12. If the state is going to require more core classes, then I need a stable funding source for staffing, a way to have more flexibility in how my teachers are used, and a pool of good math/science teachers to hire from.

As an educator working with some of the hardest youth in the state, I feel that to make these requirements will impair many of our students from obtaining a high school diploma. They will need more time for improving their basic reading, writing, and math skills before they can even begin to address the challenges of new requirements.

As with the mathematics recommendation made above, reading, writing and speaking proficiency requirements should not be used to determine diploma eligibility until 2014. Also like mathematics, assessments of reading, writing and speaking should be required for all members of the class of 2012 and after and the proficiency levels achieved should be documented on transcripts.

As you can tell from my above comments, finding math, reading, and science teachers is very difficult. We do our best to get the word out and to recruit but we have had little success, especially in the higher levels of math and science.

Asking districts to facilitate the adding of requirements (both additional class requirements for students and the organization of Essential Skills in all content areas) as they face upcoming and ongoing budget shortfalls seems an impossible task. We also need to consider sustainability. Looking at the next two bienniums and what many districts could be facing I believe there is no way that these requirements could be successfully implemented and sustained.


Additional Comments

Before we implement changes to the current diploma we need to be designing structures that ensure the success of all students. Specifically the barrier that ESL students have in obtaining English/Language Arts credits.

Current state writing assessments for grades 7 and 10 include Ideas & Content, Organization, Sentence Fluency, and doubling the scores in Conventions. Statewide few students ever exceed" on the writing exam because the scoring is skewed by doubling "Conventions" and NOT counting "word choice" or "voice" in a student's score. Conventions are extremely important

Declining resources due to declining enrollment, reduced funding from state (we will be lucky to recieve the same amount of state support next year as we had this year), increased demands for reports and paperwork work to ODE have significantly hurt our abilities to adequately address increased graduation requirements. Knappa High used to require 4 years of Language Arts, 3 years of science and math but reduced the number of science and math to 2 to allow students to have some elective classes.

Delay science requirement, as well.

Delaying either of the mathematics implementations an additional two years is not a good policy for the State of Oregon, for its teachers or its students. President-elect Obama has tabbed mathematics as one of the critical areas to put resources into during his presidency. Oregon must do the same.

Discussion on options for students who skills are so low meeting these deadlines puts add pressure to drop out.

Economic resources should determine timeline for adding all of these requirements not just math.

Either we decide that standards are necessary now, not in 2012 (or some other nebulous date) or we continue to decline in worldwide educational standings.

Essential skills should be written into every course and passing the course should be adequate evidence of the achievement of essential skills. Taking extra administrative work on is a drain on teacher time and produces no results for kids. This approach of deep suspicion is profoundly wrong-headed and wasteful of our resources. Good schools are punished by this approach, and poor schools are not improved.

Financial support for longer school day/year and after school--more time for learning.

Focus on reading, writing, speaking, math and science, Educational Plan and Profile, Career-Related Learning Standards, Career-Related Learning Experiences and Extended Application. Delay other five Essential Skills.

Funding for education should be constant. It should not roll up and down at the whims of the economy.

Given the new economics, the need to phase in new diploma requirements should be carefully re-balanced against the ability of the system to deliver. Otherwise, we may set expectations that can not be met, which in turn may decrease confidence in and support for public education.

Given the potential depth of the budget crisis, these proposed changes may all be moot. The state board and dept of ed should be prepared to address a major crisis wherein we must reevaluate whether we can continue to deliver quality education to our children without a complete revamping of our system.

Go away or I will taunt you a second time. -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Good Luck! all in all some change will occur even with the delay, so that is positive


Additional Comments

Great plan and we need to move forward. Bad time when districts will be looking at two years of being non-compliant with the number of days that may need to be cut. How do you add and cut so deeply at the same time?

We do not have literacy, math or science coaches. The coaches need to be exemplary teachers, Teachers who are National Board Certified, have mentor training from the ESD.

Guidance with creative funding and communication with all teachers is critical at this time. The extra time considered will alleviate some of the district stress.

How are ESL students entering in 9th grade ever going to be able to graduate?

How will this impact modified diploma requirements?

I am all for the new diploma requirements and higher expectations for all students. This approach shares teacher and school accountability with the students, which I believe will provide the necessary motivation for many to put forth a better effort to succeed.

I am concerned that the math requirement may result in so many failing students in math that Oregon would find itself backing up the way that Washington had to do with the WASL math.

I am not for these requirements in the first place. Does that mean I would be for delaying them. That seems better than not delaying them. As so many kids are losing interest and connection to school, I do not see these requirements helping kids. I may make the board look good because they can say have raised standards, but I do not think this is what is best for kids.

I am reducing teaching staff by seven teachers (5% reduction) next year. I cannot afford to hire back two teachers to meet these new graduation requirements in the existing economic condition.

I am still concerned about those students that fall behind and also for the Hispanic students that English is their second language.

I am very concerned that we do not have the details determined that will make this transition a success. We are particularly concerned about the impact of students who are still learning English in High School due to their registering in our system late in their educational career. We want to be involved as leaders in the solutions. Thank you.

I applaud the board's efforts to increase the rigor of the diploma. The bar needs to be raised. However, our current funding crisis coupled with district individualization will be difficult barriers to overcome. We must continue to explore ways ESD's can deliver state professional development initiatives (ie TLC) and alternative delivery systems (state virtual school).

I applaud the reasoning behind the new diploma requirements as well as a short timeline. However, many do not have a clear understanding of the intent or ideas for implementation of many of the parts. Nor do we have the time/resources to do an adequate job of getting to that understanding/plan for implementation. Also, are there essential skills still not even on the timeline? Shouldn't they be?

I applaud the State Board for asking for input. Given the state's resources, the cut backs many districts are having to make this fiscal year, and the unknown state of the economy, I believe it is better to slow down implementation and do it right, then rush it and wonder why it didn't work.

I appreciate the efforts to make a diploma meaningful for our graduating students.


Additional Comments

I can't comment on science and language arts as I work mainly with the math curriculum teams. But I'll just add that we would be doing a great disservice to many of our students to deny them high school math credit for any work completed prior to the algebra 1 level. I would be happy to be more involved in this discussion. Please respond if you'd like any further input. [email protected]

I certainly agree with the increased standards, however with the economic downturn consideration of hardships on districts, especially smaller ones is greatly appreciated.

I feel that increasing the standards and requirements for students will have some positive impact on those students who are middle of the road, but will be contradictory to those individuals who are following different paths other then academics. The best thing the legislature could do is couple an increase of time students are in school with the increased requirements.

I feel that the additional requirements are placing undo stress on districts, families and schools. Students are loosing the opportunity to participate in electives and the humanities. These additional requirements will all but eliminate some elective programs that many students thrive in. Districts will not be able to keep a shop teacher on staff for 2 periods a day, because students are so tied up in requirements they can not get into shop on a continual basis. This will hold true for art, music, etc

I have a concern that a deadline (for this survey) of Jan 12 is too soon when most educators do not return to school from Winter Break until Jan 5. I am just fortunate that someone from my district office alerted me to this and I happened to check my email.

I hope this initiative approaches the issues in systematic realistic ways which support the evolution of our public school system rather than expecting change to occur overnight" because of tougher standards."

I repeat ... any delay will doom the plan. Stick to your timeline, mean business!

I think all of us are willing to push our students to higher standards, and would welcome the challenge--as long as the state is willing to back up the requirements with the investment required to make it happen.

Keeping class sizes reasonable is the only way to ensure that students can meet the new requirements.I think further delaying the implementing of the essential skill (applying math in a variety of settings") might create confusion. I don't see any real money savings by the postponement. Some schools have begun work around this topic so to further delay is to halt the momentum they have gained. But I think slowing the implementation cycle is the best strategy until increased funding is made available.

I think that the state should develop an expansion on Geometry into Trig as a 3rd credit and offer curriculum to schools free.

I think the Board has outlined a well reasoned approach. PLEASE, do not delay requirements in reading and writing.

I think we should delay it until we find an alternative idea. The students that need (to go to college)are already taking the required math. We need to think about the population that will not be attending four year colleges or college at all.

I understand the leanings of the State Board. It makes better sense however to require the essential skills in reading in 2012 and then postpone the requirements for writing and speaking to 2014. Implementing the writing requirements in 2012 and then postponing the speaking would be a second choice.

I would favor national standards rather than the states all going their own directions.


Additional Comments

I would like the state to recognize that changing requirements just at the high school level makes students feel like they need to jump huge hurdles all of a sudden. Please consider developing requirements that have some repercussions on students throughout K-12 so they can develop their own sense of understanding where they are in relation to the state's expectations. We also need to start thinking about how to implement new requirements gradually - rather than making a sudden change to kids.

If it is important for our students to achieve at these levels then DO NOT put it off... if you put it off it is not important to do and our kids don't really need it... don't give into the educational establishment that reinforces low expectations!

If the Board feels its diploma plan is a good one, why waiver so easily? If adults don’t take their commitments seriously, it’s not likely that students and parents will either. In my district there is clear evidence that the strengthened commitment of our teachers to supporting students and expecting them to meet the new math essential skill requirement has created a higher level of success already. I would hate to these enthused teachers and students let down and their efforts be for naught.

If the delay can save money for the State of Oregon, then by all means, lets delay the implementation of “apply math” until 2014. But it all depends on the savings... are we talking about a 1% budget savings? ...5% budget savings? ...10% budget savings? It all depends....!!!

If the state is going to mandate change in an upward turn, they must fund that mandate!

If these credits and requirements are vital, then money should not be the factor. We all can build additional capacity--to suggest otherwise is just another stall. Investing in knowledge and skills cannot be held hostage by the State Budget.

I'm astounded. Do you really need to ask these questions? We all know what is happening to budgets, and things are looking even worse for the biennium. This is like telling the hungry homeless on the street corner to just go home

In addition to the possible need to find HQ teachers, I know our secondary folks need the decision soon as this impacts students'4 year plans. Thank you.

In its proposed timeline changes, the Board has not addressed the expensive parts of the new diploma. Given the current and projected state of the budget, hiring additional math and science teachers will for us mean eliminating programs. This is very harmful; we are close enough to a large district that we will lose students to their greater resources.

In my experience, many HS students are not prepared for Algebra 1 when they arrive at HS. There needs to be a foundation math for grade 9 to prepare students for Algebra 1 and above. I think this is the largest stumbling block for students in demonstrating essential skills. I think there will be a considerable amount of students who do not graduate with their class because of their math performance. Budgets will need to look towards increasing school sizes to accommodate these students who do not graduate.

Issues of funding and staffing to accomplish the new goals in larger districts become magnified by our smaller size. Creative scheduling and the use of community and Internet resources can ease some stress, but facilitating achievement in all students requires our few faculty to spread themselves impossibly far. Oregon's diploma requirements need to be more stringent; however, mandates without financial and personnel support will fail.

It is more difficult for remote rural schools to provide highly qualified teachers to teach the additional courses in science and math. We can provide the instruction, but will fail on AYP because we may have to have an HQ science teacher teach half or more of their load in Algebra.


Additional Comments

It is not that I do not support high standards or improving education. I am just not convinced that we are heading down the right path. I believe many students will not graduate with the direction we are heading and I am not sure how that reality will improve their lives.

It is unrealistic to expect districts to add greater requirements at a time when we are experiencing a horrible recession and funding is not keeping up with inflation. Whether we can add new programs is dependent upon legislative funding. We need to maintain current programs first.

It takes more than raising expectations for students to be successful. Much of the premise seems to be based on just raising expectations without the necessary supports, funding or time. Raising expectation is part of the equation but many states have tried this type of increase in standards without the necessary supports and had to back off due to the high number of students that won't graduate.

I've often asked contractors, electricians, etc. what math they wanted their employees to know. Everyone replied: basic computation! and I will teach them my requirements or how to use my calculators for more advanced situations--what they really need are skills in getting along with others, coming to work on time, willingness to learn on the job.

Just want to reinforce my math comment. Originally we understood that courses like Business Math

Make sure we are ready to participate in the new educational funding that will most likely be implemented by Congress early this year. Use the best science based methods for our instruction including bringing the best methods of improvement into play. Keep the instruction of our students at the top of our objectives even if it means pushing the O.E.A. to make sure that the KIDS are first and the adults in the system are there for that purpose which frequently isn't the case with regard to the O.E.A. mandates that are not funded are slowly starving the public schools

we have no money for programs that allow students to have a choice and a voice in their education

More and more requirements are added each year. But nothing is ever removed. If you continue to add requirements elective programs and enrichment programs will be eliminated.

Moving the testing year to 11th grade should happen to help the students feel more successful and have a stinger hold on math.

ODE needs to get out in front to communicate to the public that there is a huge difference between the teaching and learning of math and the graduation requirements.

Once we get close to the bi-partisan Q.E.M. that was developed in the early 1990's"

Our district has been in financial problems for three years. We recently closed on of our elementary schools and consolidated from three to two neighborhood schools.

Performance is the essential criteria both for the teaching community and for students graduating from our schools and entering our workforce. We need to drop the excuses for not being able to perform to the expectations of our labor markets, and get on with the essential skills that are so necessary to making our workforce competitive in the world economy.

Pertaining to math, clarity around the movement to teaching according to the Focal Points and how that aligns with the state's assessment calendar is crucial. We want to make sure we are in sync with the assessment changes, and that has not been made as clear as we would like it to be.

Please look very closely at all Small Schools in Oregon. NCLB and the highly qualified teacher requirements have made staffing a small high school almost impossible.


Additional Comments

Raising the bar for all students in a comprehensive high school system requires careful attention be paid to the needs of those with the greatest academic needs. That means more than simply offering more time--but the additional time will be helpful.

Raising the rigor of the Benchmarks need not be the end by itself. Providing support to surmount the newly imposed high school diploma requirements need to be a priority for all schools and the Oregon Department of Education. Thank you.

Require course content, not activities. This is micromanagement beyond all hope of enforcement.

Requiring basic proficiencies is an important requirement for graduation but it is not the be all end all of education especially for students with special needs. We need to get moving on the alternate diplomas so all student have the ability to demonstrate their success

Rising standards for school children must be supported by a public commitment to stable adequate funding for the entire K-12 school system. Several years of budget cuts have long term impacts on students achievement. Support for funding higher graduation standards should be in place from the time a child enters kindergarten and it should start with full day kindergarten as funded standard in Oregon.

Schools and districts should, for the most part, be capable to use the math problem solving scoring guide, speaking scoring guide, and writing scoring guide with the corresponding performance assessments as part of the demonstrations for the Essential Skills. Schools that state that they need to have time to gear up" have not been doing what they were supposed to be doing all along."

Social promotion is killing our schools from the top down; as students continue to be promoted without the skills they need to perform at the next level, we have to spend our time providing remedial instruction rather than going on to address new material. Adding additional new requirements will simply make the problem worse. End social promotion; give us a chance.

Staffing, training and financial resources must be available to increase expectations. I believe all educators should be held highly accountable, but need the resources to be intuitive. We can not have resources pulled in the middle of a school year, and continue to expect increased rigor and academic performance.

Stop assuming the inability of the University system to graduate 50% of their 6-year cohort is caused by K-12.

Teachers are trained professionals. They need to be current. They need to teach the basics students need to survive in this world, not just this community/ state.

Thank you for your consideration and acknowledgement that these requirements come with a financial price tag.

Thank you for your leadership. We understand how difficult your work is and also how difficult it is to clearly communicate the complexity of what we are trying to do to improve K-12 education for each and every student.

thank you!

Thanks to the Board of Education for their leadership on graduation requirements.


Additional Comments

Our district is dedicated to implementing the new requirements. Please provide adequate time and funding to implement properly and over a long period of time. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.

The board must acknowledge that schools/districts are being asked to do more with less; in our current economic climate perhaps much less. I support elevated graduation requirements. However, we must maintain a realistic, big picture"

The board needs to be sympathetic to districts. It is a wonderful thing to help students reach high standards, but expecting all students to perform at a high standard with out adequate equipment or resources is counterproductive. Please provide the professionals in the state's schools with class loads, time, and supplies they need to do their jobs well.

The country, states, and public schools will and are going to suffer financially if the economic struggles seen in 2008 continue into 2009 and beyond. How can we talk about expanding and adding to graduation requirements that require added monies and staff, when the economic future of our state and country is in question? The status quo right now is essential. Put anything new on hold, including the new graduation requirement plans until there is recognized and acknowledged stable funding for the schools!!

The extended timeline allows our district to have more flexibility with regard to these changes that must occur. Unfortunately, these requirement changes are in staffing and the reduced resources in the next biennium will make implementation more difficult.

the state board needs to be realistic about the implementation of new graduation requirements but there is no doubt that it will mean additional resources ($$$$$) at a time when we are facing school budget cuts in an economy that is very fragile......

The State Board should delay the timelines for implementation of the Oregon diploma. In these uncertain economic times, slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

The state continues to forget about it's huge sped population and the needs of this section of kids. They will be very productive citizens and need to be able to graduate.

The state has done an inadequate job of providing the leadership, resources and determination needed to help schools and school district change the system to one that will address 21st century needs of children in our schools. The way in which the state moved away from CIM, before another system was thought out and solidly in place, gave dissenters permission to believe that the standards and assessments would no longer be required. Everyone is now waiting for this plan to go away also.

The state of Oregon should consider the fact that a large proportion of our students will not be able to graduate if Algebra II is a requirement for graduating.

The state should put this on hold until after the 2009-2011 biennium for two reasons. First the state budget crisis and second, we need to see what the federal requirements will be with the reauthorization of NCLB.

The state's ELD requirements make it difficult for teachers to adequately teach all core curriculum subjects. ELD students are out of the room for 30 minutes, during which time NO core curriculum can be taught--resulting in 30 fewer instructional minutes for ALL students.

The system will not move unless accountability is ensured. The system has tracked kids for too long without regard to the educational impact on students ability to progress in college as Algebra is a gateway to college. Change is needed NOW.


Additional Comments

The task of getting all students to standard is daunting, but with additional staffing levels that will create smaller class sizes and also remediation where needed we can close the gap

Think carefully about what graduation should mean. What about students who are not going on to college? Should every student be required 3 years of higher math? Or could consumer math and problem solving be available choices? What are we trying to achieve? (If the goal is higher learning for everyone- more intelligent children, tacking math onto the end is not going to get us there. We need to start at birth!)

This conversation began with the Oregon Education Act in 1991. It was never funded. We continue to make excuses for our low expectations and dismal performance standards. For almost 20 years now Oregon has chosen to sacrifice the work of countless educators to provide our students a quality education, and a diploma that dignifies their effort and prepares them for a future. Another excuse, another delay, and another dropout. From 1991 to 2014, and we're still having this conversation. Where is the shame?

To think we are going to be able to successfully implement these requirements (in a way that is health for children and families) during a severe budget cutting cycle is another act of folly.

Training teachers on how to teach public speaking must happen before we start assessing Speech. Most teachers assessing speeches know how to teach their own content, but not speaking. So essentially we'll only be doing summative assessments.

Unfortunately, in these times of financial crisis, the addition of another science credit requirement and the addition of a more rigorous math agenda for high school will cost districts additional personnel and materials. There will also be a significant paradigm shift for high school teachers to think beyond the traditional course setup for high schools. This will require significant professional development that districts most likely will not have the financial or personnel resources to implement.

We are very concerned about the need to complete Algebra 2 with so many students who struggle in math and who have math disabilities.

We have a shortage of qualified teachers at the most essential content courses we need to support higher education and in order to do that we need to prepare those future teachers that are at our K-12 system.

We need to step up the expectations of our youth. They can handle it if the adults can.

What happens to our population of non-grads and drop-outs? Will our prison population start to rise as we have more and more disenfranchised people in our State? I guess you would have to be in the trenches with us to understand all the diverse people and problems that we deal with.

When ODE applies consequences to students who fail to meet minimal standards, then students and parents will have enhanced motivation to apply themselves to achieve. Expensive class time is not the answer. Meaningful standards with proper assessment will get better results.

Why not have control groups of adults assessed as to whether they meet the standards we are asking our students to meet? Track the control groups for education, income, occupation, etc. I'm guessing not too many adults, even those of us labeled “successful" would be able to meet all the standards."

With increased requirements districts will need to address scheduling, staffing, funding....

I have concerns with little regard to the creative process for students. I agree that students need increased accountability in math, science, writing, communicating, but the state requirements DO NOT address students need(s) to be creative as well.


Additional Comments

With the new requirements in math and science, and the reduction of elective requirements, the State fails to acknowledge the importance of subjects that enhance creative thinking to advanced ability in math and science (and writing and speaking). Our best students are usually also strong in the arts. This is not a coincidence. Please think about this!

With this plan we are still moving forward and that is always a good thing.

Would like to see the speaking moved to 2014.

You have set admirable goals for educational improvement, but you haven't developed a state-wide strategy to provide on-going professional development for K-12 educators using ODE, ESD, Community College, and Higher Education partnership resources.

Your good work will lead to enhance achievement and preparedness for all students. but great differences in district capacity, student ability and parent support will cause variations in student success. In successful schools every student achieves his individual maximum potential.


yes: - · web viewmiddle school exit tests of communication and language arts proficiency with...

Documents