Review and Revision of Instructional Materials Adoption Process

1. Review and Revision ofInstructional Materials Adoption Process State Board of Education January 2014

2. Outline • Informational update for the Board • Oregon statutes and rules relating to instructional materials need to be revised to remove unnecessary regulations and enact supportive policies • 2014: Initiate statewide workgroups to provide feedback on an improved process and draft new legislation • 2015: Present new statutes to Oregon Legislature and update related administrative rules

3. Need to revise statutes and rules describing the state adoption process Rationale for need to change our current Oregon state adoption process: • The current state adoption process requires publishers to pay for their materials to be reviewed, which creates an expensive process that may: • Preclude smaller publishers from engaging in the review process or • Preclude some publishers from submitting all available materials • Currently, the state can only review “basal” materials that are paid by the publisher to be reviewed on a seven year cycle, which would preclude the review of: • Supplemental materials (digital and/or print) • Intervention programs • Open Educational Resources (OER) • New materials developed between review cycles • Data is not collected to know what materials have been adopted off the list, or independently adopted in the state • A better understanding of what materials are adopted in the state will help districts as they consider the purchase of new materials

4. Need to revise Oregon statutes and rules National reports, such as “Choosing Blindly” by the Brookings Institution, and “Out of Print” by State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), strongly recommend states update their curricular review policies to keep up with changes in instructional materials Effectiveness research of curricular materials underscore their importance • A thorough review of materials that results in identifying high quality curricula could potentially lead to significant gains in student achievement Effect size, in standard deviations, of selected interventions on student test scores Source: Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core, Brookings Institution (2012)

5. Significance of the proposed change • Move to common standards means Oregon will need to adapt future adoption cycles to the development of shared standards • We need to start the conversation today how such adoptions could look in the future • A new process should take advantage of collaborative opportunities work with other states • This spring, CCSSO is initiating discussions about a possible multi-state review • Materials selection could impact student achievement as much as an effective teacher • More attention should be given to ensuring our students and teachers have access to quality materials in a variety of available formats including digital and print options

6. District survey results: Need to revise Oregon statutes and rules ODE Staff Action • Beginning in 2014, ODE staff to work to convene regional and statewide workgroups to provide feedback and draft revisions of Oregon instructional materials statutes to be presented in the 2015 legislative session Note: Invitations were sent in January 2014 for districts to respond to the recommended actions and provide feedback. Twenty-eight districts within 12 ESD regions responded completed the survey. District survey summary for this recommended action: • 82% of respondents indicate they either Strongly Agree or Somewhat Agree with the given recommendation • 14% of respondents indicate they are Neutral with the given recommendation • 4% of respondents indicate they Somewhat Disagree with the given recommendation • 0% of respondents indicate they Strongly Disagree with the given recommendation

7. Considerations to begin conversations at this time Key considerations guiding the start of this project: • A new process needs to include the review of digital and/or open educational materials (OER) on an adaptive review cycle • A new process needs to minimize and/or remove barriers to publishers to encourage maximum participation of material submissions. • A new process needs to address how materials developed both within and outside the state of Oregon could be leveraged by schools and districts. • A new process needs to review materials that are both traditionally priced as well as newer purchasing arrangements such as subscriptions that would allow access to updated materials. • A new process needs to help identify high quality basal, supplemental, and open source formats, which would include establishing relevant review criteria for Oregon districts.