1. State Board of Education December 2013 Revision of Instructional Materials Adoption Process and Delay for Mathematics 1

2. Outline Review of current adoption process for the Oregon State Board of Education Review options that districts have when they adopt Highlight challenges with the current process ODE staff recommendations for next steps 2

3. Overview of current review cycle October 2013 Draft rubric for next adoption December 2013 State Board first read of criteria January 2014State Board adopt criteria Notice sent to publishers March 2014Proposals & Bid sheets due May 2014Publisher summaries due July 2014Materials Evaluation (WOU) October 2014State Board materials adoption November 2014Final contracts & bonds 3

4. Options for districts Districts can select materials identified on the instructional materials list Districts can independently adopt materials OAR 581-022-1640 Districts can postpone adoption of materials OAR 581-022-1650 4

5. Challenges with the current adoption process Expensive process for publishers – Fewer publishers may participate, possibly preclude smaller publishers from engaging in the review process – Current process does not review supplemental, or open source materials – Unclear how subscription based materials would be priced Data is not collected to know what materials have been adopted off the list, or independently adopted in the state Surveys indicate that state and district adoption cycles appear not to be in sync – Professional learning team (PLT) conference survey indicates few districts plan to adopt the year after the state review process CCSS ELA – 10% 2013-14 CCSS Math – 22% 2014-15 – PLT surveys indicated many districts have adopted or implemented CCSS materials prior to state review process CCSS ELA – 44% 2012-13 or earlier CCSS Math – 48% 2013-14 or earlier 5

6. Challenges with the current adoption process Many districts conduct appear to conduct their own local review of materials, although needs vary by region (PLT survey) – “Very Likely” would conduct their own review Eastern conference – 30% Portland conference – 48% – “Very Unlikely” would conduct their own review Eastern conference – 57% Portland conference – 33% Information from the review process does not appear to help most districts (PLT survey) – Survey Statement: The state instructional materials review process provides useful information that supports the local review of materials in our district 20% - Strongly or somewhat Agree 52% - Strongly or somewhat Disagree 6

7. Challenges with the current adoption process PLT conference survey comments and recommendations – [It would be great] to have a comparison of the materials and not just an approved list of materials. – Use districts or ESD's to create a wider number of materials for review. Connect with other states now that we have common standards. Collect data about curriculum used in districts and review materials on those publications. – [Provide] useful tools for teaching to the CCSSs – Time line is not supportive to making sure schools purchase wisely and teacher are trained prior to implementation. – How applicable is it to the tablet computer format? – A seven year rotating adoption process makes the adoption of digital materials a lost opportunity. – Stop doing it 7

8. ODE Staff recommendations: Mathematics adoption Adopt mathematics review criteria in 2014 Delay the adoption process for mathematics materials for at least one year. – Convene workgroups to provide feedback on the review and revision of Oregon law – Revise ORS 337 and submit for next legislative cycle (~April 2014). – Revise OAR 581 division 11 (instructional materials), and adoption options in division 22 (OAR 581-22-1640, OAR 581-22-1622, OAR 581-22-1650) after new statues have been passed. Support the independent adoption process for CCSS mathematics materials in 2014-15. – Provide opportunities for districts to review CCSS mathematics materials. – Support local reviews of materials using the adopted criteria. 8