WASAWSSDA Legislative Update

1
WASA/WSSDALegislative Update

• Office of Superintendentof Public Instruction
• February 10, 2008

2
THE PURPOSE STATEMENTOF REFORM HB 1209

• to provide students with the opportunity to
  become responsible and respectful global
  citizens, to contribute to their economic
  well-being and that of their families and
  communities, to explore and understand different
  perspectives, and to enjoy productive and
  satisfying lives.

3
21st CENTURYDIPLOMA PORTFOLIO

• High school and beyond Plan
• Coursework aligned to standards
• CAA/CIA
• Project

4
WE NEED EDUCATION TO HELP OUR STUDENTS MEET THESE
CHALLENGES

• A dying Puget Sound that needs to be brought back
  to health
• Continued population growth Washington is
  predicted to reach 8.5 million in 20 years
• Growing transportation nightmares
• The water crisis in Eastern Washington
• 3 billion new, skilled people in the global
  workforce
• Growing poverty in our state, our nation and the
  world

5
Educating for Sustainability
6
WHAT IS SUSTAINABILITY?

• The 1987 Brundtland Report of the World
  Commission on Environment and Development
• Something can be defined as sustainable if it
  meets the needs of the present generations
  without compromising the ability of future
  generations to meet their own needs.

7
WHAT IS SUSTAINABILITY?

• In the words of first graders in Room Eight at
  Geneva Elementary in Bellingham
• It means thinking not just about yourself, but
  about the world and everything in it, on it and
  around it taking care of these things for the
  future. Everything is connected.

8
Funding
9
Capital Budget
10
2007-09 K-12 Capital Budget
11
K-12 Capital Budget Overview

• School Construction Assistance Program
• Maintenance Level Budget 873.4 M
• Area Cost Allowance of 161.14 / 167.45
• Enhancement Level Budget 7.0 M
• Area Cost Allowance of 162.43 / 168.79
• High Performance Schools 0.0 M

12
K-12 Capital Budget Overview

• Other
• Skills Centers
• Small Repair Grants
• Other Grants
• Administration
• TOTAL

13
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SCHOOL FUNDING PRE-DORAN
AND DORAN
14
MAIN FUNDING ELEMENTSFROM THE DORAN DECISIONS

• 1. DistrictEnrollment

2. Formula Staff Ratios(Teachers, Administrators
Classified staff)
3. NERC
4. Salaries Benefits State GeneralApportionme
nt
15
1993 HB 1209, A NEW POLICY COMMITMENT

• High standards for all kids Skills are the
  constant, time is the variable.
• Basic Education Act is revised to include the
  following
• A move to meaningful diplomas to prepare all
  studentsto live, learn and work in the 21st
  century
• Student learning goals
• Academic standards
• Assessments to measure progress
• Accountability for results
• Improvements in funding

16
THE FUNDING CHALLENGEOF HB1209

• No new funding structure to coincide with the new
  challenges of Basic Education Act

17
STATE FUNDING PER PUPIL
6,311
4,208
4,083
18
REBUILDING OUR FUNDING SYSTEM
19
CURRENTBUDGET PRIORITIES
20
COMPENSATION AND FOUNDATION SUPPORT

• Operating Budget Support (70 million)
• Classified and AdministratorSalary Allocations
• Pupil transportation (25 million)
• NERC (10 million)
• Classified staff ratio (158)
• Base Salary Restoration (107.5 million)
• 3.1 2003-05 COLA

21
2008 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUESTS

• Adolescent Reading Initiative (6.9 million)
• Extended learning opportunities (9 million)
• Comprehensive Career Technical Education
  (approx. 10 million)
• Safety Net (6.4 Million)
• Safety Allocation (7.3 million)

22
PAS Issues

• New language in House Appropriations Subcommittee
  on Education budget Districts can serve all
  high school students in danger of failing
  standards in programs using PAS dollars
• Further solution requested Allocation for
  assessment results, district obligated to serve
  each student, but no recovery
• No carry-over restriction (allow 100)

23
MATHEMATICS
24
NEW BALANCE IN REVISED STANDARDS

• Conceptual understanding, computational and
  procedural fluency (including efficient use of
  algorithms), applications of what is learned to
  solve problems
• Focus and depth on core content, while including
  other important mathematics
• Mathematical content and mathematical processes
• Stand-alone expectations with clarifications and
  examples

25
OSPI MATH STANDARDS REVISION TIMELINE

• October 3, 2007 begin revision process
• December 4, 2007 post Preliminary Draft
• January 20, 2008 post Review Draft
• January 24, 2008 Legislative work sessions
• January 31, 2008 submit standards to Legislature
• February 29, 2008 Final submission

26
K-8 FORMAT OFTHE REVIEW DRAFT

• At each grade
• 3-4 core content emphases
• Other content
• Core processes by grade span with grade level
  examples, each described by a paragraph
• Performance Expectations under each designation,
  with some examples and explanatory comments

27
9-12 FORMAT OF THE REVIEW DRAFTBY TOPIC VERSUS
GRADE LEVEL

• Four content topics, (algebraic structures,
  functions, geometry, and data/probability) each
  with several Core Content emphases
• Core Processes Core Content and Processes
  described by a paragraph
• Performance Expectations under each part, with
  some examples and explanatory comments
• Organization of standards by traditional and
  integrated courses will follow as per SBE
  recommendations

28
Outstanding High School Issues

• Organizing the standards into courses
• Integrated course sequence
• Traditional course sequence
• Developing fourth-year mathematics standards and
  course options
• Addressing changes in high school graduation
  requirements

29
NEXT STEPS

• Adjustments to the WASL to reflect the revised
  standards
• Curriculum Decisions
• Professional Development

30
AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM THAT EMPOWERS TEACHERS AND
IMPROVES STUDENT LEARNING

• Shorten WASL in Grades 3-8
• Redesign Student Score Reports
• Provide Classroom Assessment Tools
• Enhance Second Language and Special Education
  Accommodations

31
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
32
GOALS FOR MATH STANDARDS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

• Build initial understanding of the structure and
  math content of revised standards
• Identify math for each grade band and how that
  math is alike and different from current GLEs
• Begin training on math content that teachers need
  for depth at grade level and grade band
• Develop a transition plan for increasing coverage
  of content and process priorities in standards

33
GOALS FOR MATH STANDARDS PD

• Help high school teachers plan to begin
  addressing new third-year math graduation
  requirements as established by State Board
• Develop awareness of OSPIs plan and timeline for
  changing WASL
• Briefly explain curriculum decisions made to
  satisfy HB 1906

34
Professional Development Language

• 40 MILLION ALLOCATION
• 3 days Math and science teachers, middle and
  high school
• 5 days (and 1,500 per teacher for training
  costs) One math and one science teacher, middle
  and high school
• 2 days One math and one science teacher, fourth
  and fifth grade
• PURPOSE
• Understand and implement new standards
• Learn math and science knowledge and skills
• Prepare for student performance on new assessments

35
CURRICULUM
36
CURRENT LEGISLATION

• What the law currently says
• OSPI will provide no more than 3 recommendations
  for basic curricula, supplemental materials and
  diagnostic assessments for Elementary, Middle
  School and High School to the State Board of
  Education by May 15th, 2008.
• The State Board of Education will provide comment
  regarding the recommendations by June 30th, 2008.

37
CURRICULUM STATUS OF DISTRICTS

• Group 1 Recent Adopters with a system in place
• Group 2 Pending Adopters
• Holding funds and waiting for state decision
• Group 3 Districts with older materials and few
  resources

38
PROPOSED PLAN

• 1. Determine by mid-February complete statewide
  picture of what materials are being used
• 2. Conduct a comprehensive alignment review based
  on revised standards
• 3. Rank reviewed programs
• 4. Issue a Request For Information (RFI) to
  publishers to build a comprehensive Washington
  State K12 mathematics program
• Includes basic curricula, diagnostic and
  intervention materials
• Target response Spring 2008