FAQ for the Change.Org Petition 

1. What are the subjects a child in a public elementary school in Oregon should be learning about?

The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has requirements for public schools in Oregon.  Each local school district must abide by the requirements specified in the Division 22 Standards for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.  

According to these standards, public school districts must provide a planned instructional program for grades K-12 in the following areas:

• Language arts (reading, writing, speaking and listening)

• Mathematics

• Science 

• Social science (including history, geography, economics and civics)

• The arts (dance, media arts, music, theatre, and visual arts)

• World languages

• Health education

• Physical education

• Social-emotional learning

• Technology

2.  What are the subjects that children in grades K- 5 in Springfield Public Schools are being taught?

Elementary teachers report that their students are learning reading, math, PE and music with little or no time allowed for much else, because the teachers do not have the necessary time during the school day and/or the teaching materials they need to teach the other subjects adequately.  

3.  Why should I be concerned if a student is mostly learning reading, math, PE and music and not much else?

There are at least three reasons you should be concerned.  

First, parents and guardians assume that if the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) tells public school districts that they MUST have a planned instructional program for students in all grades, then their local school district has such a plan.  Each fall, district leadership sends a report to ODE declaring for the previous year whether or not the district had such a plan in compliance with ODE requirements.  ODE expects districts to use the honor system when they submit this report.  It appears that district leadership has filed reports that misrepresent what is going on in the district.  Currently, the Springfield Public Schools district is under investigation by ODE for being out of compliance with ODE requirements around district curriculum. 

Second, middle and high school teachers reported to the SPS School Board in 2024 that students are arriving from elementary schools unprepared. Their incoming students lack fundamental knowledge and skills they should have gained at the elementary level, especially in science and social science.  Teachers at the upper levels should be able to assume that their students have received six years of instruction in science, social science, health, the arts, technology, and social-emotional learning.   Teachers need to assume this to be true, because Oregon has standards for teachers to address for each subject at each grade level.  For example, the state standards for science begin in kindergarten and go up to grade 12, with each year building on the skills and knowledge students should have gained in previous years.  Sixth grade science teachers at the middle schools need their incoming students to have had years of experience conducting scientific investigations, so those students are ready to learn and can be successful.  Moreover, as Bill Nye has said, there is “very compelling research that fourth grade, or ten years old, was about as old as you can be to get a lifelong passion for science.”

Third, in recent years, skilled teachers have been leaving the district, because they haven’t felt permitted to teach in a way that meets the needs of the kids. (On a related note: The district has does not routinely conduct face-to-face exit interviews to learn how they might have retained these committed educators.)

Veteran teachers remember a time when empathy and compassion for students were key in making decisions about what happens in a classroom.  They remember a time when teachers felt respected and were trusted to make school relevant, engaging, and even fun for students.  Now it seems to teachers as if the school day is centered solely on preparing students for standardized tests in reading and math.

4.  Don’t elementary school teachers decide how their students spend the school day?

For the most part, no.  The schedule for most of what students learn and when they learn it is created by the school principal under strict requirements from district leadership.  Below is a chart showing how time during a typical week was allocated at one elementary school:

*The teacher who shared this tells us that “school/class business” encompasses an array of events in their classroom that are necessary to keeping students informed and prepared, including taking attendance, listening to the morning announcements, participating in class meetings, teaching and reviewing school and classroom expectations, rules and procedures, cleaning up the classroom, and getting students packed up and out the door at the end of the day.

Notice how little time was allowed for social-emotional learning, science, social science, and health.  Also notice that except for music, no time was provided for arts education.

5.  Why aren’t elementary students learning much beyond reading, math, PE, and music?

First, as shown in the answer to question #4, elementary school schedules dictate how much time is allocated for instruction in different subjects.  If a teacher only has 20 minutes per week to teach science, their students will not be learning much of the science they ought to be learning.

Second, teachers of grades K-5 do not have access to teaching materials for a number of different subjects.  This is sadly true, because district leadership has chosen not to follow Oregon’s 2023 instructional materials adoption schedule for grades K-5.  ODE publishes a schedule for districts to use to make sure that students and school staff have access to high-quality, up-to-date materials in each subject area.  These materials should both address state standards and have been approved by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE).  The adoption of materials follows a cycle, so districts do not need to adopt and purchase teaching materials for more than one subject in a year.  

Elementary school teachers in the Springfield Public Schools have not had a state-approved, standards-aligned curriculum for science since 2013, in spite of the fact that the 2018 instructional materials adoption schedule dictated that public school districts in Oregon should have adopted new science curriculum in both 2016 and in 2023!  However, in 2023 and 2024, Springfield district leadership did not advance this process for our elementary schools.  Things are similar when it comes to social sciences (history, geography, economics, and civics.)  District leadership should have advanced the process for selecting and providing elementary school teachers with new state-approved, standards-aligned social science curriculum in 2018, but they did not.  

6. My child tells me that they have Mystery Science at their school.   Why does the use of Mystery Science fall short of meeting students' needs and ODE requirements for science instruction?

There are several reasons why the use of Mystery Science doesn't provide teachers and students what they need when it comes to science instruction.  Teachers we have spoken with have told us that while they like Mystery Science, they recognize that it is insufficient for the kind of hands-on science instruction aligned with Oregon's science standards that their students need.   

First, Mystery Science is not a comprehensive science curriculum approved by the Oregon Department of Education.  Prior to when districts were supposed to adopt, purchase, and implement a new science curriculum in 2023, ODE analyzed, scored, and approved different sets of science curricula for districts to choose from.  Lane ESD, our local resource for all schools in Lane county, received and displayed sets of the approved science curricula that teachers, district administrators, and other curious people could closely examine. (Here is a link to a spreadsheet from ODE that you can download.  It lists which science curricula they analyzed and which ones met the state's requirements for a science curriculum at different grade levels.  The spreadsheet shows how each curriculum scored according the criteria set by ODE, and it also contains links to the publishers' websites.)  

One important reason that Mystery Science cannot meet students' needs or ODE requirements is that it does not provide content that would allow a teacher to address all of the science standards.  In other words, there are many important science topics that are not part of Mystery Science.  According to ODE:

"...there is a requirement to teach all of the standards, which by definition means science instruction must happen at every grade-level and that instruction should address all of the standards for that grade-level."  (Section A3, Science Standards FAQ)

Second, the elementary school schedules strictly limit how teachers can provide instruction, and as shown in the answer to question #4 above, there may only be 20 to 30 minutes per week allocated for science instruction.  Research cited by the science specialists at ODE indicates that students should receive 45 minutes per day of science instruction. Teachers in Springfield are simply not allowed to devote the amount of time to science instruction that the research recommends whether it is Mystery Science or a curriculum approved by ODE.

Third, part of what makes good science instruction so engaging for students is that there is usually a hands-on component.  They are given a chance to explore a phenomena (like by looking at samples of fossils using a hand lens or manipulating magnets to see what they do) so they can get fully engaged and begin to develop an understanding of the phenomena. This hands-on component requires science equipment and other support materials (like hand lenses, samples of fossils, or magnets.)  While Mystery Science does have a few lessons that have a hands-on component, teachers have not been provided with the array of science equipment and other materials they need to do these lessons.

Fourth, we heard from teachers that the way they used Mystery Science was to show the online videos to their students, and if time allowed, lead a discussion of what they saw on the video.  While this is better than nothing, it is not the science instruction students need.   No one would put up with physical education instruction in which students sat at their desks and did little more than watch videos of other students running or jumping or playing basketball.  No one would tolerate art instruction in which students only watched videos of other students painting or drawing or sculpting with no opportunities to handle paint brushes, markers, or clay.  Yet, somehow it is acceptable for students to receive science instruction that has no hands-on components?

Mystery Science has value, but it is insufficient for meeting students' needs.  It is like giving a child a handful of crackers to eat when what they need and want is a nutritious meal.  The kids deserve better than the occasional science snack that the district currently allows.

7. The petition calls for "reworking elementary school report cards."  Why is this necessary?

While a report card is a tool for tracking and communicating student performance and effort, it also serves to remind students, school staff, parents, and families of the things that are the highest priorities at school.   Teachers and school staff will teach certain things and conduct certain assessments based on what the report card tracks and communicates.  For example, if the report card has a place to put a score for a topic like persuasive writing, then teachers will want to make sure they have taught lessons on persuasive writing and given their students opportunities to do persuasive writing.  If there is no place on the report card to indicate how a student performs or shows effort in a particular area like writing poetry, then teachers may be inclined not to teach any poetry or to not assess any poems students have written.  

Notice that for each Content Area above, there is NO place on the report card for the teacher to record and report on the level of a student's performance for art, health, PE, library, media, music, science, social studies or technology.   Clearly, student performance in these areas is not important to the district, or the report card would list areas of skill and knowledge for a teacher to assess, record, and communicate to families. 

To recap: 

English language arts: 21 lines requiring a score (18 for performance, 3 for effort)

Mathematics: 16 lines requiring a score (15 for performance, 1 for effort) 

Characteristics of a Successful Learner: 8 lines requiring a score for effort only

Content Area: 8 lines requiring a score for effort only

Looking at an elementary report card would make one think that the district only values student performance in English language arts and mathematics.  Most of the report card is devoted to just two subjects.  Other subjects like science, social studies, music and art only require a score for student effort.  They are on a par with "writes legibly," and therefore in the district's opinion, students, parents, and teachers need not concern themselves with how well a student performs in these "Content Areas."

Reworking the elementary report card so that it reports and communicates the levels of student performance in areas like art, music, science, social studies, etc. is critically important.  These "Content Areas" are each an essential part of what a student should be studying while attending elementary school, and they should be treated as such. 

8. Why does the petition call for the creation of a task force of all stakeholders to develop a long-term plan for the district?

We believe that neither the district administrative leadership nor the SPS School Board have demonstrated that they have the will or the vision to do what needs to be done. We believe there has been much too much focus in the elementary schools, at district meetings, and at School Board meetings on standardized test scores in reading and math.  Despite district leadership's insistence that it uses data-driven decision making, low scores on state standardized tests in science at grades 5, 8, and 11 are not even discussed, analyzed, or considered.  By the district’s own standards, the current way of doing things is producing dismal scores.  

The district mission statement says: “We seek to improve every child's quality of experience by meeting their needs—one child at a time.” Students can succeed only when they want to be in school, because they feel seen and valued as individuals, and because they are offered a rich and engaging curriculum by teachers free to demonstrate their own love of learning.

The district mission statement also says: “We know the best way to achieve (student success) is by working to ensure our students, staff, parents and community members are all learning together. Through ongoing conversations with the community, we believe children are better prepared to take advantage of opportunities to allow for their future success.”  Students, parents, teachers and school staff need to be included in those conversations, and at the moment, their voices are not being heard.  

There is a local precedent for creating a task force of all stakeholders to make a long-term plan for a school district.  During the past year, Bethel School District created and adopted a long-term strategic plan laid out in “The Bethel Blueprint” using input and participation from students, school staff, parents and members of the community.  Bethel Superintendent Kraig Sproles explained that:

“The Bethel Blueprint was developed over 10 months and is designed to be a flexible, student-centered document that incorporates community voice. We heard from more than 4,000 people who emphasized the importance of supporting the whole child by focusing on relevant curriculum, responsive systems, student and staff well-being, deep engagement, and joyful learning spaces. Our plan describes a Bethel district that is responsive to student needs, fosters a sense of belonging for all, celebrates learning, and implements strong systems. Becoming the school district described in this document would have a profound impact on our students and be a source of pride for our entire community.” (p. 3, The Bethel Blueprint)

9. Why doesn’t the SPS School Board make sure that the district is doing what it is supposed to be doing?

The School Board’s role is policy, not day-to-day management, for which the Superintendent is responsible. But the School Board is accountable to students, families, and the electorate, and must ensure that students are receiving the education they need and deserve, and that the district is in compliance with Oregon Department of Education requirements.   

It appears that the SPS School Board is not fully up-to-speed on what is really going on throughout the district, and if the district administration chooses not to provide them with information about a particular topic, then members of the School Board tend not to know about it.  This has meant that teachers have had to reach out directly to the School Board.  For example, in July, 2025, SPS School Board members each received a letter signed by 75 SPS teachers, decrying the fact that our children are being harmed by district policies that preclude instruction in art, science, and social science.  As of yet, the School Board has taken no action based on the information they received from the teachers in this letter.

It is time for a change in Springfield.  

Please support a new way forward for the Springfield Public Schools by signing and sharing this petition which we submit in the spirit of the mission statement!