ODE, researchers outline how Oregon measures up on instructional time and what can be done to protect learning
Loading...
Summary
State officials and education researchers told the House Interim Committee on Education that Oregon’s instructional-time rules set minimums but the state does not collect district-level minute counts; research finds more instructional time generally improves outcomes if paired with better instructional practices. Committee members raised concerns about chronic absenteeism and uneven district allowances for activities counted as instructional time.
State education officials and national researchers briefed the House Interim Committee on Education on Jan. 13 about how instructional time is defined, monitored and used in Oregon and across the U.S.
Oregon Department of Education officials explained the administrative‑rule definitions and enforcement process. Alexa Pearson, Assistant Superintendent (Office of Teaching, Learning and Assessment), summarized Division 22 rules that define instructional time as supervised learning activities under licensed instructors and listed what districts may include or exclude when they calculate minutes. The rule sets required minimum annual hours by grade band (for example, the rule reference indicates 900 hours for kindergarten through eighth grade and a higher requirement for upper grades), and districts must ensure at least 80% of students at each school and 92% district‑wide are scheduled to receive those minimum hours. ODE’s Division 22 specialist, Susan Payne, described the monitoring process: districts report annually through a Division 22 assurance process, post reports to local boards and submit corrective‑action plans when they self‑report noncompliance. Payne said ODE provides coaching and technical assistance and that statute permits withholding portions of the state school fund only after opportunities to correct are given.
Committee members pressed for more centralized data. ODE officials said they do not currently collect a statewide spreadsheet of district minutes and that some allowances — for example, up to 30 hours of staff professional development and up to 30 hours of parent‑teacher conferences that some districts count — create interdistrict variation in total instructional minutes. Members said that variation can amount to weeks of instructional difference across neighboring districts and asked whether ODE tracks how districts use those allowances; ODE said it does not collect that level of detail at present.
The committee also heard national context and research from Education Commission of the States and Brown University researcher Matt Craft. Jennifer Thompson (Education Commission of the States) outlined state-by-state variation in how instructional time is specified (days, hours or minutes; whether recess or lunch is counted; whether districts set start/end dates). Matt Craft summarized a synthesis of 74 rigorous studies and said that, on average, more instructional time improves student outcomes but is most effective when paired with high‑quality instructional practice and measures to reduce lost learning time. He cautioned that four‑day school weeks that reduce total instructional time tend on average to lower student achievement and create instability for families; districts that maintain total instruction while moving to a four‑day week fare better than those that reduce hours.
Committee members raised chronic absenteeism as a related issue and asked about policy levers (teacher absence policies, attendance interventions, and school-level practices to limit external interruptions) that could maximize existing instructional time.
The informational hearing was for background; no legislative action was taken during this session. The committee members asked ODE and researchers to provide additional data and to consider ways to better document how districts use allowances that count toward instructional time.
