Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
QuickTake:
Teachers complained the district is not providing adequate time and instructional materials for certain subjects, and that the district inaccurately reported compliance for the 2023-24 school year. The district's investigation found the curriculum was in compliance.
An attorney hired by Springfield Public Schools says the district accurately reported curriculum compliance during the 2023-24 school year.
The investigation, conducted by Elliot Field from Salem-based Garrett Hemann Robertson law firm, was ordered after an August letter from 75 teachers. Teachers obtained a copy of Field’s report Feb. 12.
Elementary teacher Mikell Harshbarger wrote the letter the teachers signed. Harshbarger and other signatories say that the district is not providing adequate educational programming in science, social studies, art and health, and that the district inaccurately reported compliance for the 2023-24 school year.
Harshbarger filed his first complaint about curriculum compliance to the district in 2023 and appealed it to the Oregon Department of Education in June 2024. He is still waiting on a response after multiple delays. His complaints, at both the state and district level, hinge on an argument that the disproportionate time allocated to reading and math instruction has pushed other subjects to the margins.
Field’s report states that Springfield Public Schools was legally correct in their reporting of a curriculum in compliance, despite still being in the process of creating some instructional materials.
Harshbarger argued in a written response submitted to the Springfield Board of Education that the investigator took the district’s word at face value without delving into the details of how the district’s plan was playing out. He and the other 74 teachers appealed the results to the board.
“We’re worried about the kids that we currently have in our classrooms,” Harshbarger said in an interview with Lookout Eugene-Springfield. “The fact that they’re working on it doesn’t help these kids right now.”
What the report says
Field interviewed three administrators, three teachers, reviewed district curriculum materials, state reporting documents, board meeting minutes, board policies and communications with Oregon Department of Education administrators.
Field reached out to 22 teachers from the 75 who had signed Harshbarger’s letter. In the footnotes of the report he wrote, “Three teachers responded with a message declining to be interviewed: one expressing discomfort with participating in an interview because of negative things occurring in the District, and two expressing fear of reprisal or retribution if they were to participate.”
The report put a special focus on elementary science and social studies curriculum, saying that because the district was in the process of creating its own materials that will be anchored in readings from the language arts curriculum, the district was correct to report compliance for the 2023-24 year.
Field emphasized that Springfield administrators were in touch with Oregon Department of Education officials during 2024, who said Springfield was “right on track” with their integration of language arts and science curriculums and recommended the district submit an action plan with their annual compliance report. Administrators submitted that action plan.
He included notes about a memo written by Whitney McKinley, director of teaching and learning, about a call she had with an education department official in May 2024: “McKinley’s memo notes that the District faced fiscal and human resource challenges with elementary textbook adoptions, coupled with the priority the District places on reading.”
When a district chooses not to adopt a state-approved curriculum, they can go through an independent adoption of their own materials. Springfield announced it was pursuing independent adoption of elementary science and social studies curricula in spring 2024 and asked for a year extension for developing science curriculum, which was granted. The timeline was extended again in the district’s action plan submitted to the state in fall 2024. Administrators said materials preparation would be done in 2025, for implementation in 2026. According to the Oregon Department of Education’s curriculum adoption schedule, fall 2026 is the final deadline to implement new science curriculum in classrooms.
Brian Richardson, communications director for Springfield schools, said in an emailed statement Feb. 27 that district administrators will present elementary science materials to the board in April for review with the goal of formal adoption in May.
“Over the past two years, elementary teachers have deepened their understanding of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) while reviewing current materials, conducting a gap analysis, and identifying needed supplements,” Richardson wrote in the statement. “This extension ensured staff had adequate time to fully understand the standards and make informed recommendations before entering a formal adoption process.”
Richardson said administrators will seek the board’s approval of to postpone elementary social studies curriculum. He did not say how long the requested postponement will be.
“We intend to follow a process similar to the recent science review; however, we anticipate a more streamlined timeline given teachers’ strengthened understanding of their language arts materials and readiness to engage in the work,” Richardson stated.
Differing views
The three teachers that Field talked to said the district does not provide sufficient curriculum for science and social studies and teachers largely come up with lesson plans themselves to meet goals.
One teacher said the “Mystery Science” materials they were given (a science curriculum that, as Field notes, does not meet Oregon science standards) was a resource, not required material. Another teacher said the language arts curriculum, while robust in other ways, does not offer enough social studies or science materials to adequately teach students.
The classroom accounts contrast with Field’s legal conclusions from district curriculum documents he reviewed.
“The District’s efforts to create cross curricular lessons and bundles to provide NGSS-aligned instruction were in-process during the 2023-2024 school year,” he wrote. “The incomplete nature of this work does not translate to a conclusion that the District failed to provide a planned instructional program for science delivered through Wonders along with supplemental instruction using Mystery Science.”
His conclusion on elementary social studies was similar, noting that while the social studies curriculum wasn’t complete, “the underlying instructional program was in place, being provided, and the District had a reasonable basis to report compliance with the District Curriculum Standard.”
Field determined through reviewing district documents on art and health curriculum that the district was also correct to report compliance in these subjects. He wrote the district said there is no state recommended curriculum for art, but it is embedded in classroom instruction, library, P.E. and music instruction.
Harshbarger argued in his response that teachers have insufficient time to teach science, social studies, art and health, and some buildings have allocated no time to art. He admonished the investigator for not looking at building schedules. Field asserted in his report that the state has no set requirement of minutes for these subjects, making the complaint of lack of instructional minutes null.
Harshbarger was also critical of the investigation’s lack of knowledge of state standards.
“Field does not consult these standards, and so instead of comparing what is happening at the classroom level with what ODE expects, he relies on the district leadership’s claims that these standards are being fully addressed in grades K-5,” he wrote about art standards.
He had the same criticism of the investigator’s failure to read the state science and social studies standards and compare them to sections of science and social studies in the language arts curriculum from which the district is anchoring lessons.
Harshbarger noted in his written response to the board that Fields did not talk to science teacher on special assignment, Dara Brennan, who, according to McKinley’s report to the board in April 2024, was creating the elementary science curriculum materials.
The complaint and what’s next
Jonathan Gault, Springfield teachers union president, sent a letter to the board Feb. 18 on behalf of the 75 teachers who signed the letter of complaint, saying that the teachers were not satisfied with the findings and wanted to appeal the decision.
He attached Harshbarger’s written response, which argued the investigation was inadequate.
Now that the teachers have appealed the district’s conclusions, the board has a decision to make. According to board policy, “appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, holding a hearing, requesting additional information, and adopting the superintendent’s decision as the district’s final decision.” Board members may discuss the investigation in a closed, executive session before they vote on what to do next publicly.
The question of whether Springfield’s elementary curriculum is in compliance has been at the heart of the district’s year of conflict between the board and district leaders, which has resulted in the resignations of the superintendent and assistant superintendent, as well as the school board chair. Current chair Jonathan Light said he is ready to move forward.
“I’m very excited to seat our acting superintendent,” he said. “We’ve had so many other things going on that we have not been focused on the business of education.”
Have something to say?
Send us a Letter to the Editor. Read our guidelines for Letters to the Editor here.
