State again delays release of Springfield elementary curriculum investigation

The Oregon Department of Education has extended the timeline of the investigation into Springfield Public Schools’ elementary curriculum by another six months.

The department sent a letter Nov. 14 to teacher Mikell Harshbarger, who filed the initial complaint, and Springfield schools Superintendent Todd Hamilton, telling them that the state was extending its deadline for releasing the investigation results until May 15.

Stacey Guise, complaint and appeals resolution unit manager at Oregon Department of Education, cited the large size and scope of the investigation, “the complexity of legal issues before the department,” and the backlog of appeals and complaints that the department is working through. The reasons mirror the ones Guise gave in a previous letter to Harshbarger in May, in which she announced an extension of the investigation to Nov. 15.

This is the third time the state education department has delayed the release of the results after Harshbarger appealed his complaint to the state nearly a year and a half ago.

“The Department is currently experiencing a high volume of complaints and appeals,” Guise wrote in her letter. “The current backlog is causing significant wait times for investigations to commence and for orders (determinations) to be drafted. Department staff are working hard to reduce wait times; however, we remain committed to providing a fair and thorough process for each and every case.”

Harshbarger, a fourth-grade teacher at Elizabeth Page Elementary School, sent a letter to two school board members in November 2023, complaining that the district was out of compliance with state requirements that teachers have instructional materials for science and social studies that meet state standards. The district took the letter as a formal complaint and, after an internal investigation, ruled Harshbarger’s claims were untrue in May 2024. He appealed to the state in June 2024.

Brian Richardson, spokesperson for Springfield Public Schools, said the district has provided all the information the Oregon Department of Education has requested throughout the investigation.

“We value ODE’s commitment to a thorough and comprehensive review,” Richardson said. “Springfield Public Schools remains confident in the quality of our curriculum practices, as demonstrated by ongoing gains in student outcome and improving graduation rates, and look forward to the conclusion of the investigation.”

Harshbarger said he was disappointed, but not surprised that the state extended the investigation timeline. An investigator spoke to him for 90 minutes in March but, to his knowledge, has not reached out to other people that Harshbarger suggested for interviews.

“There shouldn’t be a backlog,” Harshbarger said. “Justice delayed is justice denied. This is not only affecting me and my kids — this is a bigger problem if we have the people who do investigations where people were wronged and it takes years. And according to their stuff, it’s only supposed to take 90 days.”

According to Oregon Department of Education policy, the department completes investigations within 90 days of a district responding to the complaint or appeal. Districts have 30 days to respond. If the department had followed this policy, it would have finished the investigation of Harshbarger’s appeal by October 2024.

Rep. John Lively, who represents Springfield in the Legislature, said he was aware of the investigation but had not heard about the additional delay.

“While I understand this is a complex case and appreciate the time it can take to fully investigate a complaint, I am also dissatisfied by the amount of time it is taking to release the findings,” Lively wrote in a statement to Lookout Eugene-Springfield. “I’ve heard concerns from constituents and will continue to follow this issue closely.”

The investigation has sparked public criticism of the district online and during board meetings and caused upheaval on the Springfield Board of Education after a board member reached out to the state education department about the investigation. 

Jonathan Light asked the department about the status of the investigation, and the superintendent and assistant superintendent filed a formal complaint about Light because he did not tell district leadership or other board members about his inquiry. Board members later voted to remove Light from his position as chair for “abuse of authority” and for leaking the confidential district complaint about his overreach to the public.