Completely Changing the Way Oregon Sets Its Education Goals and Funding Targets Calls for Some Debate

New initiatives frequently come and go in Oregon's education policy landscape, sometimes at a pace that makes it difficult to track current requirements or to assess outcomes.

After 25 years, the Quality Education Commission and Quality Education Model have lasted longer than most education ideas, and they are showing their age. But that doesn't mean it's time to just jettison this well-intended endeavor with little discussion.

Senate Bill 1555 would overturn a quarter-century of public education planning, dumping the volunteer Quality Education Commission in favor of a paid contractor working with the Legislature.

The Quality Education Commission is made up of 11 members appointed by the governor. Its members are leaders in a variety of education arenas. The commission is tasked with looking at research and best practices nationally and in Oregon to determine what a quality education in Oregon should look like and the outcomes it should achieve.

As part of this process, the QEC builds a model for three prototype schools (an elementary, middle and high school), with the services, staffing and other resources necessary to meet the state goals. The QEC then reverse engineers the math to determine how much funding would be needed for all schools in Oregon to replicate that Quality Education Model.

This process is repeated every two years, with a report coming out prior to the odd-year legislative sessions when the biennial budget is set. Following the legislative session, the Joint Committee on Public Education Appropriation releases a report assessing how close (or not) the Legislature got to meeting the necessary funding level identified by the QEC.

In recent years, skepticism about the value of this process has grown, with even QEC members expressing a need for clearer guidelines and consistency year over year. This led to the Legislature contracting with the American Institutes for Research to review the process, assess its efficacy, and make recommendations for improvement. The results of that report left the Legislature with much to consider.

In November, the joint committee for the first time released a report that Oregon had met the QEM funding level (by virtue of including additional funds that hadn't previously been counted as part of the assessment) and also announced that they would be bringing forward a proposal for a new model.

In January, the committee gave a preview of SB 1555, which would significantly alter this process.

First, there would be no more Quality Education Commission. Instead of a governor-appointed group of Oregonians setting the goals for our education system, the Legislative Policy and Research Office would work with a public or private contractor to build a cost model for a quality education in Oregon.

The model would be updated every eight years, not every two. In the intervening years, the funding needed would be calculated similarly to how the state rolls up costs for all agencies. That is to say, the model would be updated to account for inflation but not any other significant changes in Oregon's education landscape.

The bill also included changes to the definition of a "standard" school district to include compliance with all state and federal laws. Although seemingly innocuous, this change could have significant implications for the reporting requirements put on local districts. This type of shift would require a more detailed conversation to fully vet any potential unintended consequences.

We also have questions about the shift to a new method for determining what an Oregon education looks like and at what level it should be funded. More stability in the process is likely good, but we have concerns about how and where local expertise would be involved in any outside contractor's work.

There is a certain level of transparency and public accountability that comes from having a group of Oregon citizens overseeing the current QEM. What does it mean to have an office of the Legislature commissioning the very report that is intended to tell them how much they should be spending?

Amendments have been posted that would address some of the concerns around public involvement and transparency. But the bigger picture questions still remain.

The Legislature is clearly feeling urgency around our education system, passing a significant overhaul to our accountability system via SB 141 in 2025. The details of implementation for that bill are still being worked out. Members of the committee questioned the wisdom of moving a bill that makes such fundamental changes to our existing processes so quickly and with such little time for discussion.

That will ultimately be a question for the House Education Committee though, not the Joint Committee on Public Education Appropriation. The bill is scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 10, and for a work session on Thursday, Feb. 12. Work sessions are where committees can take a vote on whether to move a bill to the floor.

That's not much time for such a big change.

Although Oregon's funding process for its education goals could certainly use some work, trying to do it in short session with limited time for debate, discussion and (most importantly) refining seems rash.

- Stacy Michaelson
OSBA Government Relations and Communications director