Quality Education Commission
Presentation to the Education
Subcommittee on Education Innovation
January 16, 2007
Speaking to you today…
Susan Massey
Pat Burk
Commission Chair
ODE Chief Policy Officer
Quality Education Commission
Oregon’s education goals
“…the best educated citizens in the nation and the world.”
“Access to a Quality Education must be provided for all
of Oregon’s youth…” ORS 329.035
Quality Education Goals
ORS 329.015
• Academic excellence
• Rigorous academic standards
• Applied learning
• Lifelong academic skills
Quality Education Commission

What is the Quality Education Model?
The model was developed by the Legislative
Council on the Quality Education Model in
1998-99.

The QEM identifies 23 research-based
school characteristics that contribute to
increasing student achievement. It targets
90% student attainment.

Uses statewide common definitions of these
factors in district financial reporting. (Data
Base Initiative)
Quality Education Commission

What is the Quality Education Model?
Data are updated every two years by QEC.

Calculates a per-student cost of these
factors in 3 prototype school models, i.e.
elementary, middle and high school.

Uses this information to project statewide
costs of the model.

Provides analytical tool for looking at school
costs.
Quality Education Commission
12 Quality Indicators


Schools
 Leadership
 Parental/community involvement
 Organizational Adaptability
 Safe and orderly learning environment
 District policies to support learning.
Teachers
 Teacher/teaching quality
 Professional Development Program
 Teacher efficacy
Quality Education Commission
12 Quality Indicators (con’t)


Classrooms
 Effective instructional programs and methods
 School database collection and analysis to
improve instruction
Students
 Readiness to learn
 Connectedness to school and engagement in
academics and extra curricular programs.
Quality Education Commission


Components of the Model
Creates 3 prototypical school models that
contain elements that would make it
possible for 90% of students to reach state
standards. Data are drawn from Oregon
schools.
Prototypes are based on assumptions about
what these schools would look like, i.e.,
demographics, technology, staff quality,
school size, professional growth of staff.
Quality Education Commission

Components of the Model
Each Prototype has:








Adequate Staffing
Added instructional time and activities for
students not meeting standard
Curriculum development and technology support
On-site instructional improvement
Professional development for teachers and
administrators
Adequate classroom supplies
Adequate funds for building maintenance
A per-pupil calculation is applied to
projected state enrollment
Quality Education Commission
The Prototypes

Elementary—340 students
 All-day Kindergarten
 Class size average of 20 in primary grades
 Class size of 24 in grades 4-5
 4.5 FTE for specialists in areas such as art,
music, PE, reading, math, TAG, Library, ESL,
Child Development/Counselor
Quality Education Commission
The Prototypes

Middle School—500 Students
 Class size average of 25
 1.5 additional teachers for math, English, science
 Alternative programs for special needs and atrisk students
 Volunteer coordinator and community outreach
worker
 One counselor for every 250 students
 Adequate campus security
Quality Education Commission
The Prototypes

High School—1,000 students
 Class size average of 24
 3.0 additional teachers for math, English, science
 Alternative programs for special needs and atrisk students
 Volunteer coordinator and communtiy outreach
worker
 One counselor for every 250 students
 Adequate campus security
 School-to-work coordinator
Quality Education Commission
The Prototypes

Extended day and/or year

Specialized staff for library, PE, Music, Special
education services, English as a Second Language

Support staff, clerical and instructional aides

Professional development for staff

Adequate computers per student

Textbooks/supplies
Quality Education Commission
The Prototypes

Operations/maintenance

Transportation

Central special education support

Technology services

District administrative support
Quality Education Commission
The Gap: $1.96 billion
Essential
Budget Level
($ millions)
Full Funding
of the QEM
($ millions)
Difference
($ millions)
$8,969.6
$10,873.7
$1,904.1
21.2%
$791.4
$791.4
0
0.0%
$24.0
$80.0
$56.0
233.3%
$9,784.9
$11,745.0
$1,960.1
20.0%
Less: Revenue not in Formula
$280.1
$280.1
0
0.0%
Less: Federal Revenue to School Districts
and ESDs
$901.4
$901.4
0
0.0%
Equals: Total Formula Funding Requirement
$8,603.4
$10,563.5
$1,960.1
22.8%
Less: Property Taxes and Local Resources
$2,797.3
$2,797.3
0
0.0%
Equals: 07-09 State School Fund
Requirement
$5,806.1
$7,766.2
$1,960.1
33.8%
2007-09 Biennium Total District Funding
Plus: 07-09 ESD Expenditures
Plus: High-Cost Disabilities Fund
Equals: Total 07-09 Funding Requirement
Percent
Difference
Quality Education Commission
What is the Quality Education Commission?

The QEC was established by Executive Order EO 9916 on November 5, 1999, by Governor Kitzhaber and
Superintendent Bunn.

Ballot Measure 1, approved by voters in November,
2000, stated that the amount of money needed to
meet the QEM goals be appropriated or the
legislature must issue a report on the reasons for
the deficiency.
Quality Education Commission
What is the Quality Education Commission?

The charge to the QEC was modified and placed in
statute by the Oregon Legislature in the 2001
session. (ORS 327.500 and ORS 327.506)

The Commission is comprised of 11 members
appointed by the Governor and is staffed by ODE.

Issues a report to the Governor and to the
Legislature every two years.
Quality Education Commission

Who are the Commissioners?
Susan Massey, Chair,

Peggy Penland, Medford,
Retired Member State Board of
Education

Vic Backlund,
Salem,
Oregon School Boards
Association

Portland, High School
Principal
Retired Legislator


Yvonne Curtis,
Eugene
4J, Director of Student
Achievement
Ed Jensen,
Wallowa,
Region 18 ESD
Superintendent

Lynn Lundquist,
Prineville, President, Oregon
Business Association

Frank McNamara,
Portland, Willamette View, Inc.,
President/CEO (retired)
Deborah Peterson,

Lolenzo Poe,

Keith Thomson,
Multnomah
County, Advisor to the Chair,
Board of Commissioners
Beaverton, Vice President
(retired), Intel, Inc.

Duncan Wyse,

Larry Wolf,
Portland
President, Oregon Business
Council
Tigard,
President, Oregon Education
Association
Quality Education Commission
Charge to the Commission
(ORS 327.506)

Determine the amount of funding sufficient to
ensure that the State’s system of K-12 public
education meets the quality goals established in
statute. ORS 329.015 and ORS 329.025

Identify best practices in education that will lead to
high student performance and the cost of
implementing those best practices in K-12 schools.
Quality Education Commission
Charge to the Commission
(ORS 327.506)
Issue a report to the Governor and Legislature
 Current K-12 practices
 Costs of continuing those practices
 Expected student performance
 Best practices for meeting the goals
 Costs of those practices
 Expected student performance using those
practices
 Two alternatives for meeting the quality goals.
Quality Education Commission
The Role of the Commission
• Help policymakers understand the relationship between
funding and student achievement
• Identify key policy issues related to accountability,
efficiency, and adequacy
• Enhance our understanding of Oregon’s education
system as a whole: Pre-K to 20
• Estimate the funding requirements of policy proposals
• Help determine what it will take to meet the requirements
of No Child Left Behind
Quality Education Commission
The Commission’s Focus



Accountability and Governance
Efficiency
Adequacy
Quality Education Commission
Commission Goals in 2006

Provide timely and relevant data that is useful to the
legislature and the public.

Explore the relationship between funding and
student performance.

Provide effective, clear and helpful communication.
Quality Education Commission
What’s New? Enhanced Analysis

Production Function Analysis: Does
level of expenditure impact student
achievement?

Detailed Analysis of Spending by
Object and Function across
comparable states.
Quality Education Commission
Production Function Analysis

Increasing expenditures on instruction appears to
be statistically related to increasing student
achievement while controlling for the effects of
other variables, such as, limited English proficiency,
poverty, and special education categories.

Additional expenditure is not sufficient, especially in
middle and high school. Additional resources must
be accompanied by effective instructional
strategies.
Quality Education Commission
Spending Analysis

Growth in per-pupil expenditures declined beginning in 2001.

Oregon’s K-12 spending as a percentage of personal income
dropped below the national average beginning in 2001.

Oregon’s salary per staff FTE and total compensation per staff
FTE are ranked 18th and 12th in the nation respectively.

Oregon’s per student spending is $566 below the national
average.

Oregon spends more than average on student transportation
and less on non-instructional areas, such as, maintenance and
capital expenditures.
Quality Education Commission
Communication Initiative

The Commission has provided high quality,
independent data and analysis related to costs and
outcomes.

The Commission needs to improve how it shares
this information and adds value to public dialog.

A new goal of the Commission is to enhance the
public’s understanding of the education system in
Oregon.
Quality Education Commission
Commission Findings

Student progress in reaching the benchmark
standards has slowed in most grades.

Per-student funding in Oregon has dropped below
the national average.

Special student populations, particularly special
education students and students with limited
English proficiency are increasing faster than the
general students population. These special
populations require greater resources to meet the
state’s academic standards.
Quality Education Commission
Commission Findings

Class sizes continue to rise.

Course offerings outside of the subject-areas
tested on the state’s standardized tests have
diminished, resulting in a narrowing curriculum in
many schools.

Oregon’s Pre-kindergarten, K-12 and post
secondary sectors are not well aligned in either their
curricular or their resource use.
Quality Education Commission
Commission Recommendations

Provide adequate and stable funding for Oregon’s
schools.

Continue achievement gains by targeting additional
resources to the areas where added resources
have the greatest impact.
 Early Childhood Development Programs
 Early Reading Initiatives
 High School Restructuring

Conduct more research into best practices and
effective resource utilization.
Quality Education Commission
Commission Recommendations

Continue efforts to build integrated data
systems to foster alignment and coordination
among all three education sectors.

Continue efforts to improve the governance and
accountability structures that promote more
effective use of resources across all three
sectors of Oregon’s educational system.

Develop capacity to evaluate education’s role in
improving Oregon’s economy and lowering
social service costs.
Quality Education Commission
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

Alternative 1:




Phase in the provision over a 10-year period.
Allow districts time to build capacity
Spread out additional investment over time
Alternative 2:




Establish partial, most promising goals
Reading in the early grades and sustained into middle
grades
Teacher and administrator professional development
High school strategies that emphasize rigorous,
personalized learning for all students
Quality Education Commission
Questions and Discussion
Visit our website at http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=166