The Oregon Department of Education began convening a legislatively mandated discussion on accountability in February 2024, more than a year ago.
We saw the first public results this week of those hours and hours of meetings, research and recommendations. Gov. Tina Kotek’s twin bills on accountability faced hearings in the House and Senate education committees. House Bill 2009 and Senate Bill 141 are identical to meet procedural requirements for them to be heard in both policy committees.
OSBA has been involved in this process from the beginning, with Executive Director Emielle Nischik participating in the advisory committee process as well as the governor’s smaller group discussions in more recent months. The conversation has come a long way over the past year, but the posted bills with -1 amendments still need refining before becoming workable law.
The bills’ key elements include:
- Adding metrics and targets for performance growth rates for attendance in grades K-2, eighth grade math proficiency and one local metric from a list of three options provided by the Oregon State Board of Education. Similar districts will be compared across disaggregated student groups in these and other metrics already in use by the Student Success Act. ODE is supposed to provide technical assistance to districts in reviewing metrics and setting goals.
- Districts that are not meeting targets for two years must accept ODE coaching.
- If metrics are not met for a third year, a district would move into “intensive coaching” as defined in ORS 327.222, which includes some outside control of spending.
- If metrics are not met for a fourth year, ODE may direct up to 25% of a district’s Student Investment Account and State School Fund dollars.
- The statewide assessment system shall include interim assessments, the results of which districts shall review twice annually with building administrators and once per year at a public board meeting.
- ODE may require a district to adopt state-approved early literacy curriculum and engage in targeted training if the district is not meeting goals.
- ODE shall study and report to the Legislature on district reporting requirements.
- ODE shall hire a third party to conduct a review of district standards (Division 22) and submit a report to the Legislature.
What’s missing:
- The details.
It’s not clear from the posted bills discussed in the public hearings what exactly the standards would be for determining that a district qualifies for additional support.
Is it simply not meeting the metrics in one target area? Multiple? If so, how many? How and when is a district determined to be improving after receiving ODE intervention?
What is clear, from both recent reports and ODE’s staff in the House hearing, is that the department lacks the capacity to step in and provide meaningful, transformational support to districts.
The bills spell out a pathway for districts to face increasing intervention from ODE if initial supports don’t result in unspecified improvements. The bills don’t, however, address the question of how we assess the value of those initial ODE interventions on district performance or how districts can provide feedback to the department when they need more or different support.
Throughout this accountability process, we have been told there is an intention to reduce the administrative burden on districts and the agency would need to make some changes to improve their support capacity. We believe that intention remains, but the -1 amendments don’t adequately call out the work ODE needs to do.
We have given our support because we believe in the good intentions of all who are involved.
We also believe that language giving greater clarity around needed next steps for ODE would go a long way toward improving another iteration of the bill.
– Stacy Michaelson
OSBA Government Relations and Communications Director
