Published: August 2, 2024

Every two years, a volunteer group of education system representatives lays out a vision for high-quality Oregon K-12 public schools. Then they put a State School Fund price tag on it.

The 2024 Quality Education Model report, made public Friday, says Oregon needs to add a $12.7 billion State School Fund plus $822 million from the Student Success Act to the education funding pot to successfully provide adequate environments for all students to pursue their goals.

The model, with more data and explanatory context than previous iterations, will sharpen the conversation in coming months about what it means to fully fund Oregon education, said Emielle Nischik, OSBA interim executive director.

“We need to be talking about what our students need, the very definition of adequate funding,” Nischik said. “That is what the model is designed to do.”

The Quality Education Commission studies best practices and recent research and then estimates what it would cost to achieve Oregon’s education goals across different school sizes. The model subtracts out all the available local, state and federal funding to determine how big the State School Fund needs to be to make up the difference.

Oregon has never come close to meeting the model’s spending goals since its inception in 1999. The model’s State School Fund recommendation has no formal power. Instead, it has become a leverage point in debates about what the state should be spending on its young people.

A $12.7 billion 2025-27 State School Fund would be a $2.5 billion increase from this biennium, but commission Chair John Rexford rejects the notion that the model should be viewed as “aspirational.”

“We believe full funding and sustaining it over time is attainable,” he said.

Rexford said Oregon has made progress in increasing school funding in recent years. The commission engaged legislators, state officials and education advocates to talk about what is necessary and what is possible before producing the model.

The commission also increased the document’s transparency, including more of the thinking, the data and the calculations.

Nischik said the model has created a credible goal that more accurately reflects students’ current needs, even if the state can’t get there all in one chunk.

“Oregon has underfunded schools since the move to primarily state funding in the 1990s,” she said. “So what is the number to do it right? It’s right there in the model, and we need to move toward it.”

Education leaders say they need adequate and reliable funding to improve academic progress, reduce absenteeism, close opportunity gaps and raise graduation rates among Oregon’s diverse student population and varied school locations.

Some legislators have become frustrated with the model’s lofty spending goals, though. Senate Bill 1522 this year required a review of the model along with the state’s K-12 education financing system.

Gov. Tina Kotek has led a reevaluation of Oregon’s funding approach, modifying the calculations for determining the current service level. The CSL estimates the cost for schools to maintain the services and programs they already offer from one biennium to the next.

The model incorporated Kotek’s revisions, which more closely align with schools’ cost projections. According to the model, just to maintain current services would require $11.28 billion, adding pressure to significantly increase the State School Fund from this biennium’s $10.2 billion.

The CSL, though, is just a maintaining-status-quo number and doesn’t determine the State School Fund.

The model proposes a leap into the future with its State School Fund recommendation. Commission members are striving to encapsulate an ever-more-complicated education system that is asked to provide mental and physical health care and student supports in addition to academics for an expanding range of post-secondary options.

This year, the commission surveyed school leaders to highlight best practices in the model that could be scaled up to benefit all Oregon schools, according to Hermiston Superintendent Tricia Mooney, a commission member.

“Realistically, we know there is a finite amount of money,” said Mooney. “Can we be good stewards of those dollars and invest in our students and our future?”

Nichole Schott, president of the OSBA Rural School Board Members Caucus, appreciates the model’s thoroughness but said it takes local input to adapt any spending to small schools’ unique needs.

Meeting education requirements becomes far more complicated when districts are remote and have small populations of students with specialized needs, she said, and every district is different.

“There are just challenges living in a rural environment that are not incorporated in the model,” said Schott, Condon School Board chair and OSBA Board member.

Neelam Gupta, president of the Oregon School Board Members of Color Caucus, said the model’s focus on equity is important too.

“We need to ensure all kids get a quality education, particularly students who experience inequities, and close academic gaps,” said Gupta, Lake Oswego Board chair and an OSBA Board member.

Commission member Laurie Danzuka said the model can provide a guide for school board members’ planning and budgeting but it can’t possibly capture all the differences in schools’ realities.

Danzuka, a Jefferson County School Board and OSBA Board member, emphasized that creating a high-quality education is not as simple as just funding to the model. Each year brings new challenges and legislative initiatives that change the picture.

“We want the Legislature to see that not one thing impacts education, that a lot of things impact making sure our public education system is fully funded,” she said.

Jake Arnold, OSBA
[email protected]