Transcript The Quality Education Commission and the Quality Education Model Presentation to the OASE Funding Coalition February 24, 2012 Brian Reeder Oregon Department of Education [email protected].

The Quality Education Commission
and the
Quality Education Model
Presentation to the
OASE Funding Coalition
February 24, 2012
Brian Reeder
Oregon Department of Education
[email protected]
Quality Education Commission
The Commission’s responsibilities are to:
1. Determine the amount of monies sufficient to ensure that the state
system of kindergarten through grade 12 public education meets the
quality goals established in statute.
2. Identify best practices based on education research, data, professional
judgment, and public values, and estimate the cost of implementing
those best practices in Oregon’s K-12 schools.
3. Issue a report to the Governor and Legislature in even-numbered years
that identifies:
 Current practices, their costs, and expected student performance
 Best practices, their costs, and expected student performance
 Two alternatives for meeting the quality goals
Quality Education Commission
The Commission carries out these responsibilities using
the following tools:

Education research related to best practices and school
funding

Data—primarily from the Database Initiative Project (DBI)
datasets maintained by the Department of Education

The professional judgment of educators and public finance
experts

The Quality Education Model
The Quality Education Model
The Quality Education Model (QEM) was first developed in 1997 as a
way to estimate the funding required to meet Oregon’s educational
goals. It has been enhanced over the years to make it a more useful
tool for policy analysis.
 It is a “professional judgment” type of costing model
 It has a link between resources and student performance based
primarily on professional judgment, but supplemented with
statistical relationships


It uses prototype schools as the unit of analysis to estimate costs
It scales up school level costs to the state level based on statewide
enrollment
 It contains sufficient detail to allow it to model a broad range of
policy options
The Quality Education Model
Using the QEM for Policy Analysis
 Estimate the “Baseline” scenario to describe the current
level of resources and student achievement—where are
we today?
 Estimate the cost and level of student achievement,
relative to the baseline, of implementing all of the
components of the model—what will it take to get to
where we want to be?
 Estimate the relative costs of implementing different
components in order to evaluate tradeoffs—given limited
resources, how can we best use them?
The Quality Education Model
The QEM contains three Prototype Schools:

Elementary School of 340 Students
• Smaller class sizes in the early grades
• More specialized staff: ESL, special ed., counselors
• More professional development and teacher collaboration time

Middle School of 500 Students
• Smaller classes in core subjects
• More specialized staff: ESL, special ed., counselors
• Additional instruction time for students falling behind
• More professional development and teacher collaboration time

High School of 1,000 Students
• Smaller classes in core subjects
• More specialized staff: ESL, special ed., counselors
• Additional instruction time for students falling behind
• Restoration of electives and extra-curricular activities
• More professional development and teacher collaboration time
The Quality Education Model
A History of Full Funding of the QEM and Actual Funding
Projected Oregon School Funding Gap
State Funding Trends v. Full QEM
$9.0
$8.5
$8.0
Billions
$7.5
Full QEM
$1.64
Billion
$7.0
$6.5
$6.0
$5.5
$1.64
Billion
$1.75
Billion
$2.12
Billion
$2.95
Billion
$1.79
Billion
Actual Funding Trend
$5.0
$4.5
$4.0
2001-03
2003-05
2005-07
2007-09
Biennium
2009-11
2011-13
The Quality Education Model
“Costing Out” Policy Options—Some Examples
 Reduce class sizes to 20 in grades K-3 to improve early reading and math
proficiency: $60 million/year
 Two additional days of focused professional development for teachers:
$10 million/year
 One hour of collaboration time each week for all teachers: $22 million/year
 Tutoring for elementary students at risk of falling behind: $10 million/year
 Counseling and other assistance for high school students at risk of dropping
out: $16 million/year
The Quality Education Model
How will the QEM change in the new environment?
--Expand to include learning stages
--Attention to resource allocation issues
--Focus on incentives for best practices and best resource use
Trends in Student Achievement
Distribution of 3rd Grade Math Scores
30%
25%
20%
15%
2004-05
2010-11
10%
5%
0%
Trends in Student Achievement
Distribution of 5th Grade Math Scores
25%
20%
15%
2004-05
2010-11
10%
5%
0%
Trends in Student Achievement
Distribution of 8th Grade Math Scores
25%
20%
15%
2004-05
2010-11
10%
5%
0%
Trends in Student Achievement
Distribution of High School Math Scores
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
2004-05
2009-10
15%
10%
5%
0%
* Starting in 2010-11 the high school test is taken by most students in the 11th grade rather than the 10th grade
2010-11*
Percent Meeting Standards
Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Current State Standards*
80%
70%
60%
50%
3rd Grade Math
40%
5th Grade Math
8th Grade Math
30%
HS Math
20%
10%
0%
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
* Prior year scores were applied to the 2010-11 standard to make the measures comparable over time
2010-11
Trends in Funding
Inflation-Adjusted Operating Revenue per Student
$6,000
Total
$5,000
$4,000
State
$3,000
$2,000
Local
$1,000
Federal
$0
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
2008-09
2010-11
Trends in Funding
Inflation-Adjusted Operating Revenue per Weighted Student
$6,000
$5,000
Total
$4,000
$3,000
State
$2,000
Local
$1,000
Federal
$0
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
2008-09
2010-11
Governor’s Funding Reform
 Base Funding
 Incentive Grants
Defining a “Base” Level of Funding
Principles
• Is sufficient to provide a basic, comprehensive program to all students
• Is adjusted over time for cost increases and changes in student needs
• Is distributed to school districts and ESDs in an equitable manner
• Is provided in a manner that promotes efficient resource use
• Is provided in a manner that preserves a high degree of local control
• Is not based on measures of student performance
History of Formula Funding
Formula Revenue per Weighted Student (ADMw)
Using Education Sector Price Index
$7,000
Revenue per Weighted Student
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
Inflation-Adjusted
(1990-91 Dollars)
$2,000
$1,000
$0
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
Year
2004-05
2006-07
2008-09
2010-11
2012-13
Stable Funding Scenario
$13,000
Formula Revenue per Weighted Student
$12,000
$11,000
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
Inflation-Adjusted (1990-91 Dollars)
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Stable Base Plus Incentive Funds
Inflation-Adjusted Formula Revenue per Weighted Student
$5,000
Base + Incentive
$4,000
$3,000
Base
$2,000
$1,000
$0
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Declining Base/Increasing Incentive
Inflation-Adjusted Formula Revenue per Weighted Student
$5,000
Base + Incentive
$4,000
$3,000
Base
$2,000
$1,000
$0
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
What Can Districts Do to Help the QEC?
Give us feedback about the model—what do you like, and not like, and
how can we improve it to make it more useful?
Tell us what is working in your districts—effective practices often depend
on the context, and it is important to understand differences across schools
and districts.