1. Quality Education Commission
OSBA Regional Meetings
September 2002

2. Quality Education Commission
Introduction
Introduction
The Model
Conclusions
Recommendations

3. Quality Education Commission
Introduction
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
Quality Education Goals
ORS
Academic excellence
Rigorous academic standards
Applied learning
Lifelong academic skills
Oregon has set high goals for our education system, calling for Oregonians to be the best educated citizens in the nation and the world.
The Quality Education Goals in statute call for:
The best educated students in America, equal to the best in the world
Proficiencies in specific areas
All children will meet their fullest potential
High expectations for K-12 schools
The commission based its work on the Quality Education goals established in statute
Oregonians are receiving a payback on their investment in high standards. Our students are achieving at higher levels than in the past.
But there is more to do. Many of our students are still not meeting the high standards. And a quality education is more than just achieving high test scores. Each student in our schools must have an opportunity to succeed and have access to a full educational experience.

4. Use research, data, professional judgment, and
Quality Education Commission
Introduction
Commission Charge
Use research, data, professional judgment, and
public values to identify:
Best practices for meeting the Quality Education Goals in statute and their cost.
Current education practices in Oregon and their costs.
Expected student performance using these practices.

5. Quality Education Commission
The Model
Purpose of the Quality Education Model
To determine the level of statewide resources
needed for schools and students to meet the
quality education goals established in law.
To provide a policy tool that decision-makers can
use to develop education budgets.
The goals of the model are to allow decision-makers to better connect the expectations established for schools and students with the resources necessary to achieve those results—to bring more information to the school funding debate.
We need to take the guesswork out of state funding decisions and give policy-makers the tools they need to make wise decisions.

6. Quality Education Commission
The Model
Prototype Schools
Elementary Middle High
Identifies Cost per Student based on assumptions
Calculates statewide cost and state contribution
to support Quality Education
The QEM estimates statewide costs for K-12 education using Prototype Schools. It develops an educational program at each school; calculates a cost per student; and then multiplies the cost per student by the number of students in the state at that level.
You can use it to cost changes at various levels of funding. For example, what would it cost to reduce class sizes for primary grades? Or what would the impact be at the school level of a $100 million statewide decrease?

7. Quality Education Commission
The Model
Each Prototype School
In the Full Model each prototype school contains additional resources beyond the baseline for:
Added time for students having trouble reaching standards
Curriculum development and technology support
On-site instructional improvement
Professional development for teachers & administrators
Assistance with record keeping
Adequate classroom supplies and textbooks

8. Quality Education Commission
The Model
To create a system of high-performing schools,
we need:
Adequate resources
Educational practices based on
research and local decision-making
The QEM addresses tangible resources required in a school, such as staff and instructional materials. The recommendations are based on education research and best practices.
The model also identifies other factors, which we call Quality Indicators, that contribute to student learning, such as instructional leadership and parent involvement.
The model assumes that schools require both adequate resources and a high level of these quality indicators to achieve high performance levels.

9. Quality Education Commission
The Model
Intangible factors in the Model
Examples of Quality Indicators:
-Instructional leadership
-Teacher quality
-Parent and community involvement
-Effective Instructional programs
-Orderly learning environment
Quality Indicators play an important role in the QEM because they can determine how effectively resources are used in a school setting. Here are some examples of these kinds of factors. The Dept. of Education will be working with schools to assess these indicators and provide technical assistance for improvement.
The model makes assumptions about how well the prototype schools are functioning in these dimensions.

10. Quality Education Commission
2002 Recommendations
Full QEM 2002 Cost
Budget* CSL** QEM
State School
Fund Amt. $4.946 bil. $5.596 bil. $6.995 bil.
Amt per student (ADMw)***
Year 1 $ 5,081 $ 5,786 $ 6,589
Year 2 $ 4,924 $ 6,000 $ 6,832
* Does not include School Improvement Fund. Includes $261 million cut
** Current Service Level – Based on School Program Levels
*** Student enrollment – weighted average daily membership
The table shows a difference of about $1.39 billion for the biennium between the projected Current Service Level budget and the recommended full funding level.
We have also shown the difference on a per-student basis.

11. Student Performance Expectations
Quality Education Commission
2002 Recommendations
Student Performance Expectations
For Reading and Math Using Best Practices
90% of all students would reach reading and math benchmarks in this decade
Elementary by 2005
Middle school by 2008
High school by 2010
·  The assumptions are based on both dimensions of the Prototype Schools being implemented: increased resources targeted to student learning, combined with consistent improvements in the Quality Indicators that identify effective educational practices and policies.

12. Implementation Priorities
Quality Education Commission
2002 Recommendations
Implementation Priorities
Stay the Course
Maintain the focus on reading in the early grades
Increase Staff Professional Development
Support High School Restructuring
a) Reading in the Early Grades
Continue the focus on developing reading skills in the early grades. In the QEM 2000, the Commission agreed that developing reading skills provides an essential foundation for student success. Based on the recommendations of the Commission, the education budget included $220 million to support the focus on reading. This funding was eliminated in the second year of the biennium due to revenue shortfalls.
At the elementary school level the goal was for at least 90% of students to be at or above state reading benchmarks for both 3rd grade and 5th grade within four years. Middle school years would focus on sustaining and improving reading skills.
b) Staff Professional Development.
Provide the training and skill development that teachers and principals need to deliver on all of the academic goals, but particularly to support the reading priority. Professional development opportunities for teachers should not decrease student instructional time. The Commission’s expert panels noted the importance of linking training and skill development to success in meeting academic goals at all levels and to attracting and retaining quality teachers.
c) High School Restructuring.
Provide resources to support restructuring of educational services at the high school level consistent with the new graduation requirements and the need for more personalized, contextual learning.

13. Questions and Discussion
Quality Education Commission
Questions and Discussion
Questions and Discussion
Visit our website at