Quality Education Commission OSBA Regional Meetings September 2002

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 329.035 • Quality Education Goals • ORS 329.015 • Academic excellence • Rigorous academic standards • Applied learning • Lifelong academic skills

4. 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.

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

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

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

10. Quality Education Commission 2002 Recommendations Full QEM 2002 Cost 2001-03 2003-05 2003-05 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 2000-01 School Program Levels *** Student enrollment – weighted average daily membership

11. 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

12. 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

13. Quality Education Commission Questions and Discussion • Questions and Discussion • Visit our website at www.ode.state.or.us