Legislators weigh AIR's review of Oregon's Quality Education Model; concerns over prototypes, panels and district-level estimates

At an informational meeting Oct. 22, Monica Cox of the Legislative Policy and Research Office presented the American Institutes for Research's evaluation of Oregon's Quality Education Model, saying the review focused on the model's methodology rather than the cost estimates or the resources specified by the model. "This is an evaluation of the model's methodology. It wasn't an evaluation of the cost estimate itself, nor of the resources or inputs specified by the model. It's really focused on the process used to make those determinations," she said.

The AIR evaluation examined the model's use of a professional judgment panel (PJP) method, in which active educators identify resources a school would need to provide an adequate education and researchers assign prices to those resources. AIR told LPRO that while the PJP is a rigorous approach that can make clear how funds might be used, the method has limits: it can rely on professional judgment in places where empirical links between specific resources and measurable outcomes are thin.

Why it matters: the QEM is used to estimate what it would cost for Oregon schools to meet the state's expectations. The committee's review of AIR's evaluation is intended to help lawmakers decide whether the model is suitable for guiding budgeting and policy or whether the commission and model need changes to produce more policy‑useful estimates.

What AIR found and where the committee focused - Goals: AIR criticized the…