ODE says carve‑outs and student‑facing services were prioritized; members urge caution on EAC, CTE and other programs

Dr. Charlene Williams, director of the Oregon Department of Education, told the committee that ODE’s reduction exercise followed a decision lens prioritizing programs "that sit closest to students." She said ODE modeled the state school fund in 0.5% increments to avoid cutting monthly formula distributions and proposed using carve‑outs and ending balances to meet a $49,300,000 reduction at the 2.5% level rather than reducing district formula payments.

Williams said ODE identified certain grant and aid programs and statutory carve‑outs that should remain whole because they are student‑facing or federally/statutorily required — examples included food programs, tribal attendant supports, literacy and summer learning initiatives, mandated caseload grants, pediatric nursing facilities and small school supplements. She stressed reductions were structured to be "limited, targeted, and thoughtful" and that operational savings were sought via vacancy management and targeted line‑item reductions.

Committee members repeatedly raised concerns about potential "ripple effects." Representative McLean and other members argued that eliminating the Educator Advancement Council (EAC) could harm teacher development, grow‑your‑own pipelines, and programs that have data showing improvements in attendance and graduation rates. Williams acknowledged that if the EAC were eliminated, ODE had no immediate, agency‑internal plan to replicate all of that capacity and suggested the legislature could choose which components to preserve; she said the department could explore partnering with education service districts for some supports.

Members also pressed on smaller but consequential supports: AP/IB testing supplements, FFA funding in rural areas, Grow‑Your‑Own and CTE investments, talented and gifted programs and classroom supports that districts use differently. ODE staff said some programs "stack" with other funds and some have no alternate funding source; they urged creative, district‑level conversations to reallocate available sources if cuts occur. On hunger‑free/school meal funding, Williams and ODE staff clarified the proposal reflected a carryforward or balance adjustment, not a cut to feeding programs: "We are not taking food from children," Williams said.

What comes next: ODE will provide more detailed follow‑up on specific program impacts and selection criteria as members request; the committee signaled it will weigh ODE’s carve‑out approach alongside revenue forecasts and stakeholder input before any final decisions.