Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Senate committee hears debate on bill to replace Oregon's Quality Education Model with researcher-led cost model
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 15-55 would replace Oregon's Quality Education Model with a research-based cost model, add educator professional-judgment panels, shorten full-model refreshes to six years, and require a public hearing before adoption; supporters say it improves rigor and transparency while opponents, including OEA and some parents, worry it outsources core policymaking and may weaken public oversight.
A Senate Committee on Education hearing on Feb. 10 centered on Senate Bill 15-55, legislation to replace Oregon’s long-standing Quality Education Model (QEM) with a contractor-driven cost model that uses expanded professional-judgment panels of practicing educators. Sponsors said the bill would produce more measurable, statewide benchmarks for what it costs to provide a quality K–12 education and would update the full cost model every six years while providing biennial dollar adjustments.
Senator Janine Salmon, sponsor, told the committee: "When we calculate what it costs to educate a child, we're not just running numbers, we're making a promise about the kind of future that we're building together." Salmon said the dash‑5 amendment removes language about a "standard school district," requires a public hearing before adoption of the cost model, and adds educator panels to help select resources included in the model. She described three central improvements: neutral expert researchers to calculate costs, a model that accounts for Oregon’s diverse school contexts, and stability with six‑year model resets and biennial updates.
Representative Ricky Ruiz, supporting the bill, emphasized that SB 15‑55 "is not changing the funding method" but rather changes what is measured and how costs are collected. He credited a work group that included OEA, OSEA, COSA, Foundations for a Better Oregon, LPRO and LFO for contributing to the dash‑5 changes.
Supporters included former JPEA chair Michael Denbrough, who reviewed the QEM's history and the American Institutes for Research evaluation that recommended modernization. Anna Higgins of Foundations for a Better Oregon said the bill aligns a cost model with Oregon’s K–12 accountability law and called for integrating professional judgment and lived experience from educators statewide. Frank Carapillo, Reynolds School District superintendent, said the current prototype approach "does not line up with the reality" for districts with high concentrations of students experiencing poverty and special needs.
Not all testimony was in favor. Emily McClain of the Oregon Education Association testified in opposition, saying the proposal "moves away from what we see as a transparent method of determining school funding" and warning it risks outsourcing a core public-policy function. McClain praised mandated educator panels but said removing independent oversight by the Quality Education Commission would reduce public accountability and could let the definition of quality devolve to legal compliance rather than aspirational standards. Parent Ashley Scofield told the committee: "No more money for imaginary schools," arguing the state should not spend public funds on contractor prototypes when schools face cuts.
Legislative analysts clarified the schedule and methodology: Monica Cox of the Legislative Policy and Research Office said the plan includes inflation updates every two years and a full professional refresh in a six-year cycle consistent with best practice, while Wendy Gibson of the Legislative Fiscal Office outlined constitutional Ballot Measure 1 requirements and the QEM's most recent reported figures.
The committee did not take final action on SB 15-55 on Feb. 10; the public hearing will continue during scheduled work sessions on Thursday. The bill declares an emergency and would take effect on passage if enacted.
