Separate Report Raises Questions on How Productively Schools Spend Money Now
K-12 school funding is always a big issue in legislative sessions. A new state-financed report on Oregon’s school funding formula may make it an even bigger issue.
The American Institutes of Research (AIR), a nonprofit that conducts research and provides technical assistance on issues including education, recommends a sharp increase in per-pupil funding to achieve state goals for student proficiency.
The six-part report says increasing per-pupil funding by 33 percent would result in a 90 percent graduation rate, raise math and reading mastery levels and reduce chronic absenteeism. The full report will be formally presented this week to the Senate Education Committee in Salem.
Governor Kotek has recommended tweaks to the existing school funding formula and an 11 percent boost in the funding level to $11.3 billion. The Quality Education Model, intended to describe an optimal school investment level, recommends spending $13.5 billion on K-12 education. The AIR recommendation is much higher than both.
The core of AIR’s recommendation is to adopt a new school funding formula that takes into account economic pressure points that strain K-12 funding, including education for a rising number of special needs students, students from economically disadvantaged families and students for whom English is a second language.
Other issues that impact school funding include aging school building maintenance, declining enrollments, post-pandemic learning losses, drug use and school violence. A more elemental challenge are students who have grown up as digital natives and use Google search rather than read books.
Oregon’s School Funding Formula
A fundamental problem with the school funding formula is that it was developed after Oregon voters approved a property tax limitation that shifted the bulk of K-12 funding to the state. The funding formula was conceived largely as a way to equalize state school funding for school districts with vastly different local tax bases.
Over time, the formula was modified to address issues such as special needs students and transportation costs. However, attempts to make more fundamental adjustments faltered because they triggered winner and loser school district scenarios that discouraged lawmakers from tackling the issue.
Another factor weighing against a categorical funding formula is the prevailing view that local school boards are better positioned to decide how and where to spend the money they receive.
House Education Committee Hearing on Special Ed
The House Education Committee dealt last week with one of the thorny existing funding formula issues – the arbitrary 11 percent cap on special education students. School districts like Portland Public Schools face special education enrollment populations of up to 17 percent of their enrollment, reflecting an increasing diagnosis and recognition of special needs in students.
The committee had two hearing rooms full of advocates urging removal of the cap this session.
The 11 percent cap poses an untenable reality for schools by forcing them to dilute available funding for special needs education and effectively denying students who are guaranteed that support under federal and state laws.
The AIR Proposal and Contrary Study
AIR’s proposed changes center on boosting what school districts receive per pupil. Districts with wealthier constituents would get a 16 percent increase, while school districts with higher concentrations of economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities and minority students would receive a 46 percent per pupil increase.
Julia Silverman’s coverage of the AIR report in The Oregonian highlighted study conducted by the Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab that concluded Oregon’s school funding has tracked or slightly exceeded inflation but hasn’t succeeded in raising reading, writing and math proficiency scores.
Widely recognized achievements tests, Silverman reports, place Oregon at the bottom in reading and math. States that spend less per pupil than Oregon have achieved improved test scores, including students of color and from low-income families.
AIR concluded that despite spending more per pupil than 31 other states, Oregon school districts have failed to target funding that makes a difference, especially in districts with a majority of students who qualify for food stamps.
“Providing an equal opportunity for all public K-12 students in Oregon to achieve current state average outcomes would require spending that increases far more dramatically as student economic needs increase at the school level,” AIR’s report said. “Raising the standard increases those costs by approximately $3,000 per pupil for the lowest-needs schools and by approximately $7,000 more in the highest-needs schools.”
Legislative Response
The conflicting conclusions in the two reports add to the consternation about what it will take to boost Oregon K-12 student proficiency levels. The AIR report, Silverman observes, doesn’t offer guidance on what should be done to ensure spending billions more will produce better results. AIR didn’t offer clear advice on whether the state should play a greater role in determining curricula and classroom teaching methods.
Silverman turned to John Tapogna, a senior policy adviser at ECONorthwest who has been deeply involved in school-related issues, for his views. “AIR is talking about injecting resources into a system that another report characterizes as seriously underperforming,” Tapogna said. “They are not looking at any aspect of delivery, like providing evidence-based tutoring programs or the quality of principal leadership or the prevalence of high-performing teachers.”
Lawmakers already face other significant funding challenges to build more housing, expand behavioral health services and bail out a huge budget shortfall in the Department of Transportation.
Digital Classrooms
Some experienced educators say the key to improving student outcomes lies in matching curriculum and teaching methods to how digital native students learn. The RAND Corporation and others have estimated installing relevant educational technology in classrooms could cost between $142 and $490 per student depending on what technology is employed, infrastructure costs and software subscriptions. There are continuing costs for maintaining internet access, upgrading technology and purchasing new software.
As much as $300 billion has been spent globally on digital classroom technology that offers flexibility, interactive content and access to a vast array of resources. Interactive tools include virtual labs, simulations and multimedia presentations that make complex subjects easier to understand and offer personalized learning experiences that allow students to learn at their own pace.
Whatever the value of digital classrooms, teachers would have to undergo retraining to capitalize on their strength and avoid having them become learning distractions like smartphones. Digital classroom advocates tout the ability for teachers and students to tap into a wealth of online resources to guide learning and access resources.
School Choice and School Vouchers
Adjacent to the public school funding conversation is a growing sentiment for publicly funded school vouchers that can pay for tuition at private schools, online schools, religiously affiliated schools and home schooling.
Advocates for school vouchers say they give parents and students more choices, and the competition will spur improved quality in public schools. Opponents argue siphoning off funding for public schools will make chronic underfunding even worse.
Arizona’s legislature approved use of school vouchers for private schools in 2022. School officials indicate voucher payments have reduced funding for public schools by $1 billion per year. Researchers in Florida determined that state’s voucher program diverted $4 billion per year from public schools. Iowa’s voucher program is estimated to reduce public school funding by $7,600 per pupil.
A bipartisan and urban-rural coalition in the Texas legislature successfully blocked school voucher legislation, largely because they said the main beneficiaries would be wealthy families that can afford to send students to private schools.
Education No Longer Top Voter Issue
Concerns over housing, inflation and crime have replaced public education as top concerns for voters, according to polls. A DHM poll last fall revealed the top concern of Millennial and Gen Z voters, who include parents of schoolchildren, was homelessness, not schools.
In previous decades, education and school funding ranked as the top concern, which made school issues a top concern of legislators and local officials.
