Oregon: Breaking new ground on P-20 funding, accountability and alignment

As the landmark 2005 report The Governance Divide cogently argues, state funding and accountability structures are obstacles to aligned P-20 systems. Oregon legislation enacted in 2011 and 2012, however, puts the state on the map as the first to centralize funding decisions and accountability within a single entity.

2011 S.B. 909 creates the Oregon Education Investment Board to, among other duties, "[recommend] strategic investments ... to ensure that the public education budget is integrated and is targeted to achieve the education outcomes established for the state." The legislation makes clear that the state's P-20 data system is intended to "[monitor] expenditures and outcomes to determine the return on statewide education investments."

2012 S.B. 1581, just signed by Governor Kitzhaber last month, gives the Chief Education Officer appointed by the aforementioned Oregon Education Investment Board direction and control over specified state-level early learning, K-12 and postsecondary leaders (but excludes the current deputy superintendent from this oversight). Prior to each fiscal year, the new legislation requires an “achievement compact” to be entered into between each "education entity" -- which includes each: (1) school district, (2) education service district, (3) community college district or community college service district, (4) the Oregon University System (OUS), (5) each university that belongs to the OUS, and (6) the health professions and graduate science programs of the Oregon Health and Science University -- and the Oregon Education Investment Board for that fiscal year.

The legislation specifies that the investment board will establish the terms of achievement compacts, but provides that these may include a "description of the outcomes and measures of progress that will allow each education entity to quantify", among other indicators, "completion rates for critical stages of learning and programs of study; the attainment of diplomas, certificates, and degrees; and achieving the high school and post-secondary education goals established in ORS 351.009 and a projection of the progress needed to achieve those goals by 2025[.]" Each education entity's governing body must "identify a target number and
percentage of students for achievement of the outcomes, measures of progress and goals
specified in the achievement compact for the fiscal year."

As reported last week by the Oregonian, the investment board has not wasted any time, already approving "achievement compacts for 197 school districts, 17 community colleges, seven universities and Oregon Health & Science University."

The push for improved alignment among early learning, K-12 and postsecondary seems to be largely driven by Governor Kitzhaber, whose Web site provides more details about these P-20 governance/integrated budget efforts.

To my knowledge this is the only state that has implemented a P-20 funding and accountability approach. There are other states that have partial or full P-20 governance systems, but decisions about which entities get what funding are not necessarily made by a single entity as in Oregon. For example, New York’s Assembly and Florida Senate have separate “Education” and “Higher Education” committees (Florida Senate also has Budget Committee), the Florida House has separate Education and Appropriations committees, etc. Bills that have to do with education funding would bounce between two or more committees in these states—not as streamlined as what Oregon is putting together.