The bill meant to hold Oregon and local school districts more accountable for student outcomes passed the state Senate on Thursday.

Lawmakers passed Senate Bill 141 almost entirely on party lines, with Sen. Suzanne Weber, R-Tillamook, being the lone Republican voting in support.

SB 141 and its sister bill House Bill 2009 were both presented earlier in the session as placeholder bills meant to study the adequacy of public education and school accountability. Amendment proposals presented in March laid out more specifics.

SB 141 has taken the lead over its companion bill. It includes expanded statewide metrics to measure student progress, adds year-round assessments to give educators more real-time data on their students and sets clearer targets for all districts aimed at improving outcomes and closing disparities. It also reduces administrative work for districts, and gives more authority to the Oregon Department of Education to help school districts — and take over some of their spending, if needed.

Lawmakers on the Senate floor Thursday also advanced the proposed $11.4 billion education budget package for the State School Fund. That means Oregon is on track to invest a record-high K-12 education budget at the same time it works to set up a firmer statewide accountability system.

Proponents believe these efforts are vital to each other. They say it isn’t just about putting more money into the system but also about being more intentional with how that money is spent.

This session’s conversations about education funding represent a particularly important tipping point for Oregon. Advocates say it’s a critical time to have these conversations, too, as the federal government pulls back on education data, funding and accountability.

So, what is Senate Bill 141, and what would happen if it passes?

Senate Bill 141 aims to establish a statewide accountability system for all 197 Oregon public school districts.

If it passes, here’s what would happen: State officials would work to further define the metrics that every school district would be evaluated on. Districts would then set individual goals within those metrics — they are supposed to work with ODE to set “ambitious but realistic” growth goals. Then, the state would monitor districts’ progress. Lastly, the state would step in with a scale of interventions if needed.

The bill would require the state to include metrics on third-grade reading scores, eighth-grade math scores, ninth-grade on-track rates, four- and five-year graduation rates, and regular attendance rates, focusing especially on grades K-2.

The bill requires school districts to review student data to understand disparities between different student subgroups. It specifically targets improvement for groups such as low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, English language learners, foster children, and students experiencing homelessness.

The bill directs the State Board of Education to adopt three additional local optional metrics; all school districts must select one. These can be metrics that measure other academic outcomes or separate things, such as school climate and student health survey data.

The bill also calls for the state board to prioritize interim assessments, which would be performance measures throughout the year. These are supposed to provide more real-time information than standardized tests do, and it’s something many educators already do. However, the bill would make these more consistent and expected across the state.

“The bill is asking every corner of the system to do their part so that in the right roles, everyone is focusing on student success and improvement for kids,” said Anna Higgins, director of policy and systems strategy with Foundations for a Better Oregon. Foundations for a Better Oregon is a Portland-based nonprofit that supports the bill.

If a district isn’t meeting its goals, the bill would give ODE more teeth to step in.

After two years of not meeting the goals, ODE would step in with mandatory coaching. As it stands now, districts that have been struggling and qualify for state “intensive” support can choose whether to opt in — a measure that was designed and funded through the Student Success Act in 2019. As of this fall, only a fraction of the districts that qualify have taken the state up on their offer.

If a district hits three years of not meeting their goals under the proposed bill, ODE would do more intensive coaching and offer more specific changes.

After four or more years, ODE can direct up to 25% of the district’s State School Fund allocation and Student Investment Account dollars to spend that money on things the state thinks they should be focusing on.

Do other states do this?

Every state has some form of K-12 accountability system for public schools.

However, proponents of Senate Bill 141 argue that Oregon relies on a “complex web of reporting requirements and compliance standards that have not adequately driven — and sometimes even hindered — improvement” across the state’s school districts. That’s how the Foundations for a Better Oregon put it.

The bill incorporates work from other states, including Mississippi and Louisiana, and intensive coaching research from a partnership with the University of Virginia.

Would this mean more testing, more work for educators?

The short answer is “no.”

Statewide standardized assessments in grades 3-8 and 11 are required by federal law; this bill doesn’t change or add to that.

However, the bill would direct school districts to adopt interim assessment systems, which are already used in a majority of Oregon districts. How the state would require schools to conduct these assessments and report them to ODE hasn’t been decided yet — that will happen in rulemaking.

Testing is a tricky topic in Oregon. On one end of the spectrum, there are the hyper-individualized assessments of students. These include grades on assignments, report cards and evaluations shared in parent-teacher conferences. Standardized tests are on the other end of the spectrum, serving as more of an overall temperature check of the system — asking, is Oregon doing a good job teaching reading to elementary students, for example?

Whitney Grubbs, the executive director at Foundations for a Better Oregon, said the interim assessments are pretty squarely in the middle of that spectrum.

A teacher may assess students with these at the beginning, middle and end of the year, and make adjustments throughout the interim months to help target their learning needs. They give a more detailed, on-the-ground picture and still serve a statewide purpose.

“Part of this,” she said, “is helping to build an additional source of information for us as a state and for policymakers to have a sense of the patterns of how children are progressing over time.”

Louis Wheatley, also with Foundations for a Better Oregon, added that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle asked early on if Oregon’s standardized testing opt-out exemption would make implementing this bill impossible.

Though Oregon routinely does not meet the federal threshold of 95% student participation because of the opt-out, ODE officials have told lawmakers that the data is statistically valid and actionable for the improvement goals in this bill.

Additionally, in terms of workload, proponents said the bill intends to decrease administrative burden for school districts by streamlining the application and reporting processes for funding and data. It also includes provisions to boost ODE’s capacity to help districts.

How much will this cost?

The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates it will cost the state $2.6 million to implement the bill. That is in addition to the $11.4 billion State School Fund package.

The $2.6 million is for the biennium, and if passed, would be an ongoing expense in the ODE budget.

Why is this happening now?

A perfect storm of events in recent years has led to this moment.

In 2019, Oregon lawmakers passed the Student Success Act, which was a historic move at the time. It created a new funding stream meant solely for education, and it came with specific ways the money needed to be spent.

But then COVID hit, dramatically changing how schools operated, how money was spent, and what teachers and students needed in the years to come.

Then, in 2023, major strikes — most notably, the nearly month-long strike in Oregon’s largest district, Portland Public Schools — put the topic of state school funding back in the spotlight.

“Following that, the governor sort of issued a statement that she wanted to really think about transparency, accountability and modernizing how we think about K-12 funding,” Grubbs said.

Despite Oregon making significant investments in the K-12 education system, its student outcomes remain amongst the lowest in the nation.

Gov. Tina Kotek has said the solution is not to just offer up a blank check to schools, but that there needs to be complimentary conversation about how the state ensures those investments are resulting in the outcomes we want for our kids.

“This is really common sense for Oregonians,” Wheatley argued. “I think many Oregonians might even be surprised to find out that it’s not already the case.”

Why are some folks opposed?

Though Senate Bill 141 is advancing in the session, there is a range of opposition to it.

For some, there are concerns that the bill will limit local control, though proponents of the bill have emphasized that superintendents and school boards will still make the vast majority of decisions about their local schools.

Other opponents have worried that unique education settings, such as Oregon’s Juvenile Detention Education Programs, may face unintended consequences from the bill.

Some think tying test results to funding measures feels too similar to the punitive approach of No Child Left Behind. To that, proponents argue the bill won’t repeat the mistake of past federal education reform efforts, punishing struggling school districts by withholding funding, firing educators, closing schools, or labeling schools, educators and students as failing.

And some argue the bill doesn’t go far enough — that there needs to be more specifics for schools to hit or that the state should step in sooner than four years.

“I just want to say out loud that this is not about ‘Gotcha,’” Higgins with Foundations for a Better Oregon said in response. “This work, while we cannot drag our feet, does take time for it to be meaningful and sustainable.”

Sen. Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles, supported a lot of the components of the bill. But he was ultimately a “no” vote on the Senate floor this week because it remains to be seen whether some of the bill’s steps, such as the coaching programs, will be effective.

“We have, since COVID specifically, really been in a rate of decline,” Bonham said Thursday. “And I fear, even with record investment, that the investment is going to the wrong place.

“I read this bill, and I see the intent, and I appreciate the intent,” he added. “I am nervous about the outcome and whether or not this truly will have the impact that we say it will.”

Sen. Noah Robinson, R-Cave Junction, also had mixed feelings about SB 141 and ultimately voted against it.

“The Department of Education has let us down before,” Robinson argued. “I hope that changes. I don’t have any confidence in it. I’m a ‘no’ for that reason, but I’m really worried about the education of children in this state.”

The bill now heads to the House for a first reading, which is scheduled for next Monday.

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/06/oregon-education-accountability-bill-141-passes-senate-local-schools/