Q&A
Randy Harnisch
Oregon Department of Education
Liaison to the State Board of Education
Q: Oregon has a component of "per-student" funding in its school funding formula, is that right?
In Oregon, yes, [but] it's an allocation as opposed to a spending formula.
OK, what does that mean?
It takes the K-12 total dollar biennial budget that is approved by the legislature and divides it up, for distribution purposes, per student—including all of the weights—and sends that per-student dollar amount to school districts based on the number of kids that they have enrolled in their district. It's kind of like there is a pie of finite size that gets divvied up based on how many kids there are.
And the weights will mean that some schools will get a little more than others?
The weights mean that there is a weighting factor for various characteristics. For example, special-ed-identified kids get an additional weight, so they count as two kids when it comes to funding. Pregnant and parenting teens get an additional weight. And there are other factors that get built into the determination of a district's "average daily membership." The result is, and I'm just making these numbers up: You have school district A that has 10,000 actual physical bodies. Because of the weighting, that district may have an additional 1,000 weights representing special-ed-identified kids, they may have an additional 200 pregnant and parenting teens, so that they may actually get a state allocation based on 11,500. But there aren't 11,500 heads there, there are only 10,000. The weights are just a way to recognize the additional costs associated with the special needs certain kids have.
How is "average daily membership" different from "average daily attendance"?
There is on our Web site a document called, "The Student Accounting Manual" (http://www.ode.state.or.us/sfda/docs/studaccman.pdf). Rather than me making up the definitions, it may be best if we just look at it.
Is there a part of Oregon's funding formula that is key or most problematic when it comes to thinking about funding online schools?
I think underlying the whole issue is the fact that the funding formula was designed free of the current day's technology. It was built on a set of assumptions that was true even 10 years ago. The world is very different today. We have the ability to deliver instruction interactively in a variety of ways that's far more effective than what we could do even a few years ago. So the whole system was based on kids physically being present in class and physically attending and being there when they made these attendance counts, which is how they come up with average daily membership. The "count" is part of the accounting process, which says that if the kid is not physically in school, is absent for 10 days in a row, you drop him from the rolls. There's certain components in this system that are, I won't say obsolete because they still are true for the majority of programs, but they are becoming anachronistic—they're just not quite right if you're looking at some of these technological methods of delivering instruction.
I've been talking to all of the states in our region, and it sounds like one of the knottiest problems is if a student in one district is enrolled fulltime in a regular school in that district and then takes another couple of online classes from a school in a different district, then that's more than 100 percent of a "full-time equivalent" (FTE) student.
That's a significant issue.
Could you elaborate on that?
If a kid is enrolled in Salem-Kaizer School District, the assumption is that he or she is enrolled fulltime. Now there may be some situations where they're not enrolled fulltime, but generally they're enrolled fulltime.
Does Oregon only pay full FTE?
No, there is a break down. There are actually whole different methods for generating less-than-fulltime funding. But the assumption is that it's fulltime. And that fulltime equivalent generates 1 ADM, which results in plus or minus $5,000 coming from the state. The issue is: Of that $5,000, is the district then obligated to pay for those online courses that a kid may be taking from somewhere else? Because the funding model doesn't allow the kid to generate more than 1 FTE, except in those few situations where there's some language directing some additional weight for special ed or whatever. Yeah, that's a significant issue.
Is that the biggest issue?
There are operational issues. That's an operational issue and that is a big one. And that kind of boils back down to the fact that we have an "allocation formula" versus a "spending formula." The allocation formula basically says, "Districts, you tell us how many kids you have, include the weights so that we give you a little bit extra money. We give you those dollars, and then you choose how to provide the services to the kids that you're responsible for."
We really don't say, "You've got to spend this amount of money on this kid in this way." Special ed kids, they generate 2 FTE. For some special ed kids, the services that they require to meet their individual education plan might be minimal, impact minimal cost. So the additional weight far exceeds what it costs to provide that kid the services that he or she requires.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have kids for whom the additional weight doesn't even begin to cover the cost of providing for them. It doesn't mean that the district has to spend that additional $5,000 on that special ed kid, and that's all they can spend. They're obligated to meet the kid's needs whatever the cost. The weight is just a method of kind of tilting a few more funds in their direction. That's the difference between the allocation formula and a spending formula.
So, with a spending formula, the state would allocate as much money as it takes?
Yeah, or [in other words] the state would allocate money and say, "This money is attached to this kid, and must be spent on this kid."
I see. So when states say, "In our state, the money follows the kid," that's not true in Oregon?
That's not necessarily true in Oregon.
OK. In the same scenario, you have a student who's enrolled in a regular school in one district taking online courses from another district. Say the online courses that he or she is taking is in math. And then on state standardized tests, this kid does poorly in math. I don't fully understand all of the implications of AYP, but if there is a "ding" that the school or district gets, which district gets the "ding?"
Well, I think that's an interesting question too. Because the underlying assumption is that the school district where the student is a resident is responsible for providing that student's education. The district can choose to provide it in a variety of different ways, and it may be that it chooses to provide it through some online program. It's really the student's resident district that is responsible for making that educational, the instructional choice, and is responsible for making sure that that's the best choice.
Yeah it's complicated isn't it!
It is. It's one of those things that sounds like we should've taken care of a long time ago, but every time you turn around, there's another issue that complicates the question.
What is driving the development of online education in Oregon, and how does the state feel about it?
That's a pretty broad question. I think what's driving the move, it's kind of like we're being pushed and pulled. I think we're being pushed by recognizing individual student needs and that individual students have needs that may vary from what the district can offer in the traditional manner. I think that student needs are pushing.
And then I think we're being pulled along by the technology that's—I'm trying to think of the right word—it's just growing and changing. We can't any longer just start with the thought that a kid sitting in a classroom with a live teacher is the best that we can do. It might be the best. But depending on the kid's needs, it may be that the best is an online course that's tailored to provide this kid a level of instruction that's not available with a physical, warm-body teacher.
Was there a critical point in time when something happened that made this technology possible? You had a legislative bill that funded networking to all of the schools, is that right?
Right. Right. I wouldn't point to one thing, but I think there's been a combination. We have the networking—Camille Cole's the person who could tell you best about that—but we're getting close to having every school in the state hooked up. I don't know how close we are, but pretty close. And then just the fact that the interactivity that's available is almost seamless. I can remember 10 years ago when interactivity was strained. You really couldn't even begin to say that it was as good as being in a classroom. You just can't necessarily claim that anymore. Technologically, there are ways today that are pretty darned good.
Like what? Videoconferencing?
Videoconferencing, online conversations—and I'm technologically way out of my league—but the kind of strung together e-mail conversations. I can't do it. It's not natural for me. But my daughter is eight now, by the time she's in middle school that's going to be second nature to her. They are going to be able to have a conversation in that modality that is rich and sophisticated, in a way that I couldn't foresee.
Are you putting together a proposal for the legislature to look at this December?
We commissioned the Education Commission on the States to put together a "thought paper" on e-learning as a general topic: What policies do we currently have in the state in statute and administrative rules and kind of operating procedures that either are obstacles or are drivers for taking whatever the next step is regarding e-learning distance ed? And we asked them to look at our stuff and tell us from their national perspective what are we doing that's going to help. What do we have in place that's a problem? Give us some suggestions on how to begin to take the next steps to create the policy framework that will make this happen in the best possible way. So they've taken a first stab at that and have come up with a draft of this document that we actually distributed to the board in October. The board will have a chance to look at that over the next couple of weeks and we'll come back and have a more indepth discussion about it at their December meeting.
Someone in another state told me that they are wanting to go slow, to look at things thoroughly, and to try to do it right. It sounds like that's what you guys are really trying to do, too.
Yeah. This is one of those areas that would be really easy to screw up. And you could do that by being too aggressive or you could do that by being completely head-in-the-sand. I think that what we're trying to do is to say, "This is too important to get wrong." It's coming whether we like it or not, and we like it, so we want to do the absolute best possible thinking in advance so that when we get to the point of making some policy level decisions we're comfortable that we're making the right ones. Which makes it even more difficult for my generation, we're the second-language learners, we're the ones who are not fluent in the technological language. My kids are going to be fluent in the technological language so it puts us in an awkward position: We're writing rules for the ones who are really going to be fluent in it. And that's exactly why slow and steady wins the race in this case.
What would be worst kind of screw up in your view?
You can take it from either side. I think the worst kind would be to say, "We're not even going to address this issue because we believe that it's not a viable way to provide instruction." We can't go that way. I also think that we could make some hasty decisions around our funding model that could throw, have a ripple effect across the system that would be devastating.
Like what?
I can't really say because I haven't thought it through enough to give you an example that I could be absolutely certain would be bad.
You just have this feeling that there could be some unintended consequences.
Yeah. There are a lot of unintended consequences. So any decision that we make we really need to play out as far as we can so that we can think through and address as many of the unintended consequences in advance as we possibly can.
After the board looks at the proposal, what's the next step? Is it something that has to go to the legislature?
I don't know. I think that just depends on how far they decide to go with the recommendations that are in this document.
You mean the state?
Yeah. It depends, some of the recommendations, or some of the steps that we could take, would require legislation. Though there very likely are recommendations that we can start with the statutory language that we currently have.
One more technical questions about funding. If a school district's enrollment suddenly ballooned because they could draw students from all over the state, what consequences does that have for other districts' funding?
It really depends on where they draw those additional students. If they're just moving students around within the public school system, it wouldn't necessarily have an overall impact on the total amount. It would have an impact on districts based on the kids that they would either lose or gain. If they're drawing kids who are currently not in the system, who are being homeschooled or are in private schools, then it would have a fairly insignificant, but—depending on the numbers—it would dilute that per-student amount by a pretty tiny amount, but it would have an impact on it because it would be serving kids that are currently not in the denominator.
Is that a big concern that online schools may draw in a lot of homeschoolers who haven't been in the system before?
I think that we just have to wait and see. Ultimately, the state is obligated to provide an education to every kid who comes to school. And if they are a kid that for whatever reason feels that the current system isn't serving their needs, they're choosing not to take advantage of what they legally have access to. If we modify our system that would draw them back in, it might have a very small overall per-student impact, but as it stands now it's at the discretion of those parents who choose to take advantage of some of the exceptions to compulsory education.
Last questions. I really thank you for your time. Does the fact that Oregon has online testing facilitate online schooling in any way?
Well, I think the fact that we have the online testing is very significant. How it really would play out with providing online education, I'm not sure if there's a significant relationship between the two. It kind of primes us for accepting an online instructional program, given the fact that we are developing and implementing very successfully an online assessment system. It's kind of like, "We've done that. It's working. There have been problems but we've fixed them. OK we can do this too."
| 
.
