The Senate Education Committee held an extended public hearing on April 7 on Senate Bill 141, a proposed K–12 accountability and improvement framework developed with the governor's office and multiple stakeholders.

Why it matters: SB 141 would create a statewide accountability dashboard, require interim assessments multiple times per year, and set routines for state support and possible directed spending when districts are identified for intensive assistance. Stakeholders and committee members said the bill could help coordinate supports statewide but flagged significant implementation questions about equity, data transparency and the scope of state authority.

What presenters said
- Jonna Timbs, Governor Tina Kotek’s education initiatives director, summarized the administration’s goals and amendments: “now is the time to establish an accountability system that brings coherence across the entire education system.” She said dash 4 amendments align complaint timelines, adjust growth-target start dates, expand the number of locally selected metrics, and require ODE to report back in December 2025 on steps taken to consolidate grants and reporting and improve transparency.

- Tim Boyd, ODE director of district and school effectiveness, addressed concerns about nontraditional entities and students in specialized programs. On differentiating targets he said, “the ability to differentiate is not to change or lessen the standards. It's to look at a school or an institution that doesn't have that full complement of growth targets.”

- Matthew Garrett, interim deputy director at ODE, said the agency will produce an action plan and report to the committee on implementation milestones: ODE will “bring back [an] action plan June of 2025” and intends ongoing reporting and collaboration with districts.

Stakeholder perspectives and concerns
- Several stakeholder groups voiced conditional support for the bill and the recent dash amendments while urging clarifications. Parisa Chanrami of COSA said “the details matter,” emphasizing the need for ODE deliverables before the 2026–27 school year and urging that support teams match district context. Amber Eaton of the Oregon Association of Education Service Districts asked for explicit recognition that some ESDs enroll K–12 students in specialized programs and recommended separate rulemaking for nontraditional programs.

- Foundations for a Better Oregon offered support for the bill’s combination of statewide expectations and local decision-making: “A successful k 12 public school system requires sufficient and stable investment and strong and actionable plans for accountability and improvement,” Whitney Grubbs testified.

- Representatives of juvenile detention education programs warned the committee that short-stay settings and the unique needs of detained youth do not fit conventional attendance and interim-assessment timelines and recommended separate metrics or a focused work group to develop appropriate measures.

Questions from committee members
- Senator Gelser Blue pressed whether the bill’s differentiation could create incentives to move students into nontraditional programs and thereby mask district performance, asking, “Are we unintentionally perhaps setting up a more inequitable system that expands the the gap for the most underserved populations in our schools?” ODE staff acknowledged the risk and said rulemaking and implementation would need to safeguard against push-outs and invisibilizing students.

- Senators asked for clarity on how attendance metrics will treat abbreviated school days and students served in education service districts, and whether data will be disaggregated by disability type. ODE officials agreed to return with specifics on attendance calculation and disaggregation.

Implementation details discussed
- The presenters said the bill requires interim assessments at least three times per year for K–8 math and reading and that results should be reviewed publicly by superintendents and boards three times per year. The dash amendments would also require ODE to work with a K–12 budgeting organization on any directed spending plans and to present such plans publicly before implementation.

Committee next steps
- The bill drew extensive questioning and will return to committee. The chair said the committee has set aside more time for SB 141 at a later meeting and asked stakeholders to submit remaining questions immediately so staff can prepare responses.

What the hearing did not do: The committee took no final vote on SB 141; members instead sought written clarifications and implementation detail before taking further action.