Trying to figure out how much a bill will cost schools can sometimes be like trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
For school leaders, though, this is no philosophical exercise. When the Legislature enacts laws that affect education requirements, there are real financial consequences, even if they are difficult to see.
OSBA has long opposed unfunded mandates from the Legislature. This session we are putting extra effort into making clear that just because a cost isn’t known doesn’t mean it’s free.
House Bill 3365 A provides a good example. The bill would require the State Board of Education to ensure that the academic content standards for “core subjects” include “sufficient” instruction on the causes and effects of climate change. Neither “core subject” nor “sufficient” are defined in the bill.
The Legislative Fiscal Office has determined it would have “minimal fiscal impact.” The word “minimal” seems to be doing a lot of work here.
We know this bill may, at a minimum, require new curricula and ongoing training for staff to teach it. And when staff attend professional development, districts have the added cost of the daily rate for substitute teachers. Additionally, depending on the rulemaking by the State Board of Education, updating the math and English language arts summative assessments to include the new climate change curricula will add significant cost.
It’s important to note that I did not oppose this bill because this about climate change. I opposed it because it would be yet another unfunded mandate on our school districts. I appreciate the proponents’ explaining that the intent of the bill is not to require climate change curriculum in every core subject at every grade level. However, the text of the bill says the opposite.
OSBA understands the value of students’ learning about climate change science. There are already content standards and required instruction in health, social sciences and science standards.
Determining the fiscal impact of a particular bill to our school districts is not a hard science, though. It is often easier to provide context as to how a bill would impact a district than it is to provide a specific number.
Because HB 3365A lacks clear guardrails for the State Board of Education, the bill’s impact during rulemaking could potentially be much larger than the proponents realize.
Many school districts are still feeling the impact in the rulemaking aftermath of Senate Bill 3 from the 2023 session. That bill also was considered to have a minimal fiscal impact, but adding two graduation requirements is actually a significant staff and curricula undertaking.
Lori Sattenspiel, former OSBA Legislative Services director, testified before the House Education Committee during December Legislative Days about the difficulty in determining fiscals for our districts. The Legislative Fiscal Office is charged with determining the final fiscal impact for all agencies. However, school districts are not agencies, so the task is harder.
There are 197 school districts and 19 ESDs in Oregon, all with different budgets and staff. We often do not know a bill’s exact toll on each until after the bill is implemented.
The turnaround to provide fiscal information to LFO during the legislative session is short. The tight turnaround also makes it difficult to hear back from districts with precise information. Many times, the fiscal impact is marked “indeterminate,” meaning there will be an impact but we don’t know how much it will cost until after implementation. OSBA had an indeterminate fiscal on HB 3365A.
Several states have adopted climate change curricula, but a key difference is they have provided funding to their districts for implementation.
Maine adopted a pilot program and provided $2 million in grants for professional development and nearly $95,000 to their department of education to support the grants.
New Jersey allocated $5 million to help schools implement the new curriculum.
Maryland provided $2 million for professional development and outdoor learning experiences.
Our neighbors to the north and south, Washington and California, allocated $3 million and $6 million, respectively, for professional development and curricula updates.
School districts across Oregon are cutting budgets and laying off staff. We already ask our districts to do a lot with a little. Without additional funding, we cannot ask our districts to do even more.
Oregon school districts cannot afford any more budget surprises. We believe the best way for the Legislature to demonstrate its commitment to climate change education would be to provide funding for implementation.
– Adrienne Anderson
OSBA Government Relations Counsel
