WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF OREGON’S STATE-LEVEL EDUCATION POLICY by KEVIN LAXTON A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education June 2020 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Kevin Laxton Title: What Is the Purpose of Education: An Analysis of Oregon’s State-Level Education Policy This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Education degree in the Department of Education Methodology, Policy, and Leadership by: Jo Smith Chairperson Nancy Golden Core Member Christine Pitts Core Member Laura Leete Institutional Representative And Kate Mondloch Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2020 ii © 2020 Kevin Laxton This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (United States) License. iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Kevin Laxton Doctor of Education Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership June 2020 Title: What Is the Purpose of Education: An Analysis of Oregon’s State-Level Education Policy Education is often criticized as being in need of reform. Educators, policy makers, students, and all manner of education stakeholders offer suggestions for how to ‘fix’ the education system. In order to fix something, though, the workings and intended purposes of that thing must first be understood (e.g., how the thing is supposed to work). This is as true of education systems as it is of any other sort of system. To that end, this study sought to determine what the purpose of the education system is in Oregon. In order to determine what the purpose of Kindergarten through grade 12 (K12) education is in Oregon, a new theoretical framework was tested within the context of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) that govern Oregon’s education system. The framework for this study was based on prior research from theorists critical of education systems and proposes that the purpose of education could be to (a) advance individuals, (b) improve individuals, (c) improve society, or (d) sustain education. Through the analyses for this study, this framework was discovered to manifest in Oregon as the following five purposes of education: (a) empower historically underserved populations of students, (b) provide students with skills, (c) prepare individuals for their future, (d) positively impact society, and (e) provide childcare. This study includes a discussion of these five purposes iv and implications for education leaders, policymakers, and future studies. This study concludes by exploring how such purposes could be applied in the current context of a global pandemic. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Kevin Laxton GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene Western Oregon University University of Illinois, Chicago Oregon State University DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Education, 2020, University of Oregon Master in the Art of Teaching, 2012, Western Oregon University Bachelor of Science, Bioengineering, 2006, Oregon State University AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Education policy Education leadership PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Math Team Leader, Dallas School District, 6 years] Math Teacher, South Lane School District, 2 years] Teacher, Salem-Keizer School District, 1 years] GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Equity Leadership Fellowship, University of Oregon, 2019 Sammie Baker McCormack Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2020 PUBLICATIONS: vi Yu, C., Nwabuisi-Heath, E., Laxton, K., & LaDu, M. J. (2010). Endocytic pathways mediating oligomeric Aβ42 neurotoxicity. Molecular neurodegeneration, 5(1), 19. Jungbauer, L. M., Yu, C., Laxton, K. J., & LaDu, M. J. (2009). Preparation of fluorescently‐labeled amyloid‐beta peptide assemblies: the effect of fluorophore conjugation on structure and function. Journal of Molecular Recognition: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(5), 403-413. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the sacrifices made by my spouse, Jennifer Vomocil, in providing me with the space and time necessary to pursue and attain this degree. I also want to acknowledge the superb guidance of Dr. Smith in helping me to formulate and focus this study in a way that allowed for the accomplishment of my chief goal of defining a set of purposes for education (and doing so in a reasonable time frame). I would also like to acknowledge the contributions and guidance offered by all of my committee members; Nancy Golden, Christine Pitts, and Laura Leete; without which the quality of this study would have been substantially dimmed. The pursuit of this study was supported in part by the Sammie Baker McCormack Scholarship and the Equity Leadership Fellowship (as provided by the Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership Department). ........... viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Case Argument ......................................................................................... 1 Literature Synthesis .................................................................................. 7 A Theoretical Framework for the Purpose of Education Framework ...... 21 II. METHODS ...................................................................................................... 25 Research Questions ................................................................................... 25 Research Design ....................................................................................... 25 Unit of Analysis ........................................................................................ 26 Time Aspect .............................................................................................. 27 Sampling Logic ......................................................................................... 27 Instrument ................................................................................................. 28 Funding and Funding Sources .................................................................. 34 Analysis .................................................................................................... 37 Connecting Notes to Framework Themes ................................................ 38 Finding Educational Purpose from “Other” Notes ................................... 40 III. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 42 The Explicit Purpose of Education in Oregon .......................................... 42 Funding as It Relates to the Purpose of Education in Oregon .................. 49 Individual Advancement in Oregon .......................................................... 56 Individual Improvement in Oregon .......................................................... 65 Societal Improvement in Oregon .............................................................. 78 Sustaining Education in Oregon ............................................................... 88 Other Purposes of Education in Oregon ................................................... 90 ix Chapter Page Concluding Remarks on This Study’s Findings ....................................... 98 IV. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 99 The Purpose of Education in Oregon (RQ1) ........................................... 99 Oregon Revised Statutes Relate to the Theoretical Framework (RQ2) ... 117 Concluding Remarks on the Purposes of Education in Oregon ................ 128 V. IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 129 Limitations of This Study ......................................................................... 129 Implications for the Application of This Study ........................................ 131 Potential Future Research ......................................................................... 139 Closing Remarks and Final Thoughts ....................................................... 144 EPILOGUE: AN APPLICATION OF EDUCATION PURPOSE IN THE TIME OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC ................................................................... 147 State Level Education Response to A Global Pandemic .......................... 147 A Hypothetical State-Level Response to a Global Pandemic ................... 154 APPENDICIES A. LIST OF CHAPTERS IN TITLE 30: EDUCATION AND CULTURE. .............................................................................................. 162 B. EXAMPLE TOOL ............................................................................... 164 C. OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) THAT EXPLICITLY STATE THE GOALS OF EDUCATION IN OREGON AND THEIR PARAPHRASED GOAL OR PURPOSE ................................................ 165 D. FUNDS DESIGNATED BY OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES .................................................. 168 E. GRANTS DESIGNATED BY OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES .................................................. 172 x Chapter Page F. ACCOUNTS DESIGNATED BY OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES ............................. 175 G. THE NUMBER OF OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) WEIGHTED WITH THE INDICATED COLOR PER CHAPTER AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................... 178 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................ 180 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The varied purposes of education ................................................................. 24 2. Purposes of education in Oregon .................................................................. 116 xii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Arguments for advancing individuals, improving individuals, improving society, and/or sustaining education by reference ....................... 10 2. Themes within the theoretical framework derived from the literature ......... 23 3. List of “other” themes for the purpose of education ..................................... 41 4. The inferred purposes of education in Oregon ............................................. 101 xiii I. INTRODUCTION This study is broken into five chapters. In the first chapter, I introduce the study by providing an argument for the necessity of this study. This is followed by a synthesis of the relevant literature, which led to the creation of a theoretical framework that was used to guide the study. In the second chapter, I present the methods used to undertake this study, starting with the research questions that guided this work. The third chapter consists of a presentation of the findings of this study. The final two chapters consist of a discussion of the findings and a discussion of the implications, respectively, as they relate to the research questions and the theoretical framework for this study. Case Argument Education Needs Fixing. Throughout the late 20th and early 21st century, a great deal of effort has been put into ‘fixing’ various facets of the education system. These efforts can be seen through the passage of various legislation at the national level (e.g., Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990, 1990; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2018; The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2002) and at the state level (e.g., “Oregon Property Tax for Schools and State Operations, Measure 5 (1990),” n.d.; “Oregon State Funding for Dropout Prevention and College Readiness, Measure 98 (2016),” n.d.). These efforts were ostensibly put into place in order to improve educational systems throughout the United States and within Oregon’s borders. Unfortunately, the outcomes of these policies are not always to the benefit of educational systems. At the national level, Meier (2004) argued that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), though intended to help students in poverty, served to damage the 1 education of impoverished students. Linn, Baker, and Betebenner (2002) suggested that the goals of NCLB were not tenable for schools and Abedi (2004) suggested that taking measurements toward achieving those goals were biased against schools with higher than average numbers of English language learners. These arguments may have been what led legislators to revise NCLB through the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Legislators’ goal in passing ESSA seems to have been to “ensure every student succeeds,” (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015, p. 1802) while removing much of the accountability measures that were in place with NCLB. In Oregon, much of the focus for ‘fixing’ education has been on education funding. In the early 1990’s, voters approved a restructuring of the funding system for education, with the intention of improving equitable practice throughout the state by ensuring that the quality of a student’s education is not dependent on the geography of that student’s birth (“Oregon Property Tax for Schools and State Operations, Measure 5 (1990),” n.d.). This has led budgetary concerns for public education in Oregon and, thus, a series of attempts to ‘fix’ the financial problems that vex Oregonians (Dooris, 2019; Douglass, 2019; Hellman, 2013; McMahon, 2010). The drive to improve education funding as a means of ‘fixing’ Oregon’s educational system stems largely from the state’s biennial Quality Education Model (Boly et al., 2018). This report “provides a description of… research and how Oregon’s schools could benefit from adopting the research’s findings” (Boly et al., 2018, p. 5). The report’s findings have consistently shown that Oregon’s public education system is not well enough funded “to meet Oregon’s ambitious education goals” (Boly et al., 2018, p. 7; OSBA, 2018). 2 In this section I will lay the foundation for the need to determine the purpose of education. This foundation starts with a proposed reason for why the aforementioned educational ‘fixes’ at the national level and within Oregon were destined to be ineffective. This discussion will be based on theories stemming from organizational leadership: efforts to repair the education system have floundered because they fail to adequately account for the purpose(s) of education. This is followed by a discussion of how educational purpose can be established within the context of Oregon’s education system. Finally, I will discuss why it is critical that educational purpose is well defined before any attempts to correct any found failures within the education system are made. Repair Requires an Understanding of Purpose. Changing the direction of education, (e.g., via the passage of new legislation) can be very frustrating for educational professionals (Hanson, 2006; Parker-Moore, 2006). Such frustration, stemming from near constant changes in foci, could be potentially avoided if policymakers had a well-known and accepted mission for education that served to drive all proposed changes to education. Sinek (2009) offers that in order to have an impact on organizational outcomes, the identity of the organization needs to drive the actions that the organization takes. That cannot happen if the organization does not have a well- developed identity. Sinek also suggests that one of the most influential factors of an organization’s identity is why that organization exists (i.e., the purpose of the organization). To that end, The Arbinger Institute (2016) suggests that without a well- defined purpose, an organization will be unable to effect real change. I put forth, based on these arguments, that if we, as a society in Oregon, want to improve our state’s education system, we need to fully agree on what we want our 3 education system to do. Such agreement requires a collective understanding of the Oregon education system’s purpose. The stated goals of education in Oregon are explicitly laid out in ORS 329.015(2): (a) To equip students with academic and career skills and information necessary to pursue the future of their choice through a program of rigorous academic preparation and career readiness; (b) To provide an environment that motivates students to pursue serious scholarship and to have experience in applying knowledge and skills and demonstrating achievement; (c) To provide students with the skills necessary to pursue learning throughout their lives in an ever-changing world; and (d) To prepare students for successful transitions to the next phase of their educational development. While Oregon has laid out these goals in the state education code, it is, at present, unclear how well or whether the whole body of education codes in Oregon serve to support these goals. This dissertation is used to examine whether the legislation that is enacted at the state-level in Oregon serves the stated purposes of education in Oregon. To this end, I illuminate what the education codes in Oregon dictate that the education system in Oregon is supposed to be doing. Establishing this purpose will allow legislators to propose legislation, school districts to plan and implement programs and policies, and building-level educators to enact curriculum that is directly linked to that espoused purpose. Discerning Priorities Concerning Educational Purpose. In order to understand the purpose of education in Oregon, it is necessary to understand the policy context in which Oregon’s education system exists. Ultimately, an education system’s workings are 4 dictated by policy (Fowler, 2013). Thus, an analysis of policy should elucidate, at minimum, the intended purpose of education, if not its end goal outright. Federal education policy. Contemporary national education policy seems to align with the idea that the purpose of education is for the benefit of individuals (a framework for the purpose of education is explicitly discussed below). For example, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 had the stated purpose to “close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2002, p. 1425). The Every Student Succeeds Act has the stated purpose to “provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps” (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2018, p. 8). Although both of these fairly recent pieces of national education policy were written with the purpose of education being to advance individual benefits (ala Anyon, 1981; Collins, 1971; Evans & Hunter, 1979; Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985; Salinas-Jimenez et al., 2011), it is currently unclear how state education policy depicts the purpose of education. Given that state-level legislators and policymakers are ultimately provided authority over educational institutions in the state, it is reasonable to examine state-level policy to elucidate the purpose of education in the state. State education codes. State codes of education (e.g. Oregon Revised Statutes that govern education (Education and Culture, 2018)) dictate the policies that underlie what education looks like and how it is intended to be practiced. Each state’s codes for education may structure the state’s education system differently (Smith & Gasparian, 2018) but ultimately the codes themselves, regardless of the state for which they have 5 been written, are a source through which we can understand the education system’s purpose. Some of these rules and regulations of education are enacted as a result of initiatives and ballot measures voted on by the public. Other education codes are enacted by representatives who, themselves, are either directly elected or appointed by those who are directly elected by the public (Fowler, 2013). In this way, state codes of education (in the United States) serve as a manifestation of the will of the majority concerning how and what the educational system is supposed to accomplish. Local education codes. In addition to state-level education policy, local municipalities can also share a fair amount of control over what and how the education system is (Smith & Gasparian, 2018). Such local policies tend to take the form of school district-specific codes of education, such as district board of education policy (Fowler, 2013). These codes, like state-level codes of education, can provide insight into the intended purpose of the educational system. However, an examination of local-level policy would not necessarily provide a perspective that is representative of a larger body (e.g., examining one district within Oregon may not be representative of the whole state). Looking at local codes of education in order to determine a state’s perspective can be likened to defining the shape of a tree based on an examination of individual chips of its bark. In order to examine the purpose of education in Oregon, a broader perspective must be taken. Why Educational Purpose Needs Defining. A current examination of the state- level codes of education will help clarify what the public in Oregon supports as the purpose of education (either through direct enactment via state ballot measures or indirect enactment via passage of legislation by elected officials). This purpose needs to be 6 defined in order for education policy to be aligned (a) vertically (e.g., between local, state, and federal policy), (b) horizontally (i.e., to ensure that multiple policies that govern the same thing do not contradict each other), and (c) temporally (e.g., to ensure new policies and old policies work in concert). If we fail to vertically, horizontally, and temporally align education policies, we risk enacting contradictory policies. As an example, in the absence of alignment with a vision, a policy could be put in place that encourages teachers to know their students on a personal level simultaneously with a policy that forbids teachers from inquiring about a student’s personal life. Furthermore, a shared vision for the purpose of education would empower educators to be able to prioritize their practice (insofar as the policies that govern that practice are concerned) by adhering more closely to policies that enable them to achieve that shared vision. Literature Synthesis In order to shape the methods and scope of this study, I examined prior literature that discusses the purpose(s) of education. This examination was done so as to determine what work has already been done to define what the purpose of education is and what gaps remained. In the following sections, I define how I searched for the literature that I reviewed, and then how the theoretical framework for this study was born from that found literature. The theoretical framework is then explained and described. This framework serves as the basis for this study. Literature Search and Selection. Searches of the ERIC online database were used in order to find literature to elucidate the expected outcomes of the Kindergarten through 12th grade (K12) education system. Initial key-word searches pertaining to educational outcomes and the role of education led to several highly relevant articles 7 (Apple, 1978; Anyon, 1981). These articles helped to identify relevant search terms to better specify the search. Specifically, I searched the DE Descriptors [exact] field for (“role of education” or “school role” or “teacher role” or “foundations of education”) and (“education benefit” or “educational benefits”) not (“foreign countries” or international or intercountry or transnational) not (“higher education” or *college* or university or “post secondary*” or postsecondary*). The DE Descriptors [exact] field, within the ERIC database, is a field of universal subject codes, which are applied to each entry within the database. These criteria were used to find publications that pertained to the purpose of K12 education. No date limitations were applied to this search in order to uncover a broad scope of how the purpose of education has been defined through time. This search resulted in 143 results. These results included 85 reports, 58 journal articles, 50 ERIC documents, two books, and two educational reports (these categories are not mutually exclusive). These results were narrowed by examining the title of each to determine whether the publication would be likely to address the intended outcomes of the US K12 education system. Most of the discarded results were discarded because they focused on a narrow locality (e.g., a study looking within the context of a specific city), on efficacy of specific programs, or on implementation of educational programs. This narrowing resulted in 44 publications, which were further narrowed by an examination of the abstracts of the publications. Any publication with an abstract that clearly pertained directly to the purpose of the K12 educational system was kept (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018; Anyon, 1981; Collins, 1971; Evans & Hunter, 1979; Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, 1985; Goldin, 2003; Hodgson, 2010; Johnson, 1982; Labaree, 2011; Salinas-Jimenez, Artes, & Salinas-Jimenez, 2011). Table 8 1 details these papers with regards to the theories that they put forth concerning education’s fundamental purpose. All other publications were discarded. The discarded publications were tangentially related to the purpose of K12 education but not directly related (e.g., papers concerning how a program helps to improve certain educational outcomes, which implies those outcomes are perceived as pertinent to the purpose of education but fails to directly address what the purpose of education is or should be). Literature Review. None of the literature that resulted from this search contains or consists of a theory of the purpose of education in and of itself. The authors of each piece of literature put forth their own focus for what the purpose of education has been, is, or should be. When examined together these works depict a theoretical framework that could potentially suffice to explain the possible purposes of educational systems. The following sections discuss how these authors see educational systems achieving, or failing to achieve, their understanding of the purpose(s) of education, how this literature forms a framework for examining what the purpose of education is, and to define the terms of that framework. An evolution of the purpose of education. To appropriately identify the purpose of education, the manifest context of education must be carefully examined. Labaree (2011) performed an extensive analysis of the evolution of education throughout the history of the United States, concluding that the purpose of education has shifted its focus over the centuries. The desired educational outcomes began (circa 1600) by seeking to improve religious enlightenment. The rationale behind this desire for religious enlightenment, according to Labaree, was to improve the faithful standings of 9 communities. In essence, it was important that communities (i.e., society) be improved through religious instruction. Table 1 Arguments for Advancing Individuals, Improving Individuals, Improving Society, and/or Sustaining Education by Reference Argues for Argues for Argues for Argues for Education to Education to Education to Education to Advance Improve Improve Sustain Reference Individuals Individuals Society Education Collins, 1971 x Apple, 1978 x x Evans & Hunter, 1979 x x Anyon, 1981 x Johnson, 1982 x x Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and x x Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985 Goldin, 2003 x x x Labaree, 2011 x x x Salinas-Jimenez et al., x x 2011 Abowitz & Stitzlein, x 2018 Crow, Anderson, & x x x Whitman, 2018 The focus of education in subsequent centuries (circa 1800) became to produce an educated electorate (Labaree, 2011). This marked a shift from ensuring that communities were improved by being better able to keep the faith (through being able to read and 10 write) to ensuring the nation was populated by citizens who would be knowledgeable enough to maintain the republic. Despite this shift, the focus was still on ensuring society, rather than individual students, was benefitting as a result of public education. Eventually (circa 1900), the purpose of education changed from focusing on improving the citizenship of the nation to improving the economic growth of the nation (Labaree, 2011). Labaree (2011) states that educational contemporaries of the time sought to “support a vision of schooling that was primarily economic (preparing efficient workers)” (p. 386). This desire for national economic growth was mirrored in a desire for the economic prosperity of the individuals coming out of the education system. In essence, education started to focus on both broad societal outcomes and also on improving the economic standing of individuals. As Labaree puts it, “schooling was a practical necessity for anyone who hoped to make a living by means of commercial activity” (2011, p. 382). More specifically, the purpose of the education system seemed no longer to focus on a political agenda (e.g., improving the electorate) and began focusing on ensuring the production of a capable workforce. More recently, in Labaree’s (2011) accounting, (circa 1960 through 1980) the education system has been focused on improving potential outcomes for individuals. Labaree cites desegregation, state education standards, and school choice movements as manifestations of a desire for schools to create equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their socio-political backgrounds. Such a focus has abandoned any overtones of being for the public good in favor of seeing education as a private good. As Labaree (2011) argues, “[Schools’] purpose was to promote social mobility. Politics was 11 just the means by which one could demand access to this attractive educational commodity” (p. 387). Labaree (2011) concludes by arguing that present-day schools are a product of the various policy systems that have existed since the 1600’s and as such seek to both improve societal outcomes and individual outcomes. In part, Labaree puts forth, one of the purposes of the education system is to discriminate between potentially good employees and potentially bad employees. This reflects a lingering desire for schools to promote the public economic good. In essence, this desire for discrimination drives educational systems to seek to widen gaps in opportunity between different individual students. Conversely, another purpose of the education system is also to close such opportunity gaps, as was sought in the late 19th century. The paradox, writes Labaree, is that, “we will not accept any remedy that would mean giving up one of our aims for education in favor of another. We want it both ways” (p. 394). Advancing individuals as a purpose of education. This paradox that Labaree (2011) points out can be distilled to an argument that education should serve to advance individuals, either advancing historically underserved populations by closing achievement gaps or advancing individuals by giving them an opportunity to set themselves apart from their peers (i.e., by widening achievement gaps). Both sides of the argument want to see individuals belonging to certain populations advanced: either advancing those who start out in life at a disadvantage or advancing those who are able to, by whatever means, get ahead of everyone else. These differing perspectives on education as a driver of individual advancement are reflected in arguments put forth by other authors, as described in the following sections. 12 Advancing individuals via differentiation of individuals. Collins (1971) as well as Labaree (2011) argue that one of the chief purposes of education is to provide individuals a way to differentiate themselves from others in the job market. Essentially, by doing better in school, an individual should be able to establish that they are a better job candidate. Collins also points out that over-reliance on such mechanics has led to academic inflation, a process by which acquiring a job in a given occupational field requires a higher degree of education over time. This phenomenon is something that cannot be accounted for adequately by assuming that a given occupational field’s technical requirements increase over time (Collins, 1971). Salinas-Jiménez, Artés, and Salinas-Jiménez (2011) add to this argument by showing that within a given occupational and income level, where levels of education vary, those with higher levels of education have higher levels of life-satisfaction. That is, if you are in an occupational field with other people who have different education levels than you, you tend to be more satisfied with your life if your education level is better than your peers’ education levels. As such, education has value as something that can be used to differentiate one person from another. This piece of evidence supports the idea that education should serve to differentiate individuals from one another. Taken together, these arguments suggest the one purpose of education is to advance individuals by allowing for the differentiation of one individual from another in an occupational setting. It is also possible that this differentiation would be useful outside of an occupational setting. For instance, the improvements in life-satisfaction found by Salinas-Jiménez et al. were improvements in life-satisfaction, not occupational- satisfaction. This idea can, perhaps, be well summarized as the idea that schools should 13 serve to widen opportunity gaps between individuals, so that individuals can experience the life-satisfaction that comes with having a superior education. Advancing individuals via equitable empowerment. Other authors (Anyon, 1981; Apple, 1978; Labaree, 2011) argue that one of the chief purposes of education is to advance and legitimize a set of cultural norms (more on this can be found below in Improving society as a purpose of education). In doing so, these authors critique, education systems keep those individuals who have power, empowered and those individuals who are without power, powerless. This gives rise to the sentiment that educational systems should, rather, act to do the opposite. That is, rather than keeping the powerful, powerful, schools should seek to empower those who would otherwise not be. Through work with the ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Fitzgerald (1985) argues that education should serve to empower all individuals equitably. She has shown, however, that though educational attainment helps to improve occupational outcomes for white men, increased levels of education do not have the same level of impact on occupation outcomes for blacks or for women. That said, Fitzgerald acknowledges that the education system alone may not be capable of overcoming the race- and sex-driven divides in occupational attainment. Goldin (2003) adds to this line of thinking by arguing that educational systems should serve to improve the social mobility of individuals. Like Fitzgerald (1985), Goldin believes that education should be an egalitarian endeavor, arguing that the privatization of education propagates an elitist society: one in which those who have access to high quality education are empowered by that education and those who lack that access are not. This drives an opportunity gap that is undesirable for those who are below that gap. 14 In total, these authors present an argument that education systems currently serve to widen opportunity gaps. This is put forth as a shortcoming of education systems. Therefore, these authors argue that education systems should serve to eliminate opportunity gaps that exist between individuals. In this way, one purpose of education should be to ensure that all individuals are equitably empowered by the services that they receive from education systems. Improving individuals as a purpose of education. Another perspective on the purpose of education is that it should serve to add value to individuals. Evans and Hunter (1979) epitomize this view by discussing that schools should focus less on the end product of education (e.g., meeting specific graduation requirements and grade-level standards) and focus more on what value is added through the educational process (e.g., how much does a given student learn). Evans and Hunter are non-specific, however, in what kind of value education should seek to add. Thankfully, other authors share this value-adding view and elaborate that education should add skills to students (Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985; Johnson, 1982), improve the economic outlook for individuals via skill attainment (rather than social advancement) (Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985; Goldin, 2003; Labaree, 2011; Salinas- Jimenez et al., 2011), and to empower individuals through enlightenment (Crow et al., 2018; Johnson, 1982). These different facets of improving individuals will be discussed below. While Fitzgerald (1985) is primarily concerned with inequities arising from education, she frames her argument from the perspective that the work of schools is to 15 provide individuals with the skills necessary to attain work. Johnson (1982) also sees the primary work of schools as building skills, though the frame that he takes is less focused on explicitly work-related skills and more focused on literacy and basic life skills. Together these authors echo long held beliefs that one of the purposes of education is to help individuals acquire skills (Labaree, 2011). Based on the findings of the authors discussed here, it is reasonable to argue that part of the reason education systems should seek to be skill-building systems is that building skills can lead to the improvement of an individual’s economic situation. Increased education is correlated with increased income (Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985; Salinas-Jimenez et al., 2011). Goldin (2003) argues that in addition to the increases in income, a broad, general education also makes it easier for any individual to adapt to a changing job market. Specifically, if someone has a broad foundational education, that education alone may be enough to switch careers (if the job market warrants it) or that foundational education will suffice to provide an adequate basis for learning whatever new skills are necessary for the new career that an individual may seek. Another facet of skill-building is enlightenment, which Crow, Anderson, and Whitman (2018) and Johnson (1982) see as empowering for individuals. Johnson articulates this from a literacy perspective: that improving an individual’s literacy (both spoken language literacy and numeracy) empowers that individual to engage with the world in a way that an illiterate person cannot. Crow et al. see this empowerment manifest in the form of an individual’s ability better understand how the world works: 16 that increasing such an understanding empowers an individual to engage with the world in a way that would otherwise be impossible. In total these authors see one purpose of education as improving the ability of individuals to control their own destiny, whether that control comes from the addition of skills, individual economic stability and/or adaptability, or individual empowerment through literacy and understanding. It is worth noting that none of the authors surveyed here see any inherent downside to education systems seeking to improve individuals in these ways. And none of the criticisms offered by these authors imply that seeking to improve individuals via skill-building, literacy, or enlightenment will do any sort of damage. Improving society as a purpose of education. By the aforementioned arguments, education systems should have a positive impact on the lives of the individuals who are educated within those systems (Crow et al., 2018; Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985; Goldin, 2003; Johnson, 1982; Salinas-Jimenez et al., 2011). There is also an argument to be made that educational systems should have a positive impact on society at large. In part, that impact should arise by the cumulative impact made on all individuals who are educated (Evans & Hunter, 1979). Some of that societal impact, however, should come in addition to that cumulative impact. That is, there should be some benefit to society beyond individual gains. The following sections will discuss how prior research has identified that education systems should improve society through the establishment of a common good (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018; Apple, 1978; Goldin, 2003; Labaree, 2011), through the 17 economic growth of society (Goldin, 2003; Johnson, 1982), and through enabling society to accomplish its goals (Crow et al., 2018; Labaree, 2011) Improve society via establishing a common good. Abowitz and Stitzlein (2018) epitomize the argument that education systems should serve to establish a common good. They argue that one of the most important purposes of education is to build a foundational culture (i.e., a set of behavioral and moral expectations) for society. “While schools do and should provide some private goods, like credentials that enable future employment, schools are also widely valued for building skills for social interaction and engaged citizenship,” (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018, p. 35). It is through this establishment of culture, they argue, that we can all come to agree that we, in the United States, should value and fight to protect the rights afforded to us in the Bill of Rights, for example. Abowitz and Stitzlein go on to argue that allowing for the fracturing of education (e.g., via school vouchers, charter schools, and private schools) gives rise to some groups within society adhering to a different set of common values. This fracturing prevents the education system from being able to establish a universal understanding of societal norms of behavior and attitude. To that end, the argument that the purpose of education is for societal advancement only holds up in a context where the education system reaches everyone in the population. Goldin (2003) praises the education system in the United States for providing education to everyone in the nation. By doing so, Goldin argues, the United States was able to foster shared values of entrepreneurship and adaptation to technological changes. 18 Apple (1978) and Anyon (1981) share this view that schools serve to propagate a common sense of right versus wrong and good versus bad within a society. They, however, view this in a cautious way. Both of these authors are concerned with how good and right are defined in educational settings. While it is productive and empowering for all of us to have the same sense of right versus wrong (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018; Goldin, 2003; Labaree, 2011), it is disenfranchising when what is right is defined in a way that is oppressive for some segments of society (Anyon, 1981; Apple, 1978). To that end, these authors urge educators to pay close attention to the ways in which social legitimation plays out in our schools to ensure that this kind of oppression can be avoided. Improve society via improvements to the economy. Another way in which education serves to improve society is through its impact on the economy. Goldin (2003) and Johnson (1982) both argue that the economic impact of education goes beyond the impact that an educated individual experiences (see Improving individuals as a purpose of education above). Goldin bring up that a broad educational base helps prepare a society’s workforce (at large) to adapt to changing economic needs. Johnson points out that higher education levels correlate with a lower likelihood to be incarcerated and having fewer people in jail is cheaper for society. He also shows that improving literacy results in improving income levels, which would empower governments to get more money through taxation, thus empowering the collective activities of society. Johnson uses this way of thinking to propose that education’s value should be measured not by whether it has managed to cure all of the ills of society but rather what the economic gain 19 is by having an education system (i.e., what is the monetary value added to society as a result of having an education system?). Improve society via the ability for society to accomplish its goals. Crow, Anderson, and Whitman (2018) add to this conversation about improving society by suggesting that education systems should seek to transform society. This echoes some sentiments brought to light by Labaree (2011). In Labaree’s assessment, education has been used to help transform communities by improving the communities’ abilities to keep the faith, as an example. Crow et al. go beyond this interpretation, though, by implying that education should improve a society’s ability to adapt to change. An example of this could be improvements in medicine as a result of the education of new and better doctors. This take on education seems to require some sort of research component to education. One of Crow et al.’s chief criticisms of education systems is that they sometimes fail to adapt and take risks in order to improve. There is an implication here, that the way education systems function should be a process of continuous improvement. Through such improvement of education, education systems will be better positioned to help society improve (Crow et al., 2018). Summary of improving society as a purpose of education. In total, these authors suggest that one purpose of education is to improve society by establishing a common good, improving the economy, and enabling society to transform itself. However, the authors do caution that education systems are unlikely to be able to solve all of society’s problems and that any ‘improvement’ is a matter of perspective (i.e., what one person or group sees as an improvement, another person or group could see as a detriment). 20 Self-sustainment as a purpose of education. Crow, Anderson, and Whitman (2018) add another facet to the purpose of education, namely that an education system must serve to preserve itself, “seeking to conserve a scarce allotment of resources,” (2018, p. 124). That is, an effective educational system will have to seek to ensure that it continues to exist despite any changes in the cultural context in which it exists. These authors point out, however, that education systems can work toward preservation to the detriment of any other goal of education. This can happen when education leaders seek to appease stakeholders and, in so doing, avoid risk-taking: “academic bureaucracies are generally risk averse, seeking to conserve a scarce allotment of resources, even at the expense of quality in teaching, learning” (Crow et al., 2018, p. 124). That lack of risk- taking can diminish an education system’s capacity to transform society in positive ways. A Theoretical Framework for the Purpose of Education Framework The above review of the prior research on the purposes of education suggests that the purpose of education is some combination of being for the benefit of individual advancement, individual improvement, societal improvement, and/or the sustainment of educational institutions. These terms (i.e. aspects of the theoretical framework) need specific definitions in order to be fully understood and vetted. For the purposes of this study, I define (a) individual advancement as improvement in the socio-economic standing of an individual, (b) individual improvement as an increase in an individual’s capacity to accomplish that individual’s goals, (c) societal improvement as an increase in society’s capacity to accomplish the collective goals of its population, and (d) sustaining education as seeking to continue the existence of educational systems and institutions. 21 Each of these aspects of the theoretical framework for this study can be broken down into themes. Table 2 depicts which authors provide support for each theme within each aspect. There are two themes within the aspect of individual advancement: (a) differentiation via achievement (gap widening) and (b) social mobility, equity, social empowerment (gap closing). There are four themes within the aspect of individual improvement: (a) skill acquisition, (b) job readiness, (c) career mobility, and (d) individual empowerment. There are four themes within the aspect of societal improvement: (a) establish common good, (b) improve economy, (c) achieve collective (societal) goals, and (d) promote democracy. The final aspect of the framework, sustain education, had no alternate sub-themes. Figure 1 presents a visual representation of this theoretical framework as a pie chart. The size of each wedge can be changed to reflect a specific context (e.g., a state or nation) so as to indicate the relative importance of each wedge in that context. There is also an empty space to provide for the possibility that some other component (not explained by this framework) may play a role in the purpose of education. Table 2 shows how the arguments in the literature support this theoretical framework. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree to which state-level education policy supports this theoretical framework and to use this framework to better understand what the purpose of education in Oregon is. 22 Table 2 Themes within the theoretical framework for this study derived from my review of the literature Advance Individuals Improve Individuals Improve Society Sustain Education Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Theme Authors Theme Authors Theme Authors Theme Authors Collins, Differentiation Evans & Abowitz & Labaree, Establish Via Skill Hunter, Stitzlein, Sustain Crow et Salinas- Common Achievement Acquisition Fitzgerald, Apple, Existence al. Jimenez et Good (gap widening) Johnson Goldin al. Social Anyon, Mobility, Evans & Apple, Equity, Social Fitzgerald, Improve Hunter, Fitzgerald, Job- Readiness Empowerment Goldin Economy Goldin, Goldin, (closing the Johnson Labaree gap) Achieve Career Collective Crow et al., Goldin Mobility (Social) Labaree Goals Crow et al., Abowitz & Labaree, Individual Promote Stitzlein, Salinas- Empowerment Democracy Goldin, Jimenez et Labaree al. 23 THE VARIED PURPOSES OF EDUCATION ​ Individual Advancement: Improve individuals' Sustain socio-economic Education: standing relative Maintain the to others existence of educational systems Individual Improvement: Societal Improve Improvement: individuals' Improve capacity to society's accomplish their capacity to desired goals accomplish the collective goals of its population Figure 1. Incomplete pie chart depicting the purpose of education. Prior research argues that education is some combination of a mechanism by which individuals can attain socio-economic advancement, a mechanism by which individuals’ skills and knowledge can be improved so as to improve their ability to accomplish their individual goals, a mechanism by which society can improve its capacity to accomplish its population’s collective goals, or a mechanism by which the educational system serves to perpetuate itself. A blank space is left in the pie chart to account for the possibility that the purpose of education may be explained by some other factor(s). 24 II. METHODS In the sections that follow, I describe the research methods for this study. Specifically, I describe the research questions that drove this study, the research design, the data source, the instrument used, the manner of the collection of the data, and the analysis conducted. Research Questions In order to address the primary concerns of this study, I will seek to answer the following research questions: • Research Question 1: a. What is the inferred purpose of education in Oregon based on the body of Oregon state education codes? b. Does this inferred purpose support the stated purpose of education in Oregon’s statute ORS 329.015? • Research Question 2: Can Oregon’s state codes of education be categorized as either (a) meant to advance individuals, (b) meant to improve individuals, (c) meant to improve society, or (d) meant to sustain education? • Research Question 3: What are the implications for Oregon’s State legislators and future research? The methodology that follows was designed to answer these specific questions. Research Design This study examined the stated purpose of education in Oregon and how well state policy aligns with and/or explains that purpose. Remler and Van Ryzin (2014) 25 suggest that employing a qualitative approach to policy analysis allows for analysis of variables that are not easily quantified, in particular those found in written documents. The goal of this study was to understand how state policy reflects the purpose of education. Both of those variables (i.e., state policy and educational purpose) are difficult to quantify because they do not lend themselves to numerical summary. Taking a qualitative approach, however, allowed for an analysis of existing policy documents such that themes could be identified and aligned with the theoretical purpose(s) of education (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2014). Unit of Analysis State education statutes (i.e., Oregon Revised Statutes) were examined to answer the research questions. Thus the unit of analysis for this project was the state codes of education (Babbie, 2012). I examined this data in order to make inferences about the purpose of education within Oregon (Babbie, 2012). With this unit of analysis, I was able to describe ways in which the state codes of education support and failed to support the theoretical purpose(s) of education (as identified in the Theoretical Framework, see Figure 1). Oregon’s state codes of education were accessed using NexisUni (“Nexis Uni® - Sign In | LexisNexis,” n.d.), via the University of Oregon’s library. This study focused on those state codes of education as listed in Volume 9: Education and Culture of the Oregon Revised Statutes. All of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) found in chapters 326 through 353 were be examined (see Sampling Logic below and Appendix A for further details). 26 Time Aspect I employed a cross-sectional design for this study, defined as “observations of a sample, or cross section, of a population or phenomenon that are made at one point in time” (Babbie (2007, p. 105). In the context of this study, I examined state education legislation as it existed on January 1st 2020. This time point provided a single snapshot of state education legislation and policy. One of the limitations of cross-sectional studies is that it is hard to generalize the findings of such studies to time-frames outside the “snap- shot” in which they were taken (Babbie, 2012). For the purposes of this study, I was interested in identifying what the current stated purpose of education is and how that aligns with current state policies, making a cross-sectional design appropriate. Sampling Logic The goal of this study was to examine the alignment of the theoretical purpose of education (as defined by the theoretical framework for this study) and the policies that govern education within Oregon. To that end, I analyzed all of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) (Education and Culture, 2018) related to Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K12) education. Appendix A depicts a list of the chapters that can be found within ORS Title 30: Education and Culture (Education and Culture, 2018). Chapters were only included in this study if they were materially related to K12 education. Chapters that were related to early childhood education (e.g., Chapter 329A: Child Care); post- secondary education (e.g., Chapters 341: Community Colleges, 345: Career Schools, 350: Statewide Coordination of Higher Education); or culture, rather than education, (i.e., Chapters 357 through 360) were excluded from this study. Two chapters, Chapter 331: School District Elections and Chapter 333: County Unit System, were comprised entirely 27 of ORS that had been either renumbered or repealed. As such, these chapters’ ORS were not included in this study. Title 30 also contained a number of chapters (i.e., Chapters 347, 349, 355, 356, and 361 through 365) that were reserved for future statutes. At the time of this study, however, these chapters contained no ORS. Through a thorough analysis of all of Oregon’s K12 related education codes, I was able to find explicit references to the purpose of education in the state of Oregon. I was also able to infer the purpose of education through an examination of the aggregate body of ORS that do not contain an explicit statement of purpose. Instrument The instrument used for this study was a spreadsheet comprised of the following columns: Chapter Section, Sub-Section, Oregon Revised Statute Title, Text of the Oregon Revised Statute, Purpose Checklist, Emergent Notes. The Purpose Checklist column was broken into six sub-columns: Individual Advancement, Individual Improvement, Societal Improvement, Sustain Education, Something Else, and No Inferred Purpose. The first four of these sub-columns mirror the theoretical framework used for this study. Appendix B contains an example of this instrument (prior to use). Oregon Revised Statutes that inferred some purpose of education. At the outset of the study, ORS from each chapter were copied into the spreadsheet, one at a time. Each subsection for each ORS was copied into a unique row in the tool. Once the ORS subsection was copied into the tool, it was analyzed to determine how, if at all, it aligned with the theoretical framework for this study. Notes and/or direct quotations from the ORS subsection were entered into the appropriate columns of the tool to indicate how the ORS subsection could be seen to confirm or refute the theoretical framework for this 28 study. If the purpose inferred by the ORS subsection did not seem to fit within the framework for this study, that was also noted (potentially including quotations from the text of the ORS subsection) in the appropriate column. If the ORS subsection stated a purpose for education, then that purpose was identified as aligning with individual advancement, individual improvement, societal improvement, sustaining education, and/or something else. As an example, ORS 326.125 states, “For the purpose of assisting school districts with capital costs….”(Education and Culture, 2018). This ORS explicitly states its purpose. That purpose is not aligned with the theoretical framework for this study. Thus, this code would be categorized as showing that education has some other purpose. If a purpose for the ORS was not explicitly stated, I attempted to infer its purpose based on the language present. An example of this can be found in ORS 329.015(1), which states, “The Legislative Assembly believes that education is a major civilizing influence…”(Education and Culture, 2018). This quotation implies that education is intended to improve society (via the cultivation of civilization). Thus, this code would be categorized as showing that education is meant to improve society. Instrument color coding. In order to determine how well the theoretical framework explained the purpose of education within the context of the Oregon Revised Statutes, each cell of the study instrument that contained any note or quotation was color- coded. The color-codes used were green, teal, yellow, orange, and red. Green was used to show that the language used in an ORS explicitly stated one of the aspects of the framework. Teal was used to show that the language used in an ORS clearly linked to but did not explicitly state an aspect of the framework. Yellow was used to show that the 29 language of an ORS could be seen as arguably linked to an aspect of the framework. Orange was used to show that the language of the ORS could be seen as having some connection to an aspect of the framework but that connection was not directly tied to the apparent intent of the ORS. Red was used to show that there could be an argument made to connect the ORS to an aspect of the framework but that the argument was weak or far removed from the direct impact or intent of the ORS. This color-coding was devised as the ORS were analyzed. It became clear early on in the collection of data that these categories would suffice as a means of measuring how well the framework could be applied as a means of understanding what the purpose of education is in the context of the ORS concerning education. ORS 329.025: Characteristics of school system provides reasonable examples of the color-coding that was used. ORS 329.025(2) reads, “Assumes that all students can learn and establishes high, specific skill and knowledge expectations and recognizes individual differences at all instructional levels” (Education and Culture, 2018). The quotation, “establishes high, specific skill and knowledge expectations,” explicitly states that school systems should build skills in students, which is a manifestation of the Individual Improvement tenet of the framework for this study. Thus, this quotation was entered into the tool in the “Individual Improvement” column (see Appendix B) and color-coded green. The quotation, “recognizes individual differences,” uses language that is clearly linked to advancing individuals (i.e., language that implies an interest in closing achievement gaps). Thus, this quotation was entered into the “Individual Advancement” column (see Appendix B) and color-coded teal. 30 An example of the use of yellow color-coding can be found in ORS 329.025(13), which reads, “Provides students with the knowledge and skills to take responsibility for their decisions and choices,” (Education and Culture, 2018). Making sure that school systems ensure students “take responsibility for their decisions and choices” is something that would, arguably, improve social interactions between people and improve our collective agreements about how to appropriately behave. This arguable link to the idea that schools should seek to improve society via establishing a common good (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018; Apple, 1978; Goldin, 2003) led me to add the note, “improves social interactions?” in the “Societal Improvement” column (see Appendix B) and color-code it yellow. ORS 329.025(13) was also color-coded green in the “Individual Improvement” column with the note “skill building” since the language in the subsection explicitly refers to building skills. An example of the use of orange color-coding can be found in ORS 329.025(9), which reads, “Provides increased learning time,” (Education and Culture, 2018). The theme of the time-dependency and/or time-limited nature of education came up a number of times throughout my analysis. This particular ORS subsection does not explicitly state, nor is it clearly inferring, that a purpose of education is to be time limited. This ORS subsection is, however, clearly connected to that theme. Thus, I put the note, “time matters in education” in the “Other” column (see Appendix B) and color-coded it orange. The only instance of the use of the red color-coding was in ORS 335.500: Procedure after election to lengthen course; effective date of change (Education and Culture, 2018). Subsection (2) states, “The lengthened course of study shall become effective the July 1 next following approval of the course by the State Board of 31 Education.” This statute dictates when a lengthened school year can take effect if a school board decides to lengthen the school year. I saw a connection between deferring the approval of such a change to the State Board of Education and the idea of catering to the desires of stakeholders, potentially to the detriment of the other goals of education. Crow, Anderson, and Whitman might argue that doing so would constitute an example of education’s purpose to sustain itself (Crow et al., 2018). The connection here is, at best, a stretch. This ORS is more likely intended to ensure continuity and prevent undue disruption to the educational process (so that other goals of education can be served). Still there is a stretched connection here, so I put the note, “deferred authority to a higher body of education(?)” in the “Sustain Education” column (see Appendix B) and color-coded it red. Oregon Revised Statutes that did not infer any purpose of education. If the ORS subsection did not seem to infer any purpose of education, that was also indicated in the appropriate column. ORS subsections were only marked as having no inferred purpose for one of three reasons: • It could be reasonably argued that the ORS subsection inferred that the purpose of education could have been anything, given the provided context of the ORS. • There were a finite number of mutually exclusive things the ORS could be assumed to infer the purpose of education is but it was ambiguous which was accurate. • I could not infer any purpose of education from the ORS subsection 32 ORS 332.585: Determination of student census by school districts (Education and Culture, 2018) serves as an example of a case where it could be argued that the ORS subsection could be taken to infer that anything could be the purpose of education, “The district school board may conduct a student census to determine the number of pupils between the ages of 4 and 20 resident within the district.” It is possible that districts need to conduct a census so that education systems can determine how much resource is needed in order to accomplish the explicitly stated goals of education. It is also possible that this census is necessary in order to determine how many jail cells need to be built in a given year. The text of the ORS does not provide any guidance as to why the census may or may not be conducted. Thus, for the purposes of this study, such an ORS was determined to have no inferred purpose. ORS 343.151(5): Individualized education program; contents; procedures; review; revision; rules; standard forms; alternate forms (Education and Culture, 2018) serves as an example of a case where there were a finite number of mutually exclusive purposes of education and it was ambiguous as to which inferred purpose was accurate: In considering whether to approve an alternate form under subsection (4) of this section, the department shall consider whether the form meets the requirements for the contents of an individualized education program adopted under subsection (2) of this section and whether the form satisfies the intent of subsection (4) of this section to reduce unnecessary or confusing paperwork. The department shall approve or disapprove an alternate form submitted under subsection (4) of this section within 10 days of receiving the alternate form. 33 In this ORS subsection, it is unclear whether the approval of an alternate form in order to reduce “unnecessary or confusing paperwork” is for the purpose of making the jobs of educators easier, for the purpose of making the interpretation of information in the form easier for parents and/or students, or for both purposes simultaneously. As a result, ORS subsections like ORS 343.151(5) were marked as having no inferred purpose. Most of the ORS subsections that were marked as having no inferred purpose were marked as such because I could not determine, from the text of the subsection, what the purpose of education should be. One example of these is ORS 326.011: Policy: In establishing policy for the administration and operation of the public elementary and secondary schools in the State of Oregon and in carrying out its duties as prescribed by law, the State Board of Education shall consider the goals of modern education, the requirements of a sound, comprehensive curriculum best suited to the needs of the students and the public and any other factors consistent with the maintenance of a modern and efficient elementary and secondary school system. While this ORS refers to the “goals of modern education,” it gives no indication as to what those goals are (nor what other ORS may contain those goals). Funding and Funding Sources Governing bodies have several mechanisms by which to ensure the rules that they write into law are followed (Fowler, 2013). In Fowler’s words, “most important is money, because its possessors can easily convert it into other resources” (2013, pp. 28- 29). The following sections relate why an analysis of funding and funding sources was 34 necessary in order to answer the research questions for this study and the exact protocols by which relevant ORS were identified. Funding sources help to answer the research questions for this study. I sought to determine the explicit and inferred purposes of education through this study (see Research Questions). In order to determine the inferred purpose of education it is necessary to see what rules and regulations are supported by funds. Fowler (2013) instructs that whether a policy in place is a mandate, an inducement, capacity-building, or a system change, it is necessary to consider how moneys will be spent or transferred in order to accomplish the policy. Without proper attention to matters of funding, policymakers risk poor (potentially no) implementation of the policy that is put forth. Searching for and identifying Oregon Revised Statutes that relate to funding. In order to begin to clarify some hierarchy of what is most important to accomplish in K12 education in Oregon, I searched through all of the ORS included in this study for the terms, “fund,” “reimburse,” “account,” and “grant.” This search was performed after all of the codes had been entered into the tool, notes and quotations were added, and color- coding was complete. Any ORS that resulted from the search was added to a new spreadsheet. This resulted in identifying 87 ORS subsections (rows in the spreadsheet). Each of these ORS subsections were re-read in order to answer the following questions: 1. What fund does this ORS subsection create (i.e., what is the name of the fund)? 2. What is the source of moneys for this fund? 3. What are the acceptable/allowable uses for moneys stored in this fund? 35 4. For what activities or failures does this ORS subsection indicate funds will be withheld? Notes were made in this funding spreadsheet concerning each of these questions, where possible. As an example, ORS 326.115 states, The Department of Education Account is established separate and distinct from the General Fund. All moneys received by the Department of Education, other than appropriations from the General Fund, shall be deposited into the account and are continuously appropriated to the department to carry out the duties, functions and powers of the department. This ORS establishes the “Department of Education Account,” (answering question 1 above) which is funded by the General Fund and other, undisclosed funding sources (answering question 2 above). This ORS does not state what these funds should be used for. In order to answer question 3 above, the ORS included in this study were searched for references to ORS 326.115 and “Department of Education Account.” This identified several other ORS that refer to ORS 326.115. For instance, ORS 326.365(9) directs that moneys be put into the Department of Education Account that are to be used to establish a grant program for districts to acquire and be trained to use automated external defibrillators. Using this iterative searching approach question 3 above was answered for each of the ORS subsections that were identified as establishing a fund or account. Some ORS subsections that were identified by the initial funding search did not establish a fund, nor did they state how moneys flowed into or out of an account established by another ORS. These ORS subsections did, however, identify criteria to 36 determine when funding should be withheld. ORS 327.109(2) is one such ORS subsection, which states, in part: If, after the preliminary investigation, the superintendent finds that there is a substantial basis to believe that the school district or public charter school sponsors, financially supports or is actively involved with religious activity, the superintendent shall… Withhold immediately all funds due the school district under ORS 327.095… (para 1, (a)(B)) Note that ORS 327.109(2)(a)(B) indicates that funding will be withheld if certain criteria are met. Thus, a search of the related ORS (i.e., ORS 327.095) was used to determine exactly what those conditions are. A similar iterative search was performed for all ORS that indicated that funding should be withheld in order to answer question 4 above. Analysis The data generated through this study were analyzed in two distinct phases. The first phase of analysis occurred as data were entered into the tool used for this study (see Appendix B). Specifically, as an education code was identified, its purpose was analyzed by examining the text of the code. For the explicit protocols followed for this phase of analysis see the Instrument section above. The second phase of analysis occurred after all of the education codes had been documented and the first phase of analysis had been completed. At this point, the collected data were analyzed to identify themes in each of the columns of the tool (see Appendix B) and relate those themes to the theoretical framework for this study. For each of the columns dedicated to the theoretical framework for this study (i.e., “Individual Advancement,” “Individual Improvement,” “Societal Improvement,” and “Sustain 37 Education”), each ORS subsection was marked as supporting and/or refuting the various themes for each aspect of the framework (see Table 2). In order to make such notations of affirmation and/or rejection, ORS subsections with notes for each of the four columns listed above were put into a separate spreadsheet created for the analysis of that aspect of the framework. Connecting Notes to Framework Themes Within each of these new spreadsheets, the ORS subsections were ordered according to their color-coding (green first, teal second, yellow third, orange fourth, and red fifth). New columns were created alongside the columns of previously entered notes. One new column was created for each theme (see Table 2). If the notes for the ORS subsection or the text of the ORS subsection itself supported a particular theme a “y” was put into the corresponding column. In ORS 329.025(2), for example, the text of the ORS subsections reads, “Assumes that all students can learn and establishes high, specific skill and knowledge expectations and recognizes individual differences at all instructional levels,” and the note in the “Individual Improvement” column quotations, “establishes high, specific skill and knowledge expectations.” This note supports the theme of “Skill Acquisition” (see Table 2). So, a “y” was entered into the column for “Skill Acquisition” in the spreadsheet for Individual Improvement. If, however the note or text refuted the theme, an “n” was put into the corresponding column. ORS 326.700 states: It is the purpose of ORS 326.712 and 327.026 and this section that youths enrolled in the Youth Corrections Education Program and the Juvenile Detention Education Program administered by the Department of Education be treated as 38 nearly the same as practicable in the distribution of the State School Fund as children enrolled in common and union high school districts in this state. The note for ORS 326.700 says, “no differential treatment of corrections youths,” and is in the “Individual Advancement” column of the tool (see Appendix B). This note implies that this ORS is intended to impede the education system from differentiating between individuals. Thus, an “n” was entered into the column for the theme of “Differentiation Via Achievement (gap widening)” (see Table 2). In some cases, the ORS subsection supported a theme in some ways and refuted the same theme in other ways, in which case a “y/n” was put into the corresponding column. This tended to happen when the color coding was yellow or orange and the connection between the ORS subsection and the theme was not obvious or direct. This occurred for ORS 336.074(2), which reads, “Instruction may be conducted in more than one language in order that pupils whose native language is other than English can develop bilingual skills to make an early and effective transition to English and benefit from increased educational opportunities,” and the note for which (in the “Individual Advancement” column) reads, “assimilation for advancement?” In this case, the note indicates that this ORS subsection could be seen as enforcing cultural assimilation, which is generally seen as socially oppressive, rather than empowering (Martinez, DeGarmo, & Eddy, 2004). This would merit an “n” for the theme of “Social Mobility, Equity, Social Empowerment (closing the gap)” (see Table 2). However, the note also indicates that this ORS subsection may be intended to help advance students in a society in which English is the dominant language spoken. From that perspective, this ORS subsection could be argued to imply that education systems should work to help close the social gaps 39 experienced by those whose first language is not English. This would merit a “y” for the theme of “Social Mobility, Equity, Social Empowerment (closing the gap)” (see Table 2). Thus, a “y/n” was entered for the “Social Mobility, Equity, Social Empowerment (closing the gap)” theme for this ORS subsection. Finding Educational Purpose from “Other” Notes In order to address the notes that were entered into the “Other” column in the tool (see Appendix B), all of the ORS subsections that had such notes were put into a new spreadsheet. Notes for and the text of each ORS subsection were re-read to identify specific themes indicating the purpose of education. Each theme was given its own column in this spreadsheet as it was discovered. If a subsequently re-read ORS subsection aligned to an already identified theme a “y,” “n,” or “y/n” was entered into the corresponding column for that theme. The exact text of the column headings (themes) was adapted as needed in order to encompass materially similar ideas or extensions of a previously established theme. The themes identified are listed in Table 3. Some of these themes were, upon reconsideration, identified as novel manifestations of the aspects of the theoretical framework (see Other Purposes of Education in the Findings chapter). Such themes are denoted with an * in Table 3. 40 Table 3 List of “Other” Themes for the Purpose of Education Schools should adapt to change* Schools should be non-sectarian* Education should be restricted by age Education should be provided to citizens only* Schools should act as a sink for local resource* Schools should cater to the desires of local context (community/parents/citizens/teachers/students)* Schools should cater to the desires of non-local contexts (state agencies, federal agencies)* Schools should provide for/improve the lives of educators* Education should provide healthcare Education should protect individuals' rights* Schools should be safe Education should increase the number of math and/or science trained professionals Schools should house strong school libraries Schools should educate parents* Schools should provide young-child care Education should provide environmental care* Schools should not be in session on Saturday* Note. * denotes a theme that was identified as a novel manifestation of an aspect of the framework for this study 41 III. FINDINGS In order to address the research questions for this study, I will start by presenting findings related to the explicitly stated purposes of Kindergarten through grade 12 (K12) education in Oregon, as stated within the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Next I will present the various ways in which the ORS specifies how different education programs are funded and how funding is determined, allocated, and/or revoked. Then I will present findings from my the ORS that serve to support and contradict each of the aspects of the theoretical framework for this study concerning the purpose of education (in order): (a) individual advancement, (b) individual improvement, (c) societal improvement, and (d) sustaining education. This will be followed by presenting purposes of education that manifested from a review of the K12 ORS, which did not explicitly fit the theoretical framework for this study. Within each of these sections, I will relate how the various themes within each aspect emerged. Those themes are identified for the aspects of the theoretical framework for this study in Table 2 and for the other identified purposes of education in Table 3. The Explicit Purpose of Education in Oregon In examining the purpose of education in Oregon, I reviewed the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) to find both the explicitly stated goals of the education system and the implied purposes of education within the state. As for explicit purposes of education, Oregon has very clearly defined goals for its K12 education. There are also a number of ways, beyond those stated goals, in which the ORS make it clear what education in the state should be seeking to accomplish. I will present each in turn below. 42 The goals and characteristics of education in Oregon. There are two ORS, ORS 329.015 and ORS 329.025, that are intended to guide the purpose of K12 education in Oregon. ORS 329.015 is titled “Educational Goals” and ORS 329.025 is titled “Characteristics of school system.” ORS 329.015 states, The Legislative Assembly believes that education is a major civilizing influence on the development of a humane, responsible and informed citizenry, able to adjust to and grow in a rapidly changing world. Students must be encouraged to learn of their heritage and their place in the global society. The Legislative Assembly concludes that these goals are not inconsistent with the goals to be implemented under this chapter. The Legislative Assembly believes that the goals of kindergarten through grade 12 education are: (a) To equip students with the academic and career skills and information necessary to pursue the future of their choice through a program of rigorous academic preparation and career readiness; (b) To provide an environment that motivates students to pursue serious scholarship and to have experience in applying knowledge and skills and demonstrating achievement; (c) To provide students with the skills necessary to pursue learning throughout their lives in an ever-changing world; and (d) To prepare students for successful transitions to the next phase of their educational development. 43 This statute clearly establishes the broad goals of the education system in Oregon. In addition to these stated goals, ORS 329.025 provides a list of 19 characteristics that schools should exhibit: (1) Provides equal and open access and educational opportunities for all students in the state regardless of their linguistic background, culture, race, gender, capability or geographic location; (2) Assumes that all students can learn and establishes high, specific skill and knowledge expectations and recognizes individual differences at all instructional levels; (3) Provides each student an education experience that supports academic growth beyond proficiency in established academic content standards and encourages students to attain aspirational goals that are individually challenging; (4) Provides special education, compensatory education, linguistically and culturally appropriate education and other specialized programs to all students who need those services; (5) Supports the physical and cognitive growth and development of students; (6) Provides students with a solid foundation in the skills of reading, writing, problem solving and communication; (7) Provides opportunities for students to learn, think, reason, retrieve information, use technology and work effectively alone and in groups; (8) Provides for rigorous academic content standards and instruction in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and world languages; 44 (9) Provides increased learning time; (10) Provides students an educational background to the end that they will function successfully in a constitutional republic, a participatory democracy and a multicultural nation and world; (11) Provides students with the knowledge and skills that will provide the opportunities to succeed in the world of work, as members of families and as citizens; (12) Provides students with the knowledge and skills that lead to an active, healthy lifestyle; (13) Provides students with the knowledge and skills to take responsibility for their decisions and choices; (14) Provides opportunities for students to learn through a variety of teaching strategies; (15) Emphasizes involvement of parents and the community in the total education of students; (16) Transports children safely to and from school; (17) Ensures that the funds allocated to schools reflect the uncontrollable differences in costs facing each district; (18) Ensures that local schools have adequate control of how funds are spent to best meet the needs of students in their communities; and (19) Provides for a safe, educational environment. While ORS 329.015 is the statute that is titled “Educational Goals,” the statute is only referenced in one other statute throughout all of the ORS that I examined, ORS 45 327.506. ORS 329.025, on the other hand, is referred to by four other ORS: 329.045, 329.085, 329.155, 327.506. This sparse referencing of these two statutes supports my decision to review the entire body of K12 statutes to ascertain the state’s goals for education. The goals of education programs in Oregon. In addition to these two ORS, there are seven other ORS that specify goals for specific educational programs: ORS 327.506, ORS 327.800, ORS 329.045, ORS 336.625, ORS 338.015, ORS 339.510, and ORS 342.437. Each of these ORS have the word “goal” in their title. ORS 327.506 concerns the Quality Education Report and directs the Quality Education Commission to “determine the amount of moneys sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of kindergarten through grade 12 public education meets the quality goals” (para. 2). ORS 327.506(1) defines the “quality goals” for K12 as those found in ORS 329.007, ORS 329.015, ORS 329.025, ORS 329.045 and ORS 329.065. ORS 329.015 and ORS 329.025 are the aforementioned goals and characteristics of education in Oregon (see above). ORS 329.007 outlines a set of definitions of terms that are recurrent throughout ORS chapter 329. ORS 329.045 concerns “common curriculum goals” and will be discussed below. ORS 329.065 reads, in its entirety, “Nothing in this chapter [ORS Chapter 329] is intended to be mandated without adequate funding support. Therefore, those features of this chapter which require significant additional funds shall not be implemented statewide until funding is available.” ORS 327.800 directs the State Board of Education to identify strategic investments that will help further the goals of education in Oregon. ORS 327.800(1) defines those goals in five parts. First, to ensure that 40% of Oregonians attain a 46 bachelor’s degree or higher, 40% of Oregonians attain an associates or vocational degree, and 20% of Oregonians receive some form of high school diploma (this is commonly referred to as Oregon’s 40/40/20 Goal (Manning, 2014)). Second, improve the following (a) the employability of graduates from Oregon secondary schools, (b) the school-after school meal and snack program, (c) grants, and (d) rules. Third, close the achievement gaps that exist for historically underserved students. Fourth, engage parents and childcare providers, support families, and motivate students. Finally, fifth, improve student outcomes. ORS 329.045 lays out the mechanisms by which the goals of curriculum in Oregon should be revised, updated and improved. The statute says that this work is to be done, “in order to achieve the goals contained in ORS 329.025” (ORS 329.045(1)(a)). While ORS 329.045, defers to another ORS (see above), one new goal for K12 that ORS 329.045 brings up is that “school districts and public charter schools must offer students instruction in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and world languages” (ORS 329.045(3)(a)). This serves to define the core academic instruction that all Oregon K12 students should be receiving. ORS 336.625 concerns alternative education programs in Oregon. This statute lays out the goals of such programs as maintaining “learning situations that are flexible with regard to environment, time, structure, and pedagogy” (ORS 336.625(1)). Beyond this, ORS 336.625 does not offer any insight into the goals or purposes of K12 in Oregon. ORS 338.015, like ORS 329.015, is one of the first statutes in its chapter. Whereas ORS 329.015 introduces Chapter 329: Oregon Education Act for the 21st 47 Century, ORS 338.015 introduces Chapter 338: Public Charter Schools. ORS 338.015 works to define the intent of public charter schools in Oregon. The introductory paragraph for ORS 338.015 reads, It is the intent of this chapter that new types of schools, called public charter schools, be created as a legitimate avenue for parents, educators and community members to take responsible risks to create new, innovative and more flexible ways of educating children within the public school system. The Legislative Assembly seeks to create an atmosphere in Oregon’s public school system where research and development of new learning opportunities are actively pursued. The provisions of this chapter should be interpreted liberally to support the goals of this section and to advance a renewed commitment by this state to the mission, goals and diversity of public education. It is the intent that public charter schools may serve as models and catalysts for the improvement of other public schools and the public school system. Each subsection of ORS 338.015 describes one goal of charter schools in Oregon. These goals are to (a) increase learning and achievement, (b) increase education choices, (c) meet individual student needs and desires, (d) build strong relationships between educators, families, and communities, (e) use different learning methods, (f) provide opportunities for innovation, (g) create professional opportunities for educators, (h) create additional accountability measures, and (i) innovate measurement tools. ORS 339.510 describes the goals not of K12 education at large but rather of the systems that are to be created and maintained to account for students enrolled in schools. The introductory text for ORS 339.510 reads, “Pursuant to rules of the State Board of 48 Education, the Department of Education shall establish and maintain a student accounting system.” The subsections for this ORS detail the following four goals for accounting for students: (a) student withdrawal information should be available in a timely manner, (b) student withdrawal information should include a reason why the student has withdrawn, (c) patterns of reasons for withdrawal should be sought and identified, and (d) schools should have tools to accomplish the previous three goals. ORS 342.437 details the goal of the “Educators Equity Act.” These goals are referred to by ORS 342.447 and ORS 342.448, which are both ORS that pertain to recruiting, hiring, retaining, and graduating diverse educators. The goal detailed in ORS 342.437 is that “the percentage of diverse educators employed by a school district or an education service district reflects the percentage of diverse students in the public schools of this state or the percentage of diverse students in the district” (ORS 342.437(1)). Summary of the explicit goals of education in Oregon. As a summary of these findings, Appendix C, lists the ORS, the title of the ORS, and a paraphrasing of the goal(s) and/or purpose(s) of education (for each ORS). It is worth noting that only ORS 327.800, ORS 329.015, ORS 329.025, and ORS 329.045 (denoted in Appendix C by *) relay goals and/or purposes of education in Oregon. ORS 327.506 simply defers to these other ORS and ORS 336.625, ORS 338.015, ORS 339.510, and ORS 342.437 all relate the goals of specific education programs and/or initiatives. Funding as It Relates to the Purpose of Education in Oregon As mentioned above, ORS 329.065 explicitly states that nothing in the entire chapter of ORS Chapter 329: Oregon Education Act for the 21st Century can be mandated without adequate funding. It is, therefore, critical to understand how funding for K12 is 49 calculated and allocated. This section will be devoted to presenting the various funds and accounts for education programs, how those funds and accounts are funded and what those moneys can be used for. In total the ORS that were included in this study refer to 78 unique funds (Appendix D), grants (Appendix E), or accounts (Appendix F) and included six unique instances of criteria for funding to be withheld or revoked. For each of these, I answer the following questions: • What programs get dedicated funding? • What programs have funds/accounts without funding sources? • What are the reasons funding is withheld? • What only gets funding if there's enough money (i.e., what is expendable)? Education related funds. There are a number of funds that are funded by moneys appropriated by the legislature. Three of these funds are the State School Fund, the Early Learning Division Fund, and the High School Graduation and College and Career Readiness Fund. The State School Fund is the main funding source for general purposes for all education districts (see below for more information). The other two mentioned funds are both funds that are dedicated to advancing specific programs. The Early Learning Division Fund is money appropriated by the legislature for the purposes of fulfilling the functions of the Early Learning Division. The High School Graduation and College and Career Readiness Fund is dedicated to improving graduation rates, providing college credit in high school, and providing career technical education in high school. Other funds have specific dollar amounts that are dedicated to the fund every year: The Small School District Supplement Fund; the School Capital Construction, 50 Maintenance, and Technology Fund; the Healthy Schools Fund; the Student Driver Training Fund; the Educator Advancement Fund; and the Vocational Rehabilitation Revolving Fund (see Appendix D for specific dollar amounts). Most of these funds are dedicated to specific programs aimed at improving the health, skills, and/or advancement of students and educators. The Small School District Supplement Fund and the School Capital Construction, Maintenance, and Technology Fund stand apart, in this regard. These two funds act more as supplements to the State School Fund, meant to help districts cover expenses that are hard to meet with moneys from the State School Fund Grant (see below for more information on the State School Fund Grant) alone. Most of the funds that are described in the ORS dedicated to K12 education in Oregon have no specific funding source or explicit funding level. Many of these funds list public donation, federal funding, and “any source” as sources of moneys for the fund. Some of these funds, however, make no mention of any potential funding source (see Appendix D for specific details). These funds are, in general, for funding specific programs. These programs include provision of food for students, procuring intellectual property, provision of health services to students, providing support for career technical education, construction projects (so long as they support educational goals in Oregon), and online education. The School Improvement Fund is a notable exception, in that it is not a fund for a specific program. Rather, this fund is intended to fulfill the explicit goals of education in Oregon (as laid out in ORS 329.015 and ORS 329.025). Education related grants. Some grants are provided to all districts and have either dedicated funding or a mandated amount of money. These include the General Purpose Grant (for school districts), the Transportation Grant, the Facility Grant, the 51 General Service Grant (for education service districts), unnamed grants for summer lunch and reduced-priced lunch programs (see Appendix E for details). In particular the General Purpose Grant, the Transportation Grant, the Facility Grant, and the General Service Grant are all funded through the State School Fund and all of these grants are distributed to districts according tox formulae that are designed to provide an equitable (e.g., students who receive more expensive services and/or require further transportation merit greater moneys) level of resource to each student. Each of these grants are provided to each district; no application is necessary. Districts do, however, need to report to the Oregon Department of Education what their student population is and how much money they spend on transportation in order to receive these funds. In contrast, some grants with dedicated funding or a mandated amount of money are awarded only to districts that submit grant applications. These grants include Hardship Grants (for building and maintaining facilities), an unnamed grant to assist districts with capital (construction) costs, the Automated External Defibrillator Grant (for procuring and training in the use of automated external defibrillators), the Teenage Parent Program Grant (to fund teenage parent programs), an unnamed grant for districts to provide an accountability assessment other than the approved state accountability assessment (see Appendix E for details), and an unnamed grant for talented and gifted programs. These grants are for construction or programs that not all districts may need or desire each year. Other grants with dedicated funding are provided in specific contexts. Such grants include the Special Youth Corrections Education Grant, the Special Juvenile Detention Education Program Grant, the Child Development Grant, and unnamed grants provided 52 to deaf students to attend college. These grants are only provided to specific districts (e.g., those that house youth corrections and/or juvenile detention programs) or specific types of students (deaf students) for general purposes (see Appendix E for details). That is, these grants are given under specific circumstances but those who are awarded the grants are given the leeway to determine how best to spend these funds. The remaining grants are for specific programs or are to provide general moneys but have no explicit source of funds nor a specific dollar amount attached to them. These grants include the Improve Achievement in High Poverty Schools Grants, Physical Education Grants, an unnamed grant for beginning educator mentorship, the Grant for Advantaging Disadvantaged Youth, the Grant for Developing School-to-Work Transition Programs, an unnamed grant for teacher professional development for Oregon Civics Day, an unnamed grant for implementing multicultural education, an unnamed grant for school nursing programs, an unnamed grant for Oregon-made food to be used in schools, an unnamed grant for the State Interagency Coordinating Council, and unnamed grants for youth job development programs and career technical education programs (see Appendix E for details). These grants span a wide range of programs. Some of these programs align with some of the explicit goals of education in Oregon (e.g., improving achievement, providing physical education, advantaging disadvantaged youth, providing work-preparedness). Others of these grants are not clearly linked to the explicit goals of education in Oregon (e.g., grants for the state interagency coordinating council). Education related accounts. Most of the education related accounts receive moneys from education funds (see Education related funds above) and/or other funds that receive legislative appropriations. These accounts include the Department of Education 53 Account (General Fund moneys), the Pediatric Nursing Facility Account (State School Fund moneys), the Statewide English Language Learner Program Account (State School Fund moneys), the High Cost Disabilities Account (State School Fund moneys), the Education Cash Account (General Fund moneys), the Early Learning Kindergarten Readiness Partnership and Innovation Account (Early Learning Division Fund), the Vision Health Account (direct legislative appropriation), and the Special Education Account (State School Fund moneys) (see Appendix F for more details). Most of these accounts are intended to hold moneys for the programs that I have already described (see Education related funds and Education related grants above). There are some accounts listed here, however, that have moneys that are supposed to be spent on novel programs. The Department of Education Account moneys, for example, can be spent “for the purpose of implementing programs that link physical activity and academic achievement” (ORS 329.504(1)). The Pediatric Nursing Facility Account moneys are for students enrolled in pediatric nursing facilities. The Vision Health Account moneys are to reimburse districts for providing vision screenings to students. The Special Education Account moneys are for the education of children who are hospitalized, in residential treatment facilities, and/or are deaf. The rest of the education related accounts have either no explicit funding source or are to be funded by public donation, federal sources, or any other source. These accounts include the Education Training Revolving Account, the Connecting Education to Careers Account, the STEM Investment Grant Account, the School Lunch Revolving Account, the School District Collaboration Grant Account, the Center for School Safety Account, the Accelerated College Credit Account, the State Vocational Rehabilitation 54 Account, the Special Education Transportation Revolving Account, and the Commission for the Blind Account (see Appendix F for more details). Most of these accounts hold moneys for the purposes inferred by their titles (e.g., the Education Training Revolving Account moneys are for educator training programs, the STEM Investment Grant Account moneys are for science technology engineering and math education programs). It should be clarified, though, that the School District Collaboration Grant Account moneys are for, in addition to improving collaboration within districts, creating new career pathways, evaluation programs, compensation models, and professional development for teachers and administrators. The State Vocational Rehabilitation Account moneys are to encourage individuals to develop working and service skills. And the Commission for the Blind Account moneys are to promote the welfare of persons with visual impairments. Criteria for withholding funds. One of the main reasons that districts can have funding withheld is if the school is found to be “deficient.” Deficiency is chiefly defined by the State Board of Education (SBE) (ORS 327.103(1)). That is, ORS 327.103 provides the SBE the authority to determine what merits a deficiency status and provides no other guidance concerning how the SBE should set such rules. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) can also find a district to be deficient if the district is operating a Youth Care Center and does not follow the appropriate rules for doing so (ORS 336.575, ORS 336.580, ORS 339.137). A district can also be found deficient if it fails to propose an alternative education environment, as provided by the district superintendent in the school district, to a student who is found to be worthy of expulsion or in cases where alternative education may be “appropriate and accessible to the student” (ORS 336.665, 55 ORS 339.250(5)(h), ORS 339.250(7)(c)(B). When a district is found to be deficient, the SPI can withhold “portions of the State School Fund moneys that are otherwise allocated to the school district” (ORS 327.103(2)). A district can also have funding withheld if it is found that the district “sponsors, financially supports or is actively involved with religious activity” (ORS 327.109(2)). If this is the case, the SPI is to “withhold immediately all funds due the school district” (ORS 327.109(2)(a)(B)) under ORS 327.095, which includes all moneys provided from the State School Fund including any grants awarded that are funded by the State School Fund (see Appendix D and Appendix E). In addition to fraternizing with religious activity, districts can have funding revoked if the district fails to accurately submit the audit report required by ORS 327.137. This audit report must include, “Information necessary for the computation required in the administration of ORS 327.006 to 327.133, 327.348, 327.731, 328.542 and 530.115 and sections 1 to 3, chapter 735, Oregon Laws 2013, and this section” (ORS 327.137(1)(a)(A)). This requires that the audit reports include the “average daily membership of resident pupils” (ORS 327.133(2)), the number of pupils whose education costs more than $30,000 per year (ORS 327.348(2)), and the yearly budget for the district (ORS 328.542). Individual Advancement in Oregon Individual advancement is one education goal suggested by the prior research that forms the theoretical framework for this study. This goal had two distinct themes in the prior research: differentiation via achievement (gap widening) and social mobility, equity, and social empowerment (closing the gap) (see Table 2). This aspect of the framework manifested in the ORS in a number of different ways, with both themes 56 present. There are ORS that work toward and against the ends of each of these themes. In this section, I will present each theme individually and provide examples of how the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon pertain to this aspect of the theoretical framework. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to differentiation via achievement (gap widening). One of the most prominent ways that ORS support widening the gap (for the sake of differentiation) is in promoting attainment of a high school diploma. There are a number of ORS that support this endeavor. Most notably, ORS 329.451(1) identifies five different types of diplomas/certificates that districts can award, each earned as a result of varying levels of achievement: (a) high school diploma, (b) modified diploma, (c) extended diploma, (d) alternative certificate, and (e) grade level advancement. It is worth noting that the requirements for issuance of any of these types of diplomas cannot be waived or modified even in charter school settings (ORS 338.115(1)). It is also worth noting that ORS 329.451(4) states that any of these diplomas/certificates can be issued in fewer than four years if a student meets the requirements of attaining the diploma. The differences between each of these diplomas are better described in the Individual Improvement in Oregon section below. It is worth noting here, though, that attaining a diploma or modified diploma is such a chief goal of education that once either is attained a student is no longer “required to attend public full-time schools” (ORS 339.030(1)). Additionally, it is acceptable for a student to be provided an “abbreviated school day” provided that the student “will be eligible to complete the requirements for a diploma or certificate under ORS 329.451” (ORS 343.161(5)(b)). In addition to diploma/certificate offerings, districts are required to provide differential programs for students. One such program is the special education program. 57 Notably, ORS 343.295(1) forbids districts from issuing “a document to a child with a disability educated in full or in part in a special education program that indicates the document is issued by such a program.” Another program that districts must offer is the talented and gifted program. ORS 343.407 directs districts to “identify talented and gifted students enrolled in public schools.” Such programs are designed to identify and serve students differently. Transcripts also provide an opportunity for differentiation between students. Districts may make transcripts available according to rules laid out by the State Board of Education (SBE) (ORS 326.565(1)). ORS 326.565 also provides the SBE the authority to determine what is included in a transcript. Aside from this, there is no mention in any of the ORS of what the transcript must or should contain. The word “transcript” appears in only two ORS: ORS 339.505 pertains to defining a school dropout and says that a school dropout is not “a student who has transferred to another educational system or institution that leads to graduation and the school district has received a written request for the transfer of the student’s records or transcripts” (ORS 339.505(1)(c)(A)). ORS 339.877(2) deals with issuing a diploma to students who complete work at a state institution: All educational records for the person shall be sent to the common or union high school district issuing the diploma. The school district may make a transcript of such records available upon request in the same manner and in the same form as it makes any other transcript available and shall not therein indicate that any of the educational program was completed in any state institution. 58 These ORS together imply that the diploma is not a mechanism by which to differentiate the achievement of one student from another but rather as a placeholder of information that is necessary in order to determine whether a student has earned a diploma. Another way in which ORS serve to advance individuals via differentiation is to support the testing and assessment of students in order to determine if they have met stated goals. ORS 329.075(2)(c) says that state assessments should serve to test whether students, “meet the performance expectations as determined by the [SBE].” More will be said on this point in the Individual Improvement in Oregon section below. This idea of measuring achievement also belongs here as it is used as a mechanism by which individuals can be differentiated from one another. Differentiating students by their performance on assessments also applies to educators. ORS 342.934 provides that in instances when staff reductions are necessary, staff to be let go should be identified based on “competence” and “merit.” Teachers may also be dismissed for “physical or mental incapacity” (ORS 342.865(1)(e)). Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to social mobility, equity, and social empowerment (closing the gap). This section will be broken down into three subsections in order to explore the links that exist within the ORS and social mobility, equity, and social empowerment. I will begin by presenting how explicit, direct references to “closing the gap” manifest in the ORS. Then I will present ways in which explicit links to “equity” manifest. I will conclude by presenting how ORS acknowledge and call attention to the various cultural experiences that students in Oregon face. Explicit references to “closing the gap” found in Oregon Revised Statutes. There are several ways in which the ORS serve to explicitly and directly support social 59 mobility, equity, and social empowerment. This manifests in a number of ORS with the use of the language “close the gap” (in one form or another). ORS 327.800 states that one of the priorities for making strategic investments in education is to “close the achievement gap that exists between historically underserved student groups” (ORS 327.800(1)(c)). ORS 342.950 directs the Department of Education (DOE) to direct funding toward educational institutions “for the purpose of closing achievement gaps” via improved instruction and professional development (ORS 342.950(3)(e)). ORS 327.297 directs the DOE to provide grants from the State School Fund for “programs to improve a student achievement gap between student groups identified by culture, poverty, language and race and other student groups” (ORS 327.297(1)(g)). Explicit references to “equity” found in Oregon Revised Statutes. Other ORS use the term “equity” (in one form or another) in ways that support this aspect of the framework for this study. ORS 329.025 is responsible for identifying the characteristics of the education system (see The Explicit Purpose of Education in Oregon section above) and begins by saying that the education system in Oregon “provides equal and open access and educational opportunities for all students in the state regardless of their linguistic background, culture, race, gender, capability or geographic location” (ORS 329.025(1)). ORS 329.095 outlines the continuous improvement plans that all districts must have in place. These must include evidence that districts have plans to serve students “who have or have not exceeded all of the academic content standards” (ORS 329.095(4)(a)(I)) and goals to reduce “academic disparities” (ORS 329.095(4)(d)(B)(i)) and to provide “equitable access to academic courses across the school district” (ORS 329.095(4)(d)(B)(ii)) for historically underserved populations of students. 60 ORS 329.841 explicitly outlines that education in Oregon should seek to understand and address the cultural disparities that exist between different groups of students. Specifically, ORS 329.841 directs the DOE to develop a plan for students who have “experienced disproportionate results in education due to historical practices” (ORS329.841(1)(b). This plan must address “disparities experienced,” “the historical practices leading to disproportionate outcomes,” and “the educational needs” (ORS 329.841(3)) of such students. Subsection (4) of ORS 329.841 explicitly calls on the DOE to “address the disproportionate rate of disciplinary incidents” that such students face, “increase parental engagement” of parents of such students, and “increase the [academic] engagement” of such students (ORS 329.841(4)(a)-(d)). Some ORS direct provision to students who would otherwise not be given provision. Examples of this can be found in ORS 327.531, ORS 327.535, and ORS 327.540, which, together, direct districts to provide free breakfast, lunch, and after school snacks for students who are eligible for free or reduced priced lunch as determined by United States Department of Agriculture’s Income Eligibility Guidelines. ORS 336.211 and ORS 336.213, on the other hand, require students to procure vision and dental screenings, respectively, but do not require education institutions to provide those services. ORS 336.212 does create an account for money to be used to reimburse districts for providing these services, though. However, there is no explicit money dedicated to that account. There are ORS that extend the theme of equity from applying to student to applying to educators. ORS 342.943(3) provides that educators should have “equitable access” to resources provided by educator networks in the state. ORS 329.729 echoes this 61 sentiment by stating that “any school district or educator network” may participate in the educator mentorship program (implying that there should be no barriers for educators to access these programs). Further discussion of how ORS serve educators is presented in Other Purposes of Education in Oregon below. References to different cultural experiences found in Oregon Revised Statutes. There are a number of ways that ORS serve to support peoples of differing backgrounds. Some ORS broadly require an inclusion and consideration of multiple cultures. ORS 329.025(1) describes, as mentioned above, that education should be accessible to all students, “regardless of their linguistic background, culture, race, gender, capability or geographic location.” ORS 336.067 lays out instructional topics that are to be given “special emphasis” in education in Oregon: “Respect for all humans, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, age, sex or disability” and “acknowledgment of the dignity and worth of individuals and groups and their participative roles in society” (ORS 336.067(1)(b)-(c)). ORS 336.113 requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to increase efforts to define and implement multicultural education throughout the state. ORS 336.113(2) also directs the SPI to find funding for such multicultural programs, though it stops short of providing funding for such programs from any educational fund, grant, or account provided by any other ORS. ORS 329.492 requires that Oregon Studies curricula be inclusive of “the relevant contributions to society by men and women of African-American, Hispanic, Native American, Asian-American and other racial groups in Oregon” (ORS 329.492(3)). ORS 336.082 goes as far as requiring that all of the curricula used in Oregon “does not discriminate.” 62 There are also a number of ORS that direct schools and districts to be particularly mindful of underserved students. ORS 327.372(3)(c) states that grants for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs must “recruit, retain and support underserved students.” ORS 327.390(2)(d) states similarly that grants for outdoor education must “address the inequity of outdoor educational opportunities for underserved children in this state.” ORS 344.055(9) dictates that career and technical education in Oregon must “meet the needs of women, minorities, disadvantaged or persons with disabilities and others who have special training needs.” This drive to understand and serve students with various cultural identities is mirrored in efforts pertaining to educators. ORS 342.437 provides that one goal of education in Oregon is to ensure that the “percentage of diverse educators employed by a school district or an education service district reflects the percentage of diverse students in the public schools” (ORS 342.437(1)). ORS 342.202 directs the creation of a “comprehensive leadership development system,” which should “recruit underrepresented persons into the field of public school leadership” (342.202(2)(a)(C)) and recruit “underrepresented persons into administrator leadership programs” (342.202(2)(c)). ORS 342.943(4)(b)(A) directs that professional development offered to educators “supports culturally responsive practices.” ORS 342.971(4)(c) looks to improve preparation of educators by “recruiting underrepresented persons” to educator preparation programs. Another acknowledgement of cultural difference that appears often in the ORS is mention of students whose native language is not English. ORS 336.074 requires that “instruction in all subjects in public, private and parochial schools shall be conducted 63 primarily in English.” As mentioned above, ORS 327.297 provides grants to close the achievement gaps experienced by, in part, students identified by language. ORS 336.076 requires the DOE to convene an advisory group to “advise the department regarding English language learner programs” (ORS 336.076(1)). One goal of this advisory group is to develop and implement “programs to enable [English language learner] students to achieve biliteracy” (ORS 336.076(3)(c)) and to provide English language learners with, “language development classes and academic content classes” that are meaningful, rigorous, and help enrolled students attain a diploma (ORS 336.076(3)(e)). ORS 336.079 goes as far as directing districts to track the academic and language learning progress of English language learners and, if adequate progress is not made, for the DOE to direct the expenditure of the district’s funds in order to ensure adequate progress. One way in which some ORS attempt to address the manifestation of disadvantage for some students is to target “at-risk” populations. ORS 327.297(1)(f) provides extra funds to provide services to “at-risk youth.” ORS 329.095(4)(d)(B)(iv)(III) directs districts to make part of their improvement plan to “ensure that at-risk students stay on track to graduate.” ORS 340.010(5) directs that one of the purposes of offering college credit in high schools is to “increase the number of at-risk students earning college credits or preparing to enroll in post-secondary institutions.” ORS 340.080(4) backs this by stating that at-risk students should be given priority enrollment in such programs. One final way in which the ORS support social mobility, equity, and social empowerment is via the provision of special education services and other specialized programs. The entirety of ORS Chapters 343 (Special Education and Other Specialized 64 Education Services), 344 (Career and Technical Education; Rehabilitation; Adult Literacy), and 346 (Programs for Persons Who Are Blind or Deaf) are devoted to setting out the rules that govern how students with special needs should be served so that such students “meet the standards and criteria established therefore by the State Board of Education” (ORS 343.041(2)). These include criteria for determining when and how a student should receive special education and what special education is (ORS 343.045). Such programs, in some cases extend beyond K12 education, seeking to serve adults with special needs (e.g., ORS 346.520, which creates an employment program for persons who are blind to run vending facilities). In total, these programs and rules serve to empower individuals with special needs. Individual Improvement in Oregon Individual improvement is another education goal suggested by the prior research that forms the theoretical framework for this study. This goal included four distinct themes in the prior research: skill acquisition, job-readiness, career mobility, and individual empowerment (see Table 2). This aspect of the framework manifested in the ORS in a number of different ways, with all four themes present. In most cases, the ORS work toward the themes. Only the theme of individual empowerment had any ORS that seemed to work against its end. In this section, I will present each theme individually and provide examples of how the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon pertain to this aspect of the theoretical framework. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to skill acquisition. Skill acquisition is a theme that manifests in a number of ways in the ORS. There are some ORS that speak broadly about the need for skills and knowledge to be developed. Other ORS are specific 65 about the types and kinds of skills that should be developed. Some ORS extend the goal of building skills in students to building skills in educators and other adults. Finally, all of these skill acquisition ORS can be linked back to the culmination of a diploma or certificate. Each of these topics will be discussed in turn. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to skill acquisition, generally. Helping students acquire skills is a major theme within the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon. ORS 329.015 opens Oregon’s educational goals with stating that education should “equip students with the academic and career skills and information” (ORS 329.015(1)(a)), “have experience in applying knowledge and skills” (ORS 329.015(1)(b)), and “provide students with the skills necessary to pursue learning” (ORS 329.015(1)(c)). This emphasis on skill acquisition is continued in ORS 329.025, which describes the characteristics of education as a system that, “establishes high, specific skill and knowledge expectations” (ORS 329.025(2)), “provides students with a solid foundation in… skills” (ORS 329.025(6)), “provides for rigorous academic content standards and instruction” (ORS 329.025(8)), “provides students with… knowledge and skills” (ORS 329.025(11),(14)). ORS 327.497(1) also finds that the goals of education in Oregon are to ensure “high academic excellence, the application of knowledge and skills to demonstrate achievement.” Each of these ORS, which are dedicated to ensuring that the education systems in Oregon work to help students acquire skills, are supported by ORS that seek to assess whether those skills are being developed. ORS 329.075(2)(c) directs the Department of Education DOE to develop “criterion-referenced assessments including performance- based, content-based and other assessment mechanisms to test knowledge and skills and 66 whether students meet the performance expectations as determined by the board.” Note that such assessments must be “criterion-referenced” (i.e., in order to meet the standards, one muse acquire the skills rather than show higher proficiency than another test-taker). ORS 329.485 similarly lays out: The Department of Education shall implement statewide a valid and reliable assessment system for all students that meets technical adequacy standards. The assessment system shall include criterion-referenced assessments including performance-based assessments, content-based assessments, and other valid methods to measure the academic content standards and to identify students who meet or exceed the standards. (ORS 329.485(2)(a)) These ORS together make it clear that the purpose of the statewide assessment system is to ensure that students acquire skills and knowledge. Other ORS support the idea that skill acquisition is a critical purpose of education in Oregon in a variety of indirect ways. ORS 339.353(1)(a)(b) make it clear that “harassment, intimidation or bullying and cyberbullying” should be prohibited because such behaviors disrupt “a student’s ability to learn and a school’s ability to educate its students.” ORS 339.030(1)(b) establishes that if a student has “acquired equivalent knowledge to that acquired in the courses of study taught in kindergarten through grade 12 in the public schools,” then that student is no longer required to attend school. Inversely, ORS 339.035(4) states that if a student is taught by a private teacher, parent, or guardian and that student is found to not be acquiring skills, then the superintendent can require that student to attend a public school. ORS 340.030(5) indicates that if a student has already taken a course, they may not enroll in an Expanded Options offering (i.e., a 67 course offering college credit in high school) that is materially similar to the course already taken. This implies that if the skills of the course have already been conferred to the student, there is no point in the student taking the course. Finally, ORS 337.300(2) allows students to opt out of certain types of instruction (i.e., animal dissection) provided that the student demonstrates “competency in the coursework through alternative materials or methods.” Oregon Revised Statutes that describe what skills should be acquired. While the above ORS present evidence that skill acquisition, broadly, is a goal of education in Oregon, other ORS make explicit some of the kinds of skills that education should help build in students. ORS 329.025 states that Oregon’s education system should help students acquire “the skills of reading, writing, problem solving and communication” (ORS 329.025(6)), the skills to “learn, think, reason, retrieve information, use technology and work effectively alone and in groups” (ORS 329.025(7)), “instruction in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and world languages” (ORS 329.025(8)), “skills that will provide the opportunities to succeed in the world of work, as members of families and as citizens” (ORS 329.025(11)), “knowledge and skills that lead to an active, healthy lifestyle” (ORS 329.025(12), and “the knowledge and skills to take responsibility for their decisions and choices” (ORS 329.025(13)). Additionally, ORS 329.045(1) directs the State Board of Education (SBE) to set “Common Curriculum Goals,” which should include curricula for “mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and world languages” (ORS 329.045(1)(b)(A)). 68 The ORS offer little guidance as to what each of these skills should entail or why they might be important. The notable exception to this is the ORS governing physical education skills. ORS 329.496(3) offers some clarification on what physical education curricula should serve to do: “help students develop the knowledge, motor skills, self- management skills, attitudes and confidence needed to adopt and maintain physical activity throughout their lives.” However, ORS 329.504(1) provides grant funding “for the purpose of implementing programs that link physical activity and academic achievement.” This may imply that physical education is a particularly worthy pursuit if it impacts skill acquisition in other areas. Oregon Revised Statutes that describe the skill acquisition of educators. In addition to helping students acquire skills, there are a number of ORS that are dedicated to educators and others acquiring skills. ORS that are dedicated to serving the needs of educators will be discussed in more detail in Other Purposes of Education in Oregon below. What is relevant here, however, is how some ORS position the acquisition of skills for educators as part of the education system. ORS 342.856(3)(a) directs SBE and the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) to adopt “core teaching standards,” which must “strengthen the knowledge, skills, disposition and classroom and administrative practices of teachers and administrators in public schools.” ORS 342.165 directs TSPC to establish rules for “the issuance, denial, continuation, renewal, lapse, revocation, suspension or reinstatement of licenses or registrations” for educators. In so doing TSPC must consider “the improvement of teaching” (i.e., acquisition of new skills on the parts of educators) (ORS 342.165(2)(d)). 69 Although skill acquisition for educators is mandated, ORS 342.856(1) directs that the purpose of establishing the “core teaching standards” is to “improve student academic growth and learning.” ORS 329.790 and ORS 329.820 state that educator mentorship programs are important because of their impact on student achievement. Oregon Revised Statutes that connect skill acquisition to attaining a diploma or certificate. I want to conclude this discussion of skill acquisition with a connection to diploma attainment. As mentioned above, ORS 329.045 describes the curricula that should be developed and the types of skills that students should be acquiring through education. Those subjects laid out in ORS 329.045 are also meant to serve as the foundations for the requirements for a high school diploma: “In order to achieve the goals contained in ORS 329.025, the State Board of Education shall regularly and periodically review and revise its Common Curriculum Goals, performance indicators and diploma requirements” [emphasis added] (ORS 329.045(1)(a)). According to ORS 329.045, each of the skills listed above are skills that should be built into the curricula of education and skills that should be built into requirements for a high school diploma. Additionally, ORS 329.451 describes that a high school diploma must require, at minimum, “twenty-four total credits; three credits of mathematics; and four credits of English” (ORS 329.451(2)(a)(A)-(C)) and “subjects for which the State Board of Education has established academic content standards under ORS 329.045” (ORS 329.451(2)(b)(A). ORS 329.451(7) describes that a modified diploma may be awarded “only to students who have demonstrated the inability to meet the full set of academic content standards for a high school diploma with reasonable modifications and accommodations.” ORS 329.451(8) describes that an extended diploma may be awarded 70 to students under the aforementioned criteria for a modified diploma. Whereas the SBE directs what the requirements for a modified diploma is (ORS 329.451(7)), ORS 329.451(8) lays out that an extended diploma requires credits in math; English; science; history, geography, economics, or civics; health; physical education; and arts or world languages. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to job-readiness. There are ORS that refer to job-readiness in four distinct ways. Some ORS refer to job-readiness generally. Other ORS focus on career and technical education (CTE) and specific job-like training for all students. There are also ORS that refer to job training for specific populations of students. Finally, some ORS refer to job training explicitly for educators. The following sections will present ORS in each of these four categories of job-readiness. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to general job-readiness. ORS 329.015(2)(a) lists one of the goals of education is “to equip students with the academic and career skills and information necessary to pursue the future of their choice through a program of rigorous academic preparation and career readiness.” ORS 344.420(1) states that “Oregon youth require meaningful job training and workforce development opportunities.” ORS 329.045(1)(b)(C)(iii) builds on this, stating that the Common Curriculum Goals should include increasing the amount of time devoted to giving students “experience or work and that may be provided through partnerships with other organizations.” These three ORS each point to job-readiness as a goal of education in Oregon. These goals are supported by ORS 329.850, which establishes a Workforce Policy Advisor, who is directed to propose policies to, in part, “require all youth a level of 71 achievement that prepares them to pursue college, career and technical education programs, apprenticeships, work-based training and school-to-work programs” (ORS 329.850(2)(b)). In addition to the Workforce Policy Advisor, ORS 329.885(1) states that “it is the policy of the State of Oregon to encourage educational institutions and businesses to develop, in partnership, models for programs related to school-to-work transitions and work experience internships.” Finally, ORS 339.030(2) provides that if a person is 16 or 17 years old and is “lawfully employed full-time,” the person no longer needs to attend school. There are ORS that relate specific funding to job and career related education as well. 327.297(1)(h) provides grants to school districts in order to provide “vocational education programs.” 327.800(1)(b) directs the SBE to identify strategic investments that will “improve the employability of graduates from Oregon public schools.” ORS 329.885(3)(f) provides grants for providing students with “experiences that reinforce the attitudes needed for success in the business world.” Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to career technical education. It is worth noting that ORS chapter 344 is titled “Career and Technical Education; Rehabilitation; Adult Literacy” and, as such, contains guidance on a variety of programs and policies that guide serve to advance CTE in the state of Oregon. ORS 344.055 establishes the state’s “Policy on career and technical education and employment training” stating, “accessibility to career and technical education programs should be facilitated,” and “opportunities should be available for all individuals to obtain the skills and knowledge needed for initial employment” (ORS 344.055(1)). The rest of the chapter, as it relates to CTE, describes mechanisms by which these goals for CTE can be accomplished. 72 ORS 327.372 supports CTE programming with grant funding for districts to promote programming that “can lead to high wage and high demand jobs” (ORS 327.372(1)). This is supposed to be supported by “programs that expose students to career and technical education programs” (ORS 327.372(4)(a)) and “student leadership organizations related to career and technical education programs” (ORS 327.372(4)(c)). ORS 329.451 also supports CTE programming by explicitly allowing districts to require additional credits (in order to acquire a high school diploma) in the form of “courses provided as part of a career and technical education program” (ORS 329.451(2)(b)(B)). Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to job training for specific populations. Some ORS focus on providing job training for specific populations. ORS 336.640 provides rules governing education for pregnant and parenting students. Such education should include career development services (ORS 336.640(1)(b)). ORS 343.923 direct the DOE to inform the Department of Human Services (DHS) of students with “moderate to severe intellectual disabilities,” so that such students can be provided with an appropriate transition to “work situations” (ORS 343.923(2)). ORS 344.710 and ORS 344.720 directs DHS to provide funding for rehabilitation facilities, which should provide vocational assessment (ORS 344.710(1)), training (ORS 344.710(3)), and outright employment (ORS 344.710(4)) to individuals with disabilities. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to job training for educators. Another specific population that ORS support job training for is educators. This manifests in two main ways: for new educators to be well trained for the job and for current educators to receive professional development (PD) as continued job training. ORS 342.950 establishes a Network of Quality Teaching and Learning. One goal of this network is, “to 73 enhance a culture of leadership and collaborative responsibility for advancing the profession of teaching among providers of early learning services, teachers and administrators in kindergarten through grade 12, education service districts and educator preparation providers” (ORS 342.950(2)(a)). The Network is also responsible for improving the preparation and induction of teachers (ORS 342.950(2)(c)). ORS 329.788 and ORS 329.795 offer mentorship as one mechanism by which such induction and preparation can occur. ORS 329.788(5) defines a mentorship program as “intended to assist the beginning teacher or administrator to become a confident and competent educator.” ORS 329.795(4) states that this mentorship program is available only if there are funds appropriated. In addition to providing job-training assistance for beginning educators, ORS support continued job training in the form of PD. ORS 327.297 provides grants related to student achievement, which should include grants for, “mentoring, teacher retention and professional development” (ORS 327.297(1)(d)). ORS 329.045 and 329.095 both state that educators should be provided time for PD. Some ORS provide pathways for educators to receive PD for specific programs: (a) providing instruction to English language learner students (ORS 327.345), (b) providing instruction to students receiving college credit in high school (ORS 327.868), (c) providing proficiency-based education (ORS 329.119), (d) providing physical education (ORS 329.496) and (e) providing online learning (ORS 336.851). Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to career mobility. Career mobility manifests in ORS for both students and educators. In terms of students, ORS 327.497(1) and ORS 329.015(2)(c) establish the goal of developing lifelong learning so that students 74 will be prepared for the “ever-changing world.” ORS 329.885(3)(f) states that education should seek to prepare students for “success in the business world.” ORS 329.850(2)(b) says, “The state must require of all youth a level of achievement that prepares them to pursue college, career and technical education programs, apprenticeships, work-based training and [emphasis added] school-to-work programs.” ORS 344.055(1) states that CTE focused training should allow “all individuals to obtain the skills and knowledge needed for initial employment as well as for occupational upgrading and job changes.” ORS 344.055(10) adds to this in stating that CTE training should prepare students “for a broad range of occupations.” 344.550 applies this specifically to “any individual with a disability” (ORS 344.550(1)), providing a pathway for education to provide vocational rehabilitation services to such individuals. In addition to providing skills necessary for career mobility to students, ORS provide for the career mobility of educators. ORS 329.095(4)(a)(F) directs districts to include in their continuous improvement plan “staff leadership development.” ORS 329.790(6) states that “administrators who receive mentoring improve their effectiveness as administrators and continue to improve throughout their careers.” ORS 329.838(1)(a) provides grants for districts to develop “career pathways for teachers and administrators.” ORS 338.015(7) states that one of the goals of establishing charter schools is to “create new professional opportunities for teachers.” ORS 342.950(2)(c) describes that one purpose of the Network of Quality Teaching and Learning (as established in ORS 342.950) is to improve “career advancement opportunities and support of educators.” Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to individual empowerment. Individual empowerment is the last theme for the individual advancement aspect of the framework 75 for this study. Various ORS serve to support that this theme should be advanced by education in general for students, for educators, and by protecting the rights of various educational stakeholders. Other ORS serve to refute this theme in various ways. Each of these findings will be presented below. Oregon Revised Statutes that serve to support individual empowerment. Individual empowerment is supported, in general, by several ORS. ORS 329.015(2)(a) states that a goal of education is “to equip students with the academic and career skills and information necessary to pursue the future of their choice.” ORS 329.025(3) states that the education system in Oregon should provide “each student an education experience that supports academic growth beyond proficiency in established academic content standards and encourages students to attain aspirational goals that are individually challenging.” ORS 329.025(12) states that the education system in Oregon should also provide “students with the knowledge and skills that lead to an active, healthy lifestyle.” ORS 329.119(1)(a)(B) states that proficiency education should include learning objectives that “empower students.” In addition to supporting individual empowerment for students, ORS support the individual empowerment of educators. This is supported through teacher retention: ORS 327.297(1)(d) provides grants for teacher retention; ORS 329.790(5) states that mentorship of educators is, in part, to help retain them; and 342.943(2) states that attempts should be made to retain teachers even when the programs that they teach are cut. In addition to retention, educators are empowered through various means of compensation. ORS 329.838(1)(c) provides grants for developing new approaches to compensation models for educators. ORS 332.507 dictates that all employees in districts 76 must be provided sick leave at full pay. ORS 339.655(3) directs districts to pay the medical bills of employees and/or volunteers who are hospitalized while acting as traffic patrollers. And ORS 342.549(4) states that administrators can be compensated with medical insurance benefits after their employment with a district has ended. ORS 342.608 directs districts to ensure that all licensed employees are provided a 30-minute lunch time. One last way that ORS serve to empower individuals is by protecting the rights and privileges of individuals. This mainly manifests in various ways and circumstances in which privacy should be protected. Some examples of these are (a) maintaining the anonymity of students getting reimbursements for meals provided (ORS 327.537(3)), (b) ensuring that student assessment results are not made public (ORS 329.417(1)), (c) ensuring student expulsion hearings (and hearing proceedings) are kept confidential (ORS 332.061), (d) preventing radio frequency identification devices from compromising student privacy (ORS 339.890(2)), and (e) generally protecting student information through the Oregon Student Information Protection Act (ORS 336.184). In addition to protecting student privacy, ORS 329.479 presents the “Student Assessment Bill of Rights” and details various ways in which students’ rights should be protected where assessments are concerned. This includes allowing students to be excused from state summative assessments (ORS 329.479(3)) and prohibiting such excusal from preventing a student from attaining a high school diploma (ORS 329.479(8)). Students are also afforded due process when their grades are reduced (ORS 339.280(2)). Students’ rights are also protected by the prevention of certain types of restraints being used on them (ORS 339.288 and ORS 339.291), by allowing students to 77 be excused from school for religious instruction (ORS 339.420), and by allowing students to not participate in the flag salute (see Societal Improvement in Oregon below) (ORS 339.875(3)). Oregon Revised Statutes that serve to refute individual empowerment. While there are a number of ORS that support the idea that education should serve to empower individuals, there are other ORS that refute that idea. ORS 339.250 directs that students have a duty to comply with the rules of the school, stating, “Public school students shall comply with rules for the government of such schools, pursue the prescribed course of study, use the prescribed textbooks and submit to the teachers’ authority” (ORS 339.250(1)). ORS 342.545(1) allows districts to terminate the employment of teachers if they are sick for more than 20 working days. ORS 332.016 prevents district employees from serving on the school board of the district. And, though ORS 339.291 provides restrictions on restraints used on students (see above), the use of restraints and/or seclusion is allowed under certain circumstances (ORS 339.291(2)). Societal Improvement in Oregon Societal improvement is another education goal suggested by the prior research that forms the theoretical framework for this study. This goal included four distinct themes in the prior research: establish a common good, improve the economy, achieve collective goals, and promote democracy (see Table 2). This aspect of the framework manifested in the ORS in a number of different ways, with all four themes present. Most ORS work toward supporting these themes. Only the theme of establishing common good had any ORS that seemed to work against its end. In this section, I will present each 78 theme individually and provide examples of how the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon pertain to this aspect of the theoretical framework. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to establishing a common good. The theme of establishing a common good manifested in the ORS in four primary ways: some ORS support this theme generally, some ORS support this theme through establishment of a common curriculum, other ORS support this theme by establishing acceptable behavior, and some ORS support this theme by supporting government and democratic values. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to establishing a common good, generally. There are a few ways in which ORS serve to generally support the idea that education should establish a common good. ORS 327.497(2) states that “education is increasingly linked to economic and social [emphasis added] issues.” ORS 329.015(1) speaks to the “major civilizing influence” of education, stating that education should work to develop a “humane, responsible and informed citizenry,” and that “students must be encouraged to learn their heritage and their place in the global society.” ORS 344.420(1) states that youth should “learn about stewardship, rehabilitation and conservation of the state’s public lands, natural resources and recreational areas.” ORS 344.420(1) goes on to state that opportunities to learn these topics “are needed by youth from all economic and cultural backgrounds.” ORS 329.145(1) distinguishes the school’s role from that of the family, stating that “the family’s [emphasis added] purpose is the security, support, nurturance, love, transmission of values [emphasis added] and facilitation of each member’s growth and development.” 79 Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to establishing a common good via common curriculum. In addition to establishing a common good, generally, several ORS support establishing a common knowledge base for all students by ensuring that all students receive instruction in common topics. ORS 329.025(8) states that education in Oregon should provide “rigorous academic content standards and instruction in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and world languages.” ORS 329.075(2) requires that the DOE develop and institute a “Common Curriculum.” And ORS 329.045(3) states what that common curriculum should be (echoing ORS 329.025(8)): “School districts and public charter schools must offer students instruction in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and world languages.” Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to establishing a common good via behavior. Other ORS serve to establish a common good by establishing a common standard for behavior. ORS 329.025(13) states that education in Oregon should provide “students with the knowledge and skills to take responsibility for their decisions and choices.” Along those lines, several ORS in ORS Chapter 339 (School Attendance; Admission; Discipline; Safety) direct districts and/or schools to establish common acceptable behaviors for students: e.g., prohibit harassment, intimidation, bullying, and cyberbullying (ORS 339.356); ensure “orderly operation of the educational processes” by setting standards for student conduct (ORS 339.240(1)), and the prohibition of willful disobedience, open defiance, possession of drugs and controlled substances, use of profanity, intentional property damage, use of threats, and/or assault (ORS 339.250(2)). In a similar vein, some ORS prohibit or promote specific types of behaviors. ORS 80 336.109(1) encourages districts to adopt “a comprehensive policy to reduce gang involvement, violent activities and drug abuse by public school students.” This is, in part, to reduce the criminal activity that is often associated with gangs (ORS 336.109(2)). Other ORS serve to instruct students about appropriate behavior. ORS 336.059 directs school boards to adopt policies to ensure that students are instructed about sex abuse. ORS 336.071(1) requires schools to “instruct and drill students on emergency procedures so that the students can respond to an emergency without confusion or panic.” ORS 336.455(2)(j) states that human sexuality education, which is required instruction for all students (ORS 336.455(1)), must “validate through course material and instruction the importance of honesty with oneself and others, respect for each person’s dignity and well-being, and responsibility for one’s actions.” ORS 339.331(2)(a)(B) directs the Center for School Safety (as established in ORS 339.331(1)) to create and/or compile curricula concerning “direct instruction in academic, social, problem-solving and conflict resolution skills.” In some instances, ORS provide guidance for how to establish a common standard of behavior for specific students. ORS 346.020(3) directs the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to promote the moral welfare of students enrolled in the Oregon school for the deaf. ORS 339.127(11d) and ORS 339.128(5c) allow schools to establish “minimum standards for behavior” that non-resident students must maintain in order to continue to enroll in a school. The behavior and conduct of educators are also taken into account. ORS 342.123 requires that all licensed educators have a knowledge of “federal and state statutes prohibiting discrimination” (ORS 342.123(1)(a)) and of “ethical standards of professional 81 conduct” (ORS 342.123(1)(b)). ORS 342.143 allows for TSPC to require that licensed educators be “of good moral character” (ORS 342.143(2)) and prohibit an educator from being convicted of certain types of crime (ORS 342.143(3)). ORS 342.865(1) allows for the dismissal of teachers for, among other things, immorality (ORS 342.865(1)(b)), insubordination (ORS 342.865(1)(c)), and the conviction of a crime listed in ORS 342.143 (ORS 342.865(1)(f)). Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to improving societal economy. There are four ways in which ORS serve to improve society by improving the economy: (a) general economic support, (b) development of a workforce, (c) improving literacy, and (d) reducing crime. ORS that support each of these will be presented below. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to improving societal economy generally. The ORS that generally support societal improvement through economic improvement include ORS 327.497(2), which states that “education is increasingly linked to economic and social issues.” ORS 344.100 states that education should “make the United States more competitive in the world economy” and 344.760(2) states that “the demands created by new technologies and foreign competition have intensified the need for a literate workforce.” Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to improving societal economy through workforce advancement. In addition to these general supports of economic development, several ORS support societal economy through the development of a viable workforce. ORS 329.850(2)(c) states that education in Oregon should “meet workforce needs.” ORS 344.075(3) supports this effort by providing grants to, in part, assess “the ability of each career and technical education program to meet workforce needs.” ORS 344.055(7) states 82 that such CTE programs should be evaluated to make sure that such programs are cost effective “for society and the state.” ORS 344.745 establishes a youth apprenticeship and training and work-based learning program. There are also a number of ORS that speak to the need to provide students with work and job-related skills (see Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to job-readiness in the Individual Improvement in Oregon section above). A number of ORS support the idea that education in Oregon should not only prepare students to enter the workforce but also support the current workforce in Oregon. ORS 327.708(1) states that financing state education projects “accomplishes the purpose of… creating jobs and furthering economic development in Oregon.” This is accomplished, in part, by “creating employment opportunities through the funding of projects for the development and construction of public school facilities” (ORS 327.310(1)(c)). ORS 327.527(4) provides that the ODE can enter into contracts with public or private contractors. Some ORS provide for the utilization of public and private community (ORS 327.800(1)(f), ORS 329.095(4)(d)(B)(v), ORS 340.010(2)), parental (ORS 327.810(2)(a)), employer (ORS 329.125(4)), business (ORS 329.885(3)(d)) and local organization (ORS329.175(8)) resources, which would necessarily benefit those employed by those sources. As examples of less direct ways in which ORS support economic benefits, ORS 328.205(1) allows districts to contract bonded indebtedness in order to construct and/or improve facilities and acquire new property. Doing so provides an avenue through which education is not the source of economic development but a vehicle through which the economy can be run. Additionally, 327.425(1) allows for excess moneys in the common 83 school fund to be loaned out. There is no specificity in the ORS that entail to whom or for what purpose this money could be loaned. Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to improving societal economy through literacy improvement. ORS 329.153(2) supports the goal of improving societal economy by declaring that “dollars invested in quality programs, such as the Head Start program after which the Oregon prekindergarten is modeled, return the costs thereof several times over in costs saved in the areas of remedial education, corrections and human services.” In addition to the ORS that speak to the need for the development of literacy skills (see Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to skill acquisition in the Individual Improvement in Oregon section above), ORS 327.810(1)(b) directs the SBE to establish the Oregon Early Reading Program in order to “improve the reading proficiency of students by the time the students complete third grade” and ORS 344.760(1) states that “it is in the state’s interest to ensure coordination of the various groups providing adult literacy services.” Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to improving societal economy through reduced crime. ORS 327.297(1) supports a reduction in crime by providing grant funds to be put into incarcerated youth education programs. ORS 329.832(2) suggests that a lack of education can lead to “criminal and at-risk behaviors, early pregnancy and substance abuse.” ORS 336.109 seeks to have districts directly reducing crime by enacting policies that “reduce gang involvement, violent activities and drug abuse.” ORS 336.222 further directs districts to have an explicit plan to prevent alcohol and drug abuse on the part of students. ORS 339.331(2)(a) directs the Center for School Safety to provide resources for districts help students who are “at risk of participation in violent behavior or juvenile crime.” ORS 329.153(2) supports the goal of reducing crime as well (see above). 84 Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to achieving collective goals. Several ORS work to ensure that society is improved by enabling society to achieve its collective goals. ORS 329.025(11) states that education in Oregon should provide that students learn how to succeed as citizens. ORS 329.015(1) states that “education is a major civilizing influence” and ORS 329.025(7) states that students should be able to effectively work in groups. ORS 329.790(1) states that “the quality of teaching and administration in the public schools is of vital importance to the future of the state.” ORS 329.885(3)(a) provides grants to businesses to provide programs and internships in health care, business, and high technology fields. ORS 326.530 allows districts to acquire intellectual property for the public interest. And ORS 343.395(4) speaks of the importance of ensuring Talented and Gifted students “realize their contribution to self and society,” as people who may demonstrate “outstanding… leadership ability in motivating the performance of others.” Perhaps in order to ensure collective goals can be met, several ORS suggest and demand that education systems be adaptable to changing needs. ORS 329.045(1)(a) directs the SBE to “regularly and periodically review and revise its Common Curriculum Goals, performance indicators and diploma requirements.” ORS 329.095(1)(a) requires districts to “conduct self-evaluations and to periodically update their local district continuous improvement plans.” These plans must “involve the public in the setting of local goals” (ORS 329.095(1)(c)). ORS 329.085(3) directs districts to periodically “review school and school district standards and credit and performance requirements.” ORS 329.105(1) directs the Superintendent of Public Instruction to produce and publish annual performance reports in order to improve schools. ORS 342.971(4)(a) provides that 85 the Educator Preparation Improvement Fund should be, in part, used to “respond to changes in education of students.” In addition to these means for improving society by helping the attainment of collective goals, there are ORS that support the specific collective goal of environmental care. ORS 336.445 bans the use of polystyrene in serving food at schools. ORS 327.033(3)(b) provides grants that can be used to update school transportation property “for the purpose of reducing or eliminating diesel engine emissions.” ORS 327.390(2)(a)(D) provides grants for outdoor school programs that enable students to learn about “the importance of the state’s environment and natural resources” and ORS 344.420(1) emphasizes the importance of youth learning about “stewardship, rehabilitation and conservation of this state’s public lands, natural resources and recreational areas. These opportunities are needed by youth from all economic and cultural backgrounds.” Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to promoting government and democracy. Several ORS serve to support the improvement of society by promoting government and democracy. ORS 329.025(10) states that Oregon schools should provide “students an educational background to the end that they will function successfully in a constitutional republic, a participatory democracy and a multicultural nation and world.” ORS 329.049(1) directs districts to “adopt a plan to encourage students to register to vote and vote in elections,” and ORS 329.049(2) directs the SBE to “incorporate voter registration skills into the Essential Learning Skills.” ORS 336.010(4) directs schools to set aside a portion of the school day to observe the following holidays with “appropriate activities”: (a) Lincoln’s Birthday, (b) Admission of Oregon into the Union, (c) 86 Washington’s Birthday, and (d) Columbus Day. ORS 336.010(3) directs schools to close on election days “for such schools in which the sole schoolroom is used for election purposes.” ORS 336.029 sets aside the first Friday in December as “the Oregon Civics Day for Teachers,” (ORS 336.029(1)) the purpose of which is to “give teachers the opportunity to learn about civics in Oregon for the purpose of assisting them in providing high-quality instruction in civics” (ORS 336.029(2)). ORS 336.067(1)(a) directs educators to give special emphasis to instruction related to “obedience to law, respect for the national flag, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon.” ORS 336.145(1) provides that adult education classes can be offered for, in part, citizenship. ORS 337.260 directs that textbooks on American history and government should “adequately stress the services rendered by those who achieved our national independence, who established our form of constitutional government and who preserved our federal union.” ORS 339.875 furthers a respect and recognition of the United States by requiring that flags are “displayed upon or near each school building” (ORS 339.875(1)(a)), “displayed in each classroom” (ORS 339.875(1)(b), and that students are provided the opportunity to “salute the United States flag at least once a week” by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (ORS 339.875(1)(c)). Students are also supposed to be provided instruction “in the Constitution of the United States and in the history of the United States” (ORS 336.057). ORS 338.115(4) specifies that charter schools “may not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or section 5, Article I of the Oregon Constitution.” Such directions for education to respect the separation of 87 church and state manifest as equal access to school-owned and run meeting places for “all religious denominations” (ORS 332.172(1)(b)), the ability for families to forgo vision (ORS 336.211(3)(b)) and dental (ORS 336.213(3)(b)) screenings for religious reasons, the prevention of post-secondary courses to include sectarian content (ORS 340.005(4)(a)), the allowance for students to be excused from instruction for part of the week for religious instruction (ORS 339.280(3)(a) and ORS 339.420), and, finally, the removal of all funding to any school if “there is a substantial basis to believe that the school district or public charter school sponsors, financially supports or is actively involved with religious activity” (ORS 327.109(2)). Sustaining Education in Oregon Sustaining education is the final education goal suggested by the prior research that forms the theoretical framework for this study (see Table 2). This aspect of the framework manifested in the ORS in a number of different ways. Some ORS generally support the idea that education should work to sustain itself, others support the idea that education should work to do the wishes of stakeholders, and some ORS work to use one education system to advance another. ORS 339.010 generally supports the idea that education should seek to sustain itself by laying out the requirements that students attend school if they are between the ages of 6 and 18 years. Beyond this there are no ORS that suggest that schools should exist just for the sake of their own existence. There are, however, a number of ORS that support the idea that education should exist to serve the desires of various stakeholder groups. ORS 327.506(3) states that the State’s Quality Education Model should seek to identify best practices for education based, in part, on “public values.” ORS 88 329.045(1)(b)(B) states that the Common Curriculum Goals set forth by the SBE must “provide ample opportunity for public comment.” ORS 329.095(1)(c) directs districts to base their continuous improvement plan on the setting of local goals as driven by the public. And ORS 329.095(4)(a)(E) states that districts must have a plan for engaging families and communities when setting their continuous improvement plan. ORS 329.125 states that these attempts to engage parents and local community are so that “schools can best reach the levels of performance expected under the provisions of this chapter.” Several ORS provide opportunities for parents to opt their students out of participating in some otherwise mandated educational endeavors. ORS 329.479(3) gives parents the right to excuse their students from state summative assessments. ORS 336.465(1)(b) gives parents the right to excuse their student from human sexuality education, and ORS 343.164(2) gives parents the right to refuse any special education services that are otherwise deemed appropriate for their student. One last way that ORS suggest that education should serve to sustain itself is by using one education system to promote another. ORS 326.425 establishes the Early Learning Council, which, in part, has the purpose of ensuring that “children enter school ready to learn” (ORS 326.425(2)(a)). ORS 327.372(3)(a) provides money for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in order to “expand and sustain regional networks that support science, technology, engineering and mathematics.” ORS 327.800(1)(e) states that one goal of the SBE is to identify strategic investments that would “promote collaboration and alignment among early childhood service providers, school districts, community colleges, public universities and employers.” ORS 327.815(3)(b) states that some money from identified strategic investments can be used 89 to “increase access for underserved students to post-secondary institutions.” ORS 343.499 establishes the State Interagency Coordinating Council, which, in part, is responsible for organizing education and non-education entities and state agencies in order to further the goals and purposes of education in Oregon. Perhaps most notably, ORS 329.015(2)(d) states that one of the goals of education in Oregon is “to prepare students for successful transition to the next phase of their educational development.” Other Purposes of Education in Oregon There are some ORS that support goals of education that do not fit within the framework suggested by prior research (see Table 2). In particular, there are ORS that support three themes that did not fit the framework: (a) provision of education should be age restricted, (b) education should serve healthcare needs, and (c) education should provide a safe environment. In addition to these three themes, there were two isolated ORS that explicitly state goals of education that did not fit anywhere else in theories of the education system’s goals. In this section, I present examples how the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon pertain to each of these themes and isolated goals. Age restriction of education in Oregon. There are no ORS that explicitly state that a purpose of education is to isolate certain aged people from people of other ages. Nonetheless, for reasons discussed in the Discussion chapter (see below), a reporting of findings for this study would be incomplete without a presentation of the ORS that support the idea that public education should be provided to people of only certain ages. To this end, ORS 327.410 dictates that funding for education in Oregon is proportional to the “number of children resident in each county between the ages of 4 and 20.” ORS 329.451(10)(b) states that once a student reaches the age of 21, that student is 90 no longer eligible for a high school diploma, modified diploma, or extended diploma. ORS 336.092(1) defines a person as eligible for Kindergarten when the child is five years old. ORS 339.010(1) clarifies that all children “between the ages of 6 and 18 years who have not completed the 12th grade are required to regularly attend public full-time school.” ORS 339.115(1) directs that such education must be provided “free of charge.” There are some exceptions made to the mandate to restrict K12 education to children. ORS 326.310(6) directs the Superintendent of Public Instruction to “administer and supervise adult education programs in the public elementary and secondary schools.” ORS 336.145(2) allows districts to provide educational services to “adults” but those districts that elect to do so may charge fees for such educational services. This idea of restricting age also applies to educators who must be older than 18 years (ORS 342.143(1)). ORS 336.095(3) allow for early admission of students to Kindergarten if it is appropriate for the “cognitive, social and physical development” of the child. ORS 339.115(5) allows students older than 19 years to stay in school for the remainder of the school year in which they turned 21 years old. ORS 344.760(1) states, as presented above, that providing adult literacy is in the state’s interest. And ORS 344.840 says that CTE programs “shall furnish to any person [emphasis added] designated by the director such career and technical education instruction as is provided for district pupils when the facilities of the district permit.” Healthcare in education in Oregon. The ORS that support education as a source of healthcare manifest in three ways: (a) those ORS that support healthcare generally and/or provide healthcare directly, (b) those ORS that provide goods for the sake of health, and (c) those ORS that support healthcare through education about healthcare. 91 There are also ORS that serve to refute that education should provide healthcare. Each of these will be presented in the sections below. Oregon revised statutes of education that promote or provide healthcare. There are several ORS that serve to ensure that healthcare is served by education in Oregon by mitigating environmental health risks. ORS 326.051(1)(f) provides that districts should seek to eliminate the presence of mercury throughout education facilities. ORS 327.330(3)(b) provides grants for the purposes of improving the health conditions of school facilities. ORS 332.331 directs districts to develop a Healthy and Safe Schools Plan, which must serve to mitigate lead, radon, pest, and carbon monoxide exposure for anyone using school facilities. Several ORS work to provide healthcare more directly. ORS 332.111 allows districts to provide “auxiliary services and facilities to students, including but not limited to forms of residential care and medical and dental services.” ORS 332.432(2) states that districts may provide health insurance for employees. ORS 332.507(2) directs districts to provide all employees sick leave and ORS 339.065(2)(a) allows students to be excused from compulsory attendance if they are sick. ORS 339.655(3) directs districts to pay the medical bills of employees or volunteers who are hospitalized while serving as traffic patrol. ORS 336.201(3) encourages districts to employ a school nurse and ORS 336.204(2) directs the DOE to assist in funding such positions. ORS 336.211(2) requires students to have vision screenings and ORS 336.211(5) provides districts with reimbursements for providing such screenings. ORS 336.201(2) mandates that districts provide nursing services for students who are “medically complex” and/or “medically fragile.” ORS 336.485(2) mandates that coaches provide primary medical care for 92 concussions of student athletes. And ORS 346.020(3) directs the Superintendent of Public Instruction to be responsible for the “mental, moral and physical welfare” of students enrolled in the Oregon School for the Deaf. Oregon revised statutes of education that promote healthcare through the provision of goods. For the most part, the ORS that support healthcare through the provision of goods do so through the provision of food. The exception to this is ORS 327.365(2), which provides grants to districts in order to procure automated electronic defibrillators (AEDs) (ORS 339.345 requires schools to have AEDs in school buildings). The ways in which ORS support the provision of food are primarily through specific school-food programs. ORS 327.527 provides grants to schools for summer lunch programs. ORS 327.535 provides grants for school breakfast programs and allows schools to include breakfast eating count toward instructional time (provided that instruction is being provided during breakfast time). ORS 327.540 provides grants to districts for after school meal programs. ORS 336.640(1)(b) requires the SBE to establish rules for the provision of “health and nutrition services to pregnant and parenting students.” ORS 327.800(1)(b) states that strategic investments should be made to “improve the employability of graduates from Oregon public schools; [and] after-school meal and snack program,” putting after-school meal and snack programs on par with employability of graduates. ORS 326.051(2)(b)(A) directs the SBE to seek funds for “educational purposes, including but not limited to any funds for the school lunch program,” defining providing the school lunch program as an educational purpose. ORS 336.432(3) sets healthy standards for all food that is served at schools. 93 Oregon revised statutes of education that promote healthcare through health education. The last way in which ORS support the idea that education should provide healthcare is in providing healthcare education. There are many ORS that support literacy instruction (see above) and ORS 329.832(1) implies that one purpose of reading instruction is that it is “key to building a child’s self-esteem.” As previously presented, health is a required topic of study in K12 education (ORS 329.451). ORS 336.472(1) specifies that health education must include cardio-pulmonary resuscitation and the use of AEDs. ORS 342.726(1) requires that health education includes information about the use of steroids. ORS 336.455(1) requires that human sexuality education is part of health education with ORS 336.455(2)(e) requiring such education must: Include a discussion about the characteristics of the emotional, physical and psychological aspects of a healthy relationship and a discussion about the benefits of delaying pregnancy beyond the adolescent years as a means to better ensure a healthy future for parents and their children. Students shall be provided with statistics based on the latest medical information regarding both the health benefits and the possible side effects of all forms of contraceptives, including the success and failure rates for prevention of pregnancy. And ORS 336.059(2) requires that health education must also include child sexual abuse prevention. Several ORS seek to provide health education through physical education (and explicit provision of physical activity). ORS 329.025(12) states that education in Oregon should provide “students with the knowledge and skills that lead to an active, healthy lifestyle.” ORS 329.496 supports this call by requiring physical education (PE) for 94 Kindergarten through eighth graders. Such PE must “help students develop the knowledge, motor skills, self-management skills, attitudes and confidence needed to adopt and maintain physical activity throughout their lives” (ORS 329.496(3)). ORS 329.496(4)(1) mandates that students must be physically active during PE class. There are also ORS that seek to provide health education concerning drug abuse. ORS 336.067(1)(e) states that special emphasis should be given in education to “the effects of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and controlled substances upon the human system.” ORS 336.222(1) directs districts to have an “alcohol and drug abuse prevention curriculum.” Oregon revised statutes of education that refute healthcare as a purpose of education. Despite those ORS that support that education should provide and/or support healthcare, there are ORS that refute this idea. ORS 343.045 directs the SBE to establish special education programs but states that such programs “shall not include treatment.” ORS 343.224 also states that: School districts are not financially responsible for noneducational care of a child with a disability unless that district has participated in development of the child’s individualized education program that clearly documents that the care is prerequisite to the child receiving a free and appropriate education and the placement is for educational program needs, rather than care needs. And ORS 343.146 directs that medical exams that are necessary for the education of a student should be performed by medical professionals (rather than educators). School safety in Oregon. There is some overlap between the ORS that seek to provide healthcare and those that seek to provide safety (e.g., ORS 339.345, requiring 95 AEDs in school). There are some ORS, however, that suggest that schools should seek to create safety beyond ensuring the prevention and mitigation of health hazards. ORS 329.025(16) states that Oregon education should ensure that it “transports children safely to and from school.” ORS 329.025(19) states that Oregon education should provide “for a safe, educational environment.” ORS 329.095(4)(a)(D) directs districts to ensure that the district continuous improvement plan includes “programs and policies that achieve a safe educational environment.” ORS 332.405(4) allows districts to spend district money to improve pedestrian-ways if doing so “enhances the safety of pupils going to and from schools.” ORS 339.250(5)(a) requires districts the ensure that suspension and expulsion policies are designed to “protect students and school employees from harm.” And ORS 339.312 encourages districts to form safe school alliances in order to “provide the safest school environment possible.” ORS 339.353(1)(a) states that “a safe and civil environment is necessary for students to learn and achieve high academic standards.” Safety is also taken into account where educators are concerned. ORS 326.603 requires that all school employees be given background checks. ORS 326.607 requires the same for all school volunteers. Employees are also subject to fingerprinting (ORS 326.604). Although these ORS serve to limit the liberty of employees for the sake of safety, ORS 332.531(1) gives districts the authority to “establish a law enforcement agency and employ such personnel as may be necessary to ensure the safety of school district personnel and students.” Isolated educational goals in Oregon. There are two explicit goals of education that do not, precisely fit into any other aspect or theme presented in these findings. One 96 of these is provided by ORS 326.500. ORS 326.500(1) establishes the STEM Investment Council. ORS 326.500(2)(a) defines the purpose of this council as follows: The council is established for the purpose of assisting the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the executive director of the Higher Education Coordinating Commission in jointly developing and overseeing a long-term strategy that advances the following educational goals related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics: (A) Double the percentage of students in 4th and 8th grades who are proficient or advanced in mathematics and science, as determined using a nationally representative assessment of students’ knowledge in mathematics and science; and (B) Double the number of students who earn a post-secondary degree requiring proficiency in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. This ORS explicitly states that the purpose of this particular educational entity is to increase the numbers of students who are proficient in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) related fields rather than identifying STEM knowledge and skills that should be imparted to students. This is not, according to any ORS, so that some other goal of education can be achieved. The second explicit goal that does not precisely fit anywhere else in these findings is provided by ORS 329.095, which directs districts to create a continuous improvement plan. The goals of this plan are described in ORS 329.095(4)(a), which reads: Goals to implement the following: (A) A rigorous curriculum aligned with state standards; 97 (B) High-quality instructional programs; (C) Short-term and long-term professional development plans; (D) Programs and policies that achieve a safe educational environment; (E) A plan for family and community engagement; (F) Staff leadership development; (G) High-quality data systems; (H) Improvement planning that is data-driven; (I) Education service plans for students who have or have not exceeded all of the academic content standards; and (J) A strong school library program While goals A to I of the district continuous improvement plan can be linked to some other purpose of education as presented in these findings, goal J, the need for a strong school library program, does not. Concluding Remarks on This Study’s Findings In total, these finding present an analysis of the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon. The findings are consistent with the data that were collected throughout this study. A summary of the scope of these findings can be found in Appendix G. Appendix G presents the number of ORS subsections that were weighted with a given color (as described in the Methods chapter). The most salient finding from this weighting is the spread of different colors that were used. There were green-, teal-, yellow-, and orange- colored across all four of the potential purposes of education proposed by the theoretical framework. These findings will inform the discussion and implications of the findings, overall, as found in the following chapter. 98 IV. DISCUSSION In the following sections I discuss how the findings for this study address the first two research questions for this study: • Research Question 1: a. What is the inferred purpose of education in Oregon based on the body of Oregon state education codes? b. Does this inferred purpose support the stated purpose of education in Oregon’s statute ORS 329.015? • Research Question 2: Can Oregon’s state codes of education be categorized as either (a) meant to advance individuals, (b) meant to improve individuals, (c) meant to improve society, or (d) meant to sustain education? I begin this discussion by addressing the first research question for this study. I start with a summary of what the findings for this study infer the purposes of education in Oregon are. Then I discuss how these inferred purposes relate to the stated purposes of education in Oregon. This initial discussion will, by-and-large, be divorced from the theoretical framework for this study in order to assess what the purposes of education in Oregon should be regardless of whether they fit the theoretical framework. I will conclude this discussion by addressing the second research question for this study. Each aspect of the framework for this study will be considered in light of the findings. The Purpose of Education in Oregon (RQ1) This discussion should begin with a recognition that there is no singular purpose of education in Oregon. As presented in the Findings chapter, the explicit goals and 99 purposes of education in Oregon are many and varied and the purposes of education that can be inferred from the whole body of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) that govern Oregon’s Kindergarten through grade 12 (K12) education are equally so. That is perhaps the front-most answer to the first research question for this study. That stated, this discussion of the purposes of education in Oregon will examine what specific purposes of education can be inferred from the ORS governing K12 education. These inferred purposes of education will then be compared to the explicit goals and purposes of education, as they are written in particular ORS. There will also be a discussion of the cohesion of these purposes and the evidence to suggest whether these purposes are uniformly clear or contradictory (both to each other and within themselves). The inferred purposes of education in Oregon. I have categorized the inferred purposes of Education in Oregon as fitting into two categories: (a) actions schools should take for the sake of the future and (b) things schools should do for the sake of the present. Table 4 summarizes these inferred purposes of education, each of which is discussed in detail in the following sections. Things schools should do for the sake of the future. When most people think about what good schools do, they turn to the impact that schools have on the future (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018; Goldin, 2003; Labaree, 2011): the future of the economy, the futures of individual students, etc. It is no surprise, then, that there are a set of purposes of education in Oregon that are focused on making an impact on the future. This shows up in two major ways: (a) how education should impact the futures of individuals and (b) how education should impact the future of society. 100 Table 4 The Inferred Purposes of Education in Oregon Focus Purpose Critical Aspects The Future Prepare Individuals for a Career Must Be Afforded to ALL Individuals Prepare Individuals for Career Must Be Afforded to ALL Individuals Mobility Prepare Individuals to Be Must Be Afforded to ALL Individuals Citizens Prepare Individuals to Must Be Afforded to ALL Individuals Accomplish Their Individual Goals Benefit Societal Economy This Should Be Done By: • Preparing a capable workforce • Reducing crime • Improving literacy Enable Society to Accomplish This Should Be Done By: Shared Goals • Establishing a common understanding of right versus wrong • Preparing a citizenry to engage in democracy • Direct action to enact sustainability (e.g., environmental protections) The Present Provide Childcare Drive Economy This Should Be Done By: • Employing educators • Contracting and collaborating with businesses Empower Individuals This Should Be Done By: • Provide rehabilitation services • Provide healthcare (via provision of primary care and affording access to healthcare) • Protect the rights of individuals The common themes that arise where individuals’ futures are concerned are career readiness (both in terms of preparing for an initial career and in terms of preparing for multiple careers throughout a lifetime), preparedness to participate in a democratic society, and an ability to pursue one’s own hopes and dreams. It is worth noting that there 101 are also intonations of education as a means for individuals to attain financial independence. I would argue that such a goal of education is more tangential, based on the whole body of ORS, than ensuring employment and self-actualization. These themes are applied to students, as would be expected. What is perhaps less expected is that these themes are also applied to some adults. In particular adults with disabilities and adults who are employed in education (i.e., educators). These themes manifest in noticeably different ways for educators than they do for students. Students are meant to be prepared in very broad ways. This makes sense from the perspective of not being able to predict what any student will face throughout life. The ORS that are geared toward preparing educators, on the other hand, are geared more toward their experiences as educators. There are some ORS that imply education should serve as a means for students to be able to set and gain the skills to ultimately attain their own (potentially non-job related) ambitions. There are not parallel ORS focused on educators. Those ORS related to the themes of preparing individuals for their futures that are focused on educators are focused almost exclusively on career preparedness and career advancement. It could be argued that those ORS are, therefore, only a means by which education should seek to accomplish its other (student focused) goals. I would put forth the counter argument that the ORS that pertain to career advancement of educators do not seem, in title or in word, to be in place for the sake of students but rather for the sake of educators based on the lack of explicit connection between some of the programs and mandates to this end and student outcomes. As a clarification of these themes, the ORS make explicit in a number of ways that such preparations for the futures of individuals should apply to all individuals. That 102 is, no individual should be denied the benefits education is meant to provide for any other individual. There are, however, implications that alterations should be made in how a given individual is provided this preparation. There is an entire chapter of ORS dedicated to how education should be changed where special education is applied. I would argue that these alterations, in total, are just that: a matter of how education should seek to accomplish its work, not a matter of why (i.e., the purpose of education) education exists. The common themes that arise where society’s future is concerned are benefiting the economy and preparing a citizenry that will be capable of realizing their shared hopes and dreams. Although there is some emphasis given to treatment of educators (e.g., Civics Day for teachers) in the ORS where these themes are concerned, by and large, the focus is on directly impacting students for the sake of indirectly impacting future society. Where the future economy is concerned, an analysis of the ORS reveals that education in Oregon should seek to prepare a workforce. This means making sure that people coming into the workforce are prepared to enter that workforce. Some ORS support this idea through specific job-readiness programs. Other ORS support this by requiring a common set of skills to be attained by each student. This workforce preparation can also be seen in terms of the differential quality of the graduates (e.g., different grades awarded for courses and different types of diplomas). In addition to workforce preparation, an analysis of the ORS reveals that education in Oregon should seek to improve the future economy by reducing the number of people who will become incarcerated and by improving the literacy of the citizenry. The major way in which education in Oregon should seek to ensure future citizens, as revealed by an analysis of the ORS, will be able to attain their shared hopes 103 and dreams is via citizenship preparedness. This should happen in terms of making sure that graduates are capable of engaging in the political systems that exist in Oregon (e.g., voter preparation, knowledge of laws and governing bodies). This is also accomplished by establishing, in the minds of students, a common understanding of right versus wrong. This can be seen in the way ORS direct education systems in Oregon to guide the behavior of students. There are other ways in which the ORS imply that education systems should seek to improve society’s ability to actualize itself. In particular, there are a few ORS that speak to a desire for education systems to function in an environmentally friendly way. There are other ORS that can be interpreted as intending to improve the collective knowledge of society (e.g., ORS concerning the acquisition of intellectual property and the establishment of libraries). I would argue that each of these are mechanisms by which education should seek to accomplish its goal. Again, a matter of how as opposed to why. The points made throughout the ORS to improve literacy and reduce crime deserves special consideration here. Both of these goals have an impact on the economy and society’s ability to self-actualize. Reducing crime empowers those who would have been otherwise grieved. Crime reduction would also serve to free up societal resources to be put toward other endeavors. These impacts of reducing crime are in addition to the cost savings of not having to litigate and incarcerate people. Similarly, improving the overall literacy of society better enables citizens to engage with each other in a democratic process in addition to improving economics. Things schools should do for the sake of the present. With as much focus as there is on what education does for the future, it was surprising to find so much evidence 104 that Oregon legislators feel education should also work to improve the present. The purposes of education in Oregon that relate to the present (as evidenced by the ORS) can be grouped into three themes: (a) provide childcare, (b) drive present-day economy, and (c) provide for individuals in the present. Schools are sometimes referred to as glorified daycare (Adams, 2018; Church, 1963; Trunk, 2012; Voght, 2018), sometimes sarcastically so (TheL0nePonderer, 2018). Upon examination of the ORS that govern education in Oregon, I think there is good evidence to suggest that one purpose of education in Oregon is, in fact, to be just that. The best evidence for this is in the synthesis of the ORS that restrict the age of those who are served and the ORS that direct the safety of schools. If this was not a purpose of education in Oregon, I cannot think of any good reason to restrict access to free education only to children. If we are to believe that education is meant, for instance, to empower individuals to be able to move from one career to another, that would be much better addressed by providing education to individuals throughout their lives, as needed. If we are to believe that education is also meant to empower citizens to engage in a democratic society, that education would be much more effective if it came during each election, focused on the election at hand. It is possible that age restriction is simply a matter of making efficient use of resources. After all, K12 education is provided for free but it is expensive. There are, however, many ways to allocate finite resources. This choice to allocate resources specifically to the benefit of children is meaningful. Imagine, an education system that operates not by mandating attendance of children but rather operated on a more drop-in basis. In a system such as this, if people are looking to change careers, they would be able 105 to go back to school for free to improve their skills in the necessary fields. If others want to know about a new technology and how it might impact their life, they could enroll in a particular course. Courses could also be offered to enlighten citizens about how systems of government and funding work (e.g., in order to prepare the citizenry for an upcoming election). Children, however, would not likely have use for career, technology, or voting preparation. As such, one major problem with a system like this would be that there would be a lot of children with no one to look after them. If we assume that parents are working and that children are not, a whole new industry would be needed to provide day care to children. In addition to the restriction of the provision of education based on age, there is a major emphasis in the ORS given to ensuring that schools are safe and secure. That safety and security could be a matter of just wanting to make sure that students are learning skills (or that schools are accomplishing any of the other purposes of education). The wording of the ORS that mandate that schools be safe, however, indicate that safety is, in and of itself, important. Safety and security being so critical, coupled with the age restriction of K12 education, points to a purpose of education being to provide daytime care for children. Despite schools being often considered daycare institutions (however sincerely), schools are very rarely recognized as economic drivers in the present. Yet there is a body of evidence in the ORS to suggest that education in Oregon should be working to do exactly that. This can be seen in the ORS that direct the contracting of work and collaboration with businesses. In some cases, it appears that this contracting and collaboration is for the benefit of education systems and programs. In most cases, 106 however, it is ambiguous whether education or the business should be the benefactor. I take that ambiguity as intentional. That is, these contracts and collaborations are meant to benefit education (i.e., to help further the other goals of education) and meant to benefit businesses. In addition to contracts and collaborations with outside entities, education in Oregon serves as a stabilizing economic force by employing educators. There are a number of ORS dedicated to providing compensation to educational employees. This compensation would also have an impact on the present-day economy. To that end, education in Oregon also has the purpose of providing for individuals. This provision comes in many forms. One of those forms of provision is the monetary compensation of education employees. It also comes in the form of the direct provision of food and healthcare services to students. Education systems also provide empowerment to individuals in the present by protecting the rights of students and educators in various ways. The provision of healthcare to educators deserves special consideration, here. The provision of that healthcare has an impact on societal economy; the personal finances of each employee; and the mental, physical, and social well-being of each employee. Summary of the inferred purposes of education. In total, the purposes of education in Oregon as inferred from those ORS that do not explicitly state a purpose of education in Oregon seem to be: (a) prepare individuals for their careers, (b) prepare individuals to participate in democratic society, (c) prepare individuals to accomplish their personal aspirations, (d) benefit the economy (both in the present and in the future), (e) enable society to accomplish the shared goals of its citizenry, (f) provide childcare, 107 and (g) provide individuals with select benefits. All of these purposes are intended to be beneficial. All of these benefits should be shared equitably by all individuals and groups. In the following section, I will address how these inferred purposes of education align to the explicit purposes of education in Oregon. How the inferred purposes of education in Oregon relate to the stated purposes of education in Oregon. Based on the ORS that explicitly govern the goals and purposes of education in Oregon (see Findings Chapter and Appendix C), I would summarize that the explicit purposes of education in Oregon are to: (a) prepare for a lifetime of career work; (b) improve education-related outcomes for underserved populations; (c) develop a citizenry that is humane, responsible, informed, adaptable, and able to participate in democracy; (d) develop the skills of reading, writing, problem solving, communication, thinking, reasoning, technology, group-work, math, science, English, history, economics, civics, physical education, health, arts, world languages, family matters, and responsibility; and (e) to provide safety to students. This analysis of the ORS suggests that all of these goals should be achieved for all students enrolled in K12 education in Oregon. Many of these explicit purposes mirror the inferred purposes of education in Oregon. These explicit purposes are, however, entirely focused on future outcomes for students, whereas the whole body of ORS imply that education should serve the current needs of students as well as society broadly. It is reasonable to assume that some of those explicit purposes seek to benefit students directly, so that society can be indirectly affected. That stated, the explicit purposes of education in Oregon do not at all seem to infer that education should serve as a driver of present-day economy (as can be readily 108 inferred from other ORS that govern education practice). With these thoughts in mind, it will be worth considering the ways in which the purposes of education in Oregon are clear and the ways in which the purposes of education in Oregon are contradictory. I will seek to discuss these topics in the following sections. Ways in which the purposes of education in Oregon are clear. When the explicit and inferred purposes of education in Oregon are considered together, there are some things that education is clearly supposed to accomplish. I will discuss both the purposes of education and the mechanisms by which they should be brought to fruition. These mechanisms are not, strictly, purposes of education in and of themselves. However, it is clear from the ORS that the mechanisms discussed below are envisioned as occurring within education systems in Oregon. One purpose of education is to prepare individuals, in particular individual students, for their futures. Another clear purpose of education is to have a positive impact on society. These purposes partially overlap in that one way that education should seek to improve society is by preparing individuals for their futures. Each of these two purposes, though, is also important on its own. One mechanism by which both of these purposes should be accomplished is by ensuring that students are prepared for a lifetime of employment. This helps the individual to attain material support (e.g., procuring food and shelter), the means to accomplish their own personal goals by ensuring an income (e.g., having money to spend on personally important projects), and an avenue through which an individual might seek to accomplish those goals (e.g., the goals of the job an individual has may be aligned with the personal goals of the individual). Such employment also has a positive impact on 109 society. The economy is boosted by more people having and being able to spend more money, which would be provided by people being employed. Societal goals are also sometimes aligned with the goals of industry (e.g., the space race), so having people employed in such industries helps those industries accomplish their goals, which helps society accomplish its goals. Another mechanism by which both of the aforementioned purposes should be accomplished is by ensuring that students are prepared to be engaged members of the electorate. Doing so enables individuals to pursue their own desires in the context of a society. As an example, someone who has a personal desire to make sure neighborhood children have a safe place to play should be empowered to navigate legal and political systems necessary to get a playground installed at a local park. By the same token, ensuring that students are prepared members of the electorate, enables all members of society to come together and agree to adhere to the same rules in order to accomplish shared goals. To continue the previous example, the legal and political systems that govern how one would go about getting a playground installed in a local park should be in place to protect the needs and desires of all citizens (e.g., might seek to ensure efficient use of resources, might seek to make sure that such installation does not prohibit others from enjoying the park). One mechanism by which education in Oregon should serve to benefit society, that is not explicitly linked to preparing individuals for their future, is by driving the economy in the present. Ensuring that educators are gainfully employed and providing contracts and collaborations with businesses help drive the economy in the present but do little (in and of themselves) to help prepare students for their futures. 110 Another clear purpose of education is to provide students with skills, for whatever end. This purpose partly overlaps with the purpose of preparing individuals for their futures and with the purpose of having a positive impact on society. This overlap occurs through the aforementioned mechanisms. Preparations for employment and preparations for being part of the electorate will necessarily include the provision of associated skills. The provision of skills, however, is found, throughout the ORS as a purpose of education in and of itself. That is, if it was decided that preparing individuals for their futures and benefiting society were no longer important for education to strive to accomplish, the provision of skills would still exist. It is interesting that though the ORS are replete with guidance on mechanisms by which other purposes of education should be carried out, there is very little said about the mechanisms by which this purpose should be accomplished. What does come through in the ORS is that this skill building should happen for all students. By and large, however, the ORS defer the development of rules guiding the mechanisms by which skills should be imparted to students directly to other agencies (e.g., the State Board of Education, the Department of Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction). The final clear purpose of education in Oregon is to provide childcare. This goal is not explicitly stated anywhere in the ORS. There is, however, a body of evidence to support it as a goal of education and there are no ORS that serve to contradict that this is something that education should seek to provide. This is another purpose that overlaps with the purpose of positively impacting society. A discussion of these clear purposes of education would be incomplete without considering how these purposes are supported by funding. There are a number of grants 111 tied to these purposes. There are grants tied to benefiting society in the form of grants that help fund construction projects (helping to drive the economy) and grants that help fund partnerships with businesses (helping to drive the economy). There are grants tied to training students for employment and to preparing students to be engaged members of the electorate (both of which help drive positive impacts to society and the preparation of individuals for their futures). There are grants for the provision of childcare in the form of improving safety and health of schools and students, providing food for students, and providing primary medical care to students via school nursing programs. These grants are, however, available to districts only if there are funds in the associated accounts for such grants. That is a subject better discussed in the next section, however, which addresses some of the contradictions in the purposes of education in Oregon. Ways in which the purposes of education in Oregon are contradictory. The aforementioned purposes of education are clear. There are, however, some ways in which these purposes lack clarity. There is also a purpose of education in Oregon that had not yet been discussed because it is provided contradictory guidance in the ORS. I will discuss these topics in this section. One purpose of education in Oregon that was not covered in the last section is for education to empower historically underserved populations of students. It needs to be noted that the vast majority of ORS support this purpose, from explicit statements of support to funding provided for programs to accomplish this purpose. By and large, the purpose of education in Oregon to support underserved populations in overcoming the unique obstacles that exists for such groups is well established throughout the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon. There are a few instances, however, that give rise to 112 questions about this purpose. The mandate that all education must be provided in English seems to run counter to the call to respect the cultures and heritages of students and families. Students are also required to have health screenings (vision and dental). Districts can get reimbursed for providing these screenings for students but are not required to provide such screenings. Screenings like these require access to healthcare and requiring such screenings without mandating that they are provided creates barriers to accessing education rather than breaking them down. The explicitly stated goals of education in Oregon (see Appendix C) are, in and of themselves, in some ways, contradictory. ORS 329.015 is titled, “Education goals,” but ORS 329.025, “Characteristics of school system,” is more often referred to in other ORS as the ORS that guides education in Oregon. It is also notable that even together these two ORS, which ostensibly set the tone and direction of education in Oregon, are referred to by only four other ORS. The only other ORS listed in Appendix C that is referred to by other ORS is ORS 329.045, which pertains to the establishment of Common Curriculum Goals. Of the 2363 ORS that were included in this study, having only four ORS refer to the ORS that establish the direction and goals of education speaks profoundly to the potential lack of coherent focus that these ORS have. As was argued earlier (see the Case Argument section), establishing and adhering to purpose is critical to ensuring that goals are accomplished. The lack of cross-reference to those ORS that govern the explicit purposes of education could be a manifestation of a lack of coherence within the ORS that govern K12 education and/or a lack of attention paid to existing ORS when new ORS are written. 113 The final point worth making where contradictions in the purposes of education in Oregon are concerned relates to the funding of education. ORS 329.065, as presented in the Findings Chapter, states that nothing in the whole of Chapter 329 (the chapter in which all of the purposes of education, with the possible exception of providing childcare, are established) is required of districts unless adequate funding is provided. The only funding that is assured to districts comes from the State School Fund, which is appropriated by the legislature. The amount of funding necessary for schools to accomplish the purposes of education is provided in the Quality Education Model (QEM). The formula that is used to determine how much money each district is provided has a modifier in it, which has the purpose of diminishing funding based on a percentage of the QEM. It would seem, therefore, that the system for funding education is built with the acknowledgement that there will not be enough money for districts to meet the purposes of education in Oregon. If that’s the case then those purposes need not be fulfilled (as per ORS 329.065). What is left entirely unstated is how districts should (or should be allowed to) determine which purposes to prioritize. This begs the question, if the purposes as established by Chapter 329 are in question, what do the other chapters, the mandates for which are not contingent on adequate funding, have to say about the purposes of education? Chapter 339 is concerned with school safety and student discipline. The ORS therein generally speak to the importance of the purposes of providing childcare and ensuring common behavioral expectations (this relates to positively impacting society and preparing individuals for their future in some ways). Chapter 342 concerns teachers and other school personnel. The ORS within this chapter generally serve to extend the purposes of education to being 114 applied to educators as well as students. Chapter 343 concerns special education, which relates in some ways to empowering historically underserved populations of students. This chapter is mainly concerned, however, with how to make sure that the purposes established in Chapter 329 are applied to students who receive special education services (and how to identify when a student needs such services). That leaves most of the chapters, which are focused on how the purposes of education in Oregon should be accomplished and Chapter 344. Chapter 344 is focused on career and technical education, which is very tightly tied to training students for a lifetime of employment and not really tied to any other purpose of education in Oregon. Summary of the purposes of education in Oregon. For the most part, the purposes of education are clear and are well established, both explicitly and implicitly, by the ORS that govern education in Oregon. The contradictions and loopholes, so to speak, that exist do, however, provide opportunities for education providers to waiver from those purposes. Figure 2 presents a visual summary of these purposes and their ORS supported mechanisms of action. The next section of this chapter is devoted to the second research question for this study and explores how these identified purposes of education in Oregon relate to the theoretical framework that was built from the literature. These purposes of education in Oregon were determined by analysis of the ORS that govern K12 education. Though there are contradictions and loopholes present, I believe that they are an appropriate representation of the goals that the legislature has determine the education system in Oregon should strive to attain: (a) prepare individuals for their future, (b) positively impact society, (c) provide students with skills, (d) empower historically underserved populations, and (e) provide childcare. There is no 115 evidence apparent in the ORS to suggest that any one of these purposes is more important than another and, as depicted in Figure 2, these purposes are partially interrelated. In Figure 2, the purposes of education in Oregon are printed in bold. As discussed above, an analysis of the ORS suggest that the primary goals of education in Oregon are to prepare students to be engaged members of the electorate, train students for a lifetime of employment, and drive the economy. These are not definitive purposes of education in Oregon but rather mechanisms that must be fulfilled in order for the purposes of education in Oregon to be properly fulfilled. The arrows in Figure 2 depict one purpose or mechanism as driving, at least partially, the purpose that it is pointing to (e.g., providing students with skills helps to prepare individuals for their future, which in turn positively impacts society). Purposes of Education in Oregon Prepare Students to Be Engaged Members of the Electorate Empower Historically Provide Prepare Positively Underserved Students Individuals for Their Impact Provide Populations of with Skills Society Childcare Students Future Train Students for a Drive Lifetime of Employment Economy Figure 2. A visual depiction of the purposes of education is presented. The purposes of education are in bold typeface. The mechanisms by which those purpose should, at minimum, be accomplished are in italic typeface. The arrows represent how one purpose or mechanism (beginning of arrow) is supposed to lead to another (end of arrow). 116 Oregon Revised Statutes Relate to the Theoretical Framework (RQ2) In this section of the discussion I will discuss how the purposes of education relate to the theoretical framework for this study. In particular I will seek to address how the purposes of education in Oregon relate to each identified purpose of education in the framework and the ways in which the findings serve to support and/or refute the theoretical framework for this study. Oregon Revised Statutes relating to advancing individuals. One goal of education identified by my review of the prior research is to advance individuals (see Table 2). That is, education systems should seek to differentiate between individuals via different levels of achievement of those individuals (Collins, 1971; Labaree, 2011; Salinas-Jimenez et al., 2011) and that education systems should seek to empower individuals via social mobility, equity, and social empowerment (Anyon, 1981; Apple, 1978; Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985; Goldin, 2003; Labaree, 2011). The ORS that speak to this aspect of the framework point to an attempt to manifest both of these themes of individual advancement. Labaree (2011) argues that it is impossible to satisfy both simultaneously, arguing that widening the gap (i.e., differentiating between groups of individuals) and closing the gap (i.e., empowering individuals to overcome barriers to advancement) are mutually exclusive. I would be tempted to agree with him on this point. However, it is entirely possible to differentiate one individual from another on a skill-by-skill basis while still ensuring that both individuals are equitably empowered. Such a perspective mirrors the quantitative way of thinking about the difference between mean and variation (Ibe, 2005). As an example, 117 let’s suppose that we close the achievement gaps that exist between historically underserved populations of students and historically not underserved populations (i.e., closing the gap between the means of these two groups), as the ORS direct us to do in the context of education in Oregon. Closing the gaps between those groups does not preclude closing the gap between every individual student (i.e., the variances within each group could still exist). In that case, the group mean and group variance of each of the two groups are indistinguishable. Certainly, there could still be variance within each of those, now equally achieving groups. Those variances would allow for the advancement via differentiation. That said, the ORS defer to the State Board of Education (SBE) and Oregon Department of Education (ODE) to determine how different skills are taught. This includes the mechanisms by which the systems of education distinguish between students who learned a topic and those who did not and how well each student learned a given topic (i.e., the ways the system discriminates between students). While there is some clarity offered in the application of a state-wide summative assessment, the details of that summative assessment are left for other bodies to determine. There are also mechanisms that provide students and/or students’ guardians the right to opt out of such assessments without penalty. This leaves the way in which education in Oregon advances individuals via differential achievement largely unknown by analysis of the ORS. Collins (1971) critiques that education systems that seek to advance individuals via differentiation necessarily cause academic inflation (i.e., the increase of educational requirements, over time, for the same job or entrance into the same college, say). To that end the ORS, as mentioned above, provide other education bodies the authority to 118 determine graduation requirements. Some ORS explicitly require those bodies to regularly revisit those educational requirements. As an example, when the SBE revisits graduation requirements, The Board may find that the requirements are too easy to meet for Oregon’s students to be competitive in a global job market. If that were the case, The Board may act to increase the requirements for a high school diploma. To that end, this problem of academic inflation is very much systemically embedded into the purposes of education in Oregon. In consideration of equity, social mobility, and social empowerment, Anyon (1981), Apple (1978), and Fizgerald (1985) all critique education systems for propagating dominant culture in a way that keeps oppressed peoples oppressed. To this end, the ORS are clear in a number of instances that education in Oregon should serve to (and serve to teach students to) respect and appropriately credit historically marginalized peoples. That said, the quality of that respect and credit is unspecified. Here, the ORS would better serve to counter the arguments of Anyon and Apple by specifying the precise quality and quantity of instructional materials and educator preparations to the end of ensuring that historically marginalized peoples are adequately, respectfully represented. The ORS that govern instructional materials adoption and educator preparations to this end fall short of that goal. Again, these ORS defer such specifications to other governing bodies with memberships too few in number for historically marginalized peoples to possibly all be represented. There are some ORS that direct these governing bodies to follow equitable practices in adopting instructional materials and in directing the preparations of educators. But there is no guarantee that those bodies are made up of individuals that will 119 definitely come from oppressed groups of people, shortcomings akin to those put forward by Anyon, Apple, and Fitzgerald. In total, I think that it is fair to say that the ORS promote equitable practice and serve to differentiate individuals for the purposes of individual advancement in some ways (as discussed above) that meet the criteria established by the authors included in the literature synthesis for this study. That said, the whole body of ORS fall short of taking steps necessary to ensure the level of equitable practice that is called for by those authors. It is also fair to say that goal of education as defined by the framework manifests in the ORS in ways that are not brought up by these authors. In particular, there are ORS that serve to advance individuals who are not students (e.g., educators) and there are ORS that serve to advance individuals in the present sense (in addition to the future sense). All of the authors whose ideas contributed to the framework for this study focus on the future impacts that education has or should have on the advancement of individuals and then only focuses on impact imparted to students. There is a body of ORS that clearly focus on the advancement of educators and their careers. There are also ORS that clearly speak to the individual advancement of students in the present (e.g., the provision of goods and services to historically underserved populations). These novel manifestations of this aspect of the framework are still subject to the critiques listed above. Academic inflation still exists within the scope of the career advancement of educators, propagation of dominant culture still drives (at minimum has the opportunity to drive) the provision of goods and services to historically underserved populations. Oregon Revised Statutes relating to improving individuals. One goal of education identified by my review of the prior research is to improve individuals (see 120 Table 2). That is, education should seek to impart skills to students (Evans & Hunter, 1979; Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985; Johnson, 1982), prepare students to enter into the job market (Fitzgerald & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1985; Goldin, 2003), prepare students to be able to shift careers as necessary throughout their lives (Goldin, 2003), and to empower individuals to pursue their individual goals (Crow et al., 2018; Labaree, 2011; Salinas-Jimenez et al., 2011). The ORS that speak to this aspect of the framework seek to advance each of these themes. I would assess that the major themes that emerged in the analysis of the purposes of education in Oregon were related to this aspect of the framework. The culmination of K12 education (the high school diploma) is entirely dependent on the acquisition and demonstration of skills on the part of students. Acquisition of skills is a main driver of four of the five purposes of education in Oregon (see Figure 2), provided one considers that the main way in which education in Oregon seeks to empower historically underserved populations is by ensuring that the membership of such groups are afforded an appropriate education (in the subjects of education). To that end, the ORS governing K12 education can be seen as overly relying on and emphasizing skill attainment for students. This could serve, as Apple (1978) might argue, to blind Oregon educators to the inequities that exist between peoples who are marginalized by society and those who are not. I believe that the ORS mentioned in the previous section act to combat this shortcoming. Although, as discussed above in this section, they seem to fall short. 121 Another critique of education systems’ penchant for focusing on skill development is that such systems do not adequately ensure that the skills that are meant to be imparted to students are actually imparted to them. This is a critique brought up by Fitzgerald (1985) who found that education systems that focused on vocational education and specific job-skills failed to actually improve the job-readiness of those students who went through those systems. There are a number of career-focused programs promoted by the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon. Such programs, in light of Fitzgerald’s work, would seem to call for greater oversight to ensure they meet their goals. Whereas Fitzgerald (1985) critiques education systems for not appropriately ensuring that students actually acquire the skills that are intended to be imparted, Goldin (2003) chastises education systems for tracking student and educator progress and growth. Doing so, Goldin argues, is necessarily elitist and serves to drive a wedge between sections of society that are highly educated and those that are not. The ORS are clear that progress of students toward acquiring skills needs to be monitored. In part, there are ORS that state that this should be done to ensure equitable access to education for historically underserved populations. In this way the ORS support Fitzgerald’s idea that education should produce equitable outcomes for all students and counter Goldin’s idea that everyone should be provided the same education. The ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon do serve the purposes of individual improvement. That means, as discussed here, that education in Oregon is subject to all of the pitfalls that come with a focus on skill acquisition. What the authors referenced here do not voice any critique of is the theme of individual empowerment. It is this theme that also presents some novel manifestations. As with individual advancement, 122 the authors referenced here focus on the impacts that education have on the future, specifically the futures of students. However, the ORS analyzed for this study make it clear that education in Oregon should serve to empower educators as well as students. And that individual empowerment should reach students in the present, not just work for their futures. Yes, education in Oregon should seek to ensure that students are empowered to pursue the life of their choosing. Students should also, however, be empowered to live the lives that they seek to live in the present (much of the evidence for this overlaps with the evidence that supports the ideas of socially empowering individuals in an equitable fashion as discussed in the previous section. Oregon Revised Statutes relating to improving society. One goal of education identified by my review of the prior research is to improve society (see Table 2). That is that education should seek to establish common good (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018; Apple, 1978; Goldin, 2003), improve the economy (Evans & Hunter, 1979; Goldin, 2003; Johnson, 1982), achieve collective goals (Crow et al., 2018; Labaree, 2011), and to promote democracy (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018; Goldin, 2003; Labaree, 2011). The purposes of education in Oregon as established in the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon do seek to accomplish these goals. There is not as much explicit and direct focus on these goals as there is on the previous two aspects of the framework for this study. The ways in which ORS serve to support this aspect are more indirect. An example of this is the assurance of common behavioral expectations from students and common curricula as ways to establish common good. These mechanisms do serve to ensure that a common good is established but the ORS are not explicit about that as the reason for having common behavioral expectations and/or common curricula. 123 There is, however, direct, explicit support for the purpose of promoting democracy. The theme of making sure students are ready to participate in a republic democracy is explicitly called out in the ORS governing “education goals” for education in Oregon. This is supported in a variety of ways throughout the body of ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon. There is also direct support for improving the economy, though it does not manifest in the way that the authors referenced here intend (this is discussed further below). One of the main critiques that the authors referenced here bring up in relation to this aspect of the framework is brought up by Abowitz and Stitzlein (2018) and concerns the theme of establishing common good. Abowitz and Stitzlein critique school choice advocates and the establishment of charter schools within education systems. These authors, along with Goldin (2003), argue that such establishment fragments the capacity of education systems to establish common good: if some students do not get the same message about what is right and what is wrong (i.e., what is acceptable and/or should be valued in the eyes of society and what is not), then right and wrong are not commonly established for all and that leads to fracturing in society at large. The devotion of an entire chapter of ORS to the establishment and operation of charter schools, as well as another chapter devoted to career and technical education (which is manifested as special, separate, and optional programs for students) works in opposition to these authors’ goals. One potential caveat to this is that one of the stated purposes of charter schools in Oregon is to serve as testing grounds for novel mechanisms for teaching and learning. The idea being that charter schools could try new ways of teaching and, if those ways are found to be effective, they could be adopted by all schools. This doesn’t change that charter 124 schools are established to focus on a specific charter that is necessarily different from the ‘charters’ of all other public schools. On the other themes within this aspect of the framework, the referenced authors are mute where criticisms are concerned. All of these authors, generally agree that education should serve to improve the economy, achieve the collective goals of society, and promote democracy. All things that are clear purposes of education in Oregon. What manifests in the purposes of education in Oregon (as found in the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon) that is not reflected by the authors referenced in this section are the applications of this aspect to the present. As mentioned in the previous sections, the authors referenced here are focused on the impacts that education has on the future, in particular the impacts that education has indirectly on improving society by directly impacting students. What is clear from the ORS analyzed here is that education in Oregon should serve to not only work to directly improve society but to directly improve society in the present. This should be achieved by improving the economy in the present: particularly via the employment of educators and through contracts and collaborations with businesses. These avenues through which education can serve to improve society are omitted by the authors referenced throughout this section. Despite this omission, these present-focused mechanisms are in keeping with the general sentiment that education should seek to improve society in terms of economic impact. Oregon Revised Statutes relating to sustaining education. One goal of education identified by my review of the prior research is to sustain education (see Table 2). That is that one purpose of education is to put its continued existence before the accomplishment of other goals. This argument is brought up by Crow et al. (2018), who 125 caution that education systems are ill-served by pursuing this purpose. Crow et al. suggest that education systems seek to sustain themselves, in part, by seeking approval of stakeholders at the expense of innovating for the sake of the other purposes of education put forward by the framework for this study. The purposes of education in Oregon do not reflect a drive or desire to sustain education, according to the ORS that govern education in Oregon. There are a number of ORS that require various education systems to consider the needs of stakeholders, parents of students in particular. I would argue that the way that this manifests, though, is less a matter of ORS directing education systems in Oregon to bow to the demands of stakeholders and more a matter of making sure that such systems consider the input of stakeholders as part of a well-rounded mechanism for ensuring the right decisions get made. The glaring exceptions to this are opportunities afforded to guardians or adult students to opt out of otherwise required educational endeavors (e.g., vision and dental screenings and state summative assessments). The provision to allow students to opt out (or be opted out by guardians) accepts that the systems that govern education, regardless of how well established or informed they are, are dismissible. In the case of opting out or instruction, which can be done for some instruction (e.g., sexuality education) run directly counter to the educational purpose of establishing common good. In the example of option out of sexuality education, it also runs counter to the educational purpose of establishing knowledge (skills) for students and empowering students (in some ways) to pursue the lives that they seek to pursue. 126 While these exceptions do seem to run counter to the other purposes of education in Oregon, by and large the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon do not fall into the trap that Crow et al. describe of bowing to external pressures in order to see the continued existence of education. Oregon Revised Statutes relating to other purposes of education. For the most part, the theoretical framework used in this study served as an adequate framework for determining the purposes of education in Oregon (as determined by the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon). This is with the exception of the themes of the age restriction of education, the provision of healthcare by education systems, the safety of schools, and otherwise unassociated purposes of education. Upon analysis, I believe that the age restriction of education, combined with some aspects of the provisions of healthcare by education systems and the insistence that schools must be safe, imply that a purpose of education in Oregon is to provide childcare for the youth of Oregon. This is a purpose that did not manifest in a review of the literature covering the purposes of education. The review of the literature also failed to acknowledge that there may be isolated purposes of education that are relevant in some contexts but may not be universally relevant. That stated, my application of the framework for the purpose of education in this study included space for an “other” category of purpose of education. With this addition to the other four aspects of the framework, I was able to adequately identify the purposes of education in Oregon from an analysis of the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon. From that perspective, the theoretical framework for this study was functional. I would not say, however, that the purposes of education in Oregon can be strictly categorized as fitting into one of the four specified aspects of the framework for this 127 study. I believe that the findings reported in Appendix G serve to emphasize this point. Specifically, the fact that there were any green and teal coded ORS that fit a purpose that was not accounted for by the framework serves this point. In point of fact, there were 31 ORS subsections that were coded as explicitly inferring a purpose of education (green- coded) and 40 ORS subsections that were coded as all but inferring a purpose of education (teal-coded) that was not ultimately explained by the theoretical framework for this study. Concluding Remarks on the Purposes of Education in Oregon I will conclude this discussion of the purposes of education in Oregon by referring back to Figure 2. I believe that, based on the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon, these five purposes of education (i.e., (a) empower historically underserved populations of students, (b) provide students with skills, (c) prepare individuals for their futures, (d) positively impact society, and (e) provide childcare) and the major mechanisms that drive them (i.e., prepare students to be engaged members of the electorate, train students for a lifetime of employment, and drive economy) provide a fundamental understanding of what education in Oregon should seek to accomplish. These purposes encompass all of the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon, per my analysis, and as such should serve as an adequate guide to fall back to when considering how to enact education in Oregon. To that end, in the next chapter of this study, I will present the salient implications from this study. 128 V. IMPLICATIONS In this chapter, I will seek to explore some of the possible implications for this study. I will begin with a discussion of some of the most pressing limitations of this study. This will be followed by addressing the third research question for this study (i.e., what are the implications for Oregon’s State legislators and future research?). I will address this question in two separate sections. In the first section, I will examine how the results of this study could be put to use in varies settings (e.g., by state-level policy makers, by districts, by teachers). In the second section, I will discuss potential future research that could serve to extend and/or clarify some of the findings of this study. Limitations of This Study In order to fully appreciate the findings of this (or any) study, a careful examination of the limitations of the study must be conducted (Maxwell, 2019; Merriam, 2009; Remler & Van Ryzin, 2014). In this study, researcher bias poses a particular threat to the internal validity of the findings of this study (Maxwell, 2019). This study is also be prone to concerns of generalizability (Creswell & Cresswell, 2018; Remler & Van Ryzin, 2014). Each of these is discussed in more detail in the following sections. Researcher Bias. A single researcher was responsible for the data collection, including inference concerning the nature of the data collected, and analysis. A single researcher approach is prone to researcher bias, wherein the latent beliefs of the researcher guide the researcher to observe what the researcher already expects and nudges the researcher to ignore data that run contradictory to the researcher’s preconceived notions (Maxwell, 2019). 129 In this study, researcher bias was partially combated by the inclusion of the “Something Else” column in the data collection tool (Appendix B). The presence of this column served as a constant reminder that the framework for this study may not completely capture the purpose of education in Oregon as inferred through analysis of the ORS. Generalizability. Generalizability, as defined by Remler and Van Ryzin (2014), is “the ability to take the results of research and apply them in situations other than the exact one in which the research was carried out” (p. 9). This study examined all state- level education statutes related to Kindergarten through grade 12 (K12) education in Oregon. It did not, however, examine local education policy nor did it examine state-level education policy related to pre-Kindergarten or post-secondary education in Oregon and thus may not entirely apply to every locality within the state of Oregon (Creswell & Cresswell, 2018; Remler & Van Ryzin, 2014). Additionally, in looking only at Oregon’s education statutes, the results of this study may not entirely apply to other states (Creswell & Cresswell, 2018; Remler & Van Ryzin, 2014; Smith & Gasparian, 2018). It is, therefore, impossible to know that the findings of this study will definitively represent the educational context in every school district in Oregon. This threat to the generalizability of the findings of this study was combatted by the use of total population sampling (e.g., looking at all of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) that govern K12 education in Oregon) (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2014). By examining all of the state statutess (rather than a sample) in Oregon, the results found through this study represent a complete understanding of Oregon’s state-level educational 130 vision. This methodology does not completely mitigate the lack of generalizability of the results of this study, however. Implications for the Application of This Study As detailed by Sinek (2009) and The Arbinger Institute (2016), effective programs and institutions maintain their effectiveness by following their stated purpose. This is done, in part, by ensuring that new programs and policies adhere to the purpose of the organization. The findings of this study help to clarify what the purposes of education are. The third research question for this study was to examine the implications of this study. In particular, to examine how the defining of purpose of education in Oregon might be useful to Oregon’s education leaders. This section deals with how education leaders at the state-level, local-level (e.g., school districts), and building- and/or classroom-level could improve their practice based on the purposes of education as determined by this study. Implications for state-level education policy makers. At the state-level, education policy is enacted in the forms of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). The identification of the five purposes of education and associated requisite mechanisms (see Figure 2), has implications for lawmakers and state- level education leaders in three arenas: (a) aligning new laws to the current purposes of education, (b) aligning new, non-statute, policy to the current purposes of education, and (c) revising current law to revise and/or clarify the purposes of education. In order to ensure coherent and consistent practice of education in Oregon as new laws that govern education in Oregon are passed, it will be necessary for lawmakers to ensure that such new legislation is in keeping with the five purposes of education in 131 Oregon. Given the broad nature of these purposes, finding a way to connect a favored project to these purposes would not be difficult. Allowing purpose to drive practice, however, is not a matter of having an idea of what education should do and then justifying it by connecting to why education exists. Rather, having a purpose driven system is a matter of considering why that system exists and then deriving what to do in order to accomplish that goal. To that end, lawmakers would be wise to begin the crafting of new legislation by considering these five purposes. Fowler (2013) suggests that enacting new policy is a six-part process: (a) define the issue, (b) set the agenda, (c) form the policy, (d) adopt the policy, (e) implement the policy, and (f) evaluate the policy. In a way, the definition of the purposes of education in Oregon serve to define the issue for lawmakers. The issues of education are to ensure that historically marginalized peoples are empowered, to provide students with skills, to prepare individuals for their future, to positively impact society, and to provide childcare. Lawmakers should go about setting the agenda based on these issues of import. The process of forming, adopting, and implementing education policy should follow with reference back to these purposes to ensure that, ultimately, the implementation of new education policy does not drift from these core purposes of education. The last step in the policy process, evaluation, should bring these purposes front and center once again. How do you tell how successful an education policy is in Oregon? Determine how well it serves these purposes of education. In this way, lawmakers could use these purposes of education to vet not only new education policy but also existing education policy. In 2018, the Joint Committee On Student Success traveled the state of Oregon “tasked with solving what’s ailing Oregon’s 132 schools” (Manning, 2018). The Committee met and listened to education stakeholders all around the state, ostensibly, in order to find out what Oregon’s schools are struggling with. Endeavors such as this pose an excellent example of instances that would be well guided by focusing on gathering information about how schools are doing with regards to meeting the purposes of education. In addition to lawmakers aligning policy to the purposes of education in Oregon, non-legislative, state-level education leaders should also allow their work to be guided by these purposes. This group of leaders includes the Superintendent of Public Instruction (a position that is assigned to the Governor in Oregon), the Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, and The State Board of Education. These are the leaders who are tasked, by various ORS, to create rules for seeing education statutes fulfilled. In some cases, these bodies are given wide authority to set education policy in Oregon (e.g., the State Board of Education is responsible for setting the agenda where curriculum in Oregon is concerned). As such, the same general principles that apply to lawmakers, should also apply to these state-level education leaders. Namely, state-level education leaders should derive their policy ideas (i.e., during Fowler’s (2013) setting the agenda and forming the policy steps) from a consideration of the purposes of education in Oregon. These education leaders are also often tasked with evaluating the effectiveness of various programs (in some cases they are also required to report these evaluations to lawmakers). As with lawmakers, these education leaders’ evaluation processes would be well served by focusing on how well the program being evaluated serves the purposes of education in Oregon. 133 One final way that the findings of this study can be used by state-level policy makers is as part of reflective practice. It is possible that current state-level policy makers believe that the educational system should serve some specific purpose that is not in line with the purposes of education as found by this study. The identification of the five purposes of education in Oregon and their necessary mechanisms of action empowers state-level policy makers to change state-level policy so that the purposes of education are changed to be aligned with the vision that such policy makers have for education. As an example, say that a given state-level policy maker believes that education should not serve the purpose of providing childcare. Perhaps this policy maker believes that childcare may be a necessary mechanism that enables the other, true (in the mind of this hypothetical policy maker) purposes of education to be served but that it should not be an outright purpose of education in and of itself. If that were the case, such a policy maker could enact policy to clarify those ORS that serve to imply that childcare is a purpose of education in Oregon. It is worth considering, for this example, one of McDonnell and Elmore’s five instruments of policy, specifically, hortatory policy (1987). Such policies are symbolic policies that serve, ultimately, to describe what various actors should focus on accomplishing. One pathway to clarifying that education should not serve the purpose of childcare would be to enact an hortatory policy. Enacting a policy that explicitly states something to the effect that ‘education should not seek to provide childcare except as is necessary to perform the goals and obligations of education,’ would serve to establish that childcare is not an explicit purpose of education. 134 This example is just one way that stat-level education policy makers could use reflective practice and the results of this study to change the purposes of education in Oregon. All of the work that I, in this section, suggest that state-level policy makers should or could do is impossible to accomplish without well-defined purposes of education. The determination of the five purposes of education in Oregon and their associated, necessary mechanisms of action empowers state-level education policy makers to accomplish this kind of work. Implications for local education leaders. Local education leaders, especially in Oregon (Smith & Gasparian, 2018), have a great deal of control over how education systems are run. Such leaders include local school boards and district office administrators. With latitude to implement various policies enacted at the state level, local education leaders should take the five purposes of education in Oregon into account in what Fowler describes as the policy implementation step (2013). That is, when given the liberty to decide how to bring an education policy to life, it is important to consider why that policy was enacted in the first place. That determination could be made by examining how the policy fits into the five purposes of education as defined by this study. Once the connection between the policy and the purposes of education is established, local education leaders would be empowered to make sure that the systems that are created and/or coopted to implement that policy do so in a way that is in keeping with the purposes of education in Oregon. Local education leaders are also often in the position of creating their own education policy (e.g., disciplinary policy, bargaining contracts). As with my recommendations for state-level leaders to allow the purposes of education to drive their 135 policy making decisions, I would recommend that local education leaders do the same. That is, local education leaders should allow these purposes of education to drive the identification and definition of the issues, as well as allowing these purposes to set the policy making agenda (Fowler, 2013). That stated, these purposes of education in Oregon are inherently state-level purposes. It is entirely reasonable, that in localized settings (e.g., individual school districts, specific school buildings) these purposes are insufficient. As an example, say a district, in reaching out to the community, recognizes the need for and capacity of the district to provide shelter for the community’s homeless population. That district could add a sixth purpose of education of ‘providing shelter care,’ say, that would be part of the purpose of education within that district. It seems reasonable for local education entities and systems to expand on the five purposes of education as identified in this study, given that none of the ORS that gave rise to these purposes are explicitly limiting in scope. That is, the identified purposes are explicitly stated and inferred in such a way as to imply that they are a minimum standard, not an encompassing boundary. It does not seem reasonable, however, for local education entities and systems to decide that any of these purposes can be discarded. Given the nature of the hierarchy of laws (e.g., state laws supersede city laws) and that the five purposes of education in Oregon identified in this study were derived from state law, any attempt on the part of a local education entity or system to ignore or subvert these purposes would be inappropriate, at best, and punishable (e.g., by the loss of funding as directed by some ORS), at worst. 136 Implications for building-level and classroom practice. An individual school building, let alone an individual classroom, seems like an educational setting that is far removed from state-level policy action. There are many layers of policy action (see Potential Future Research) that occur between an ORS and a classroom teacher deciding how to run a classroom. Still, there are decisions that are made at the building and classroom levels that need to be focused on the driving purposes of education in Oregon. I think the salient points to be made here might best be made through the examination of an example. To see how the purposes of education in Oregon ought to drive building- and classroom-level decisions, consider an occurrence that would require different responses depending on the age of the student but that occurs throughout K12 classrooms: a student is disrupting the work of the class. At the outset, this disruption should be identified as a disruption because it is interfering with some purpose of education. Perhaps the student is preventing other students from learning (Provide Students with Skills, Prepare Individuals for Their Future), or is reciting hate speech (Empower Historically Underserved Populations of Students), or is harming other students (Provide Childcare), or is doing something that runs counter to a location-specific goal of education. Whatever the behavior and/or belief that the student exhibits is, it should only be identified as disruptive if it interferes with the accomplishment of a purpose of education. If this disruption occurs within the classroom, the classroom teacher needs to be empowered with these purposes of education to recognize the disruption. Then the teacher needs to decide what to do. The initial response of the teacher could come in many forms. Perhaps the student is preventing other students from learning. In that case, 137 the purpose of providing students with skills is not being served. The teacher should take action to see that students start learning again. Additionally, the teacher needs to ensure that the action taken does not cause a disruption to any of the other purposes of education. As an example, sending the disruptive student out to the playground, unsupervised, would enable the rest of the class to learn, but it would run counter to both providing skills to the student who was being a disruption and providing childcare to that student. As such, a classroom teacher might be well served to begin by attempting to redirect the efforts of the disruptive student so that that student rejoins the rest of the class in learning. Doing so would potentially meet all of the purposes of education in Oregon. If that redirect fails, removing the student from the classroom to a safe location could work in the short term, provided that the student who is removed from the classroom is still provided with the skills that would have otherwise been missed as a result of the removal. This is a place where building-level policy could help. For instance, as is likely the case in some actual schools, the school could have a protocol for students being removed from classrooms that keeps track of the skills that those students are missing. This could be done, perhaps, by keeping some log of learning targets for each lesson and backtracking what lesson was occurring when the student was removed from the classroom. Then some system would need to exist that would provide that that learning target was attained by the student. The removal of a student from a classroom could also serve the purpose of preparing students to be engaged members of the electorate by establishing an appropriate response to disruption. Not only is the student who is removed being taught 138 what happens when the goals of the collective cannot be met, all of the other students who bear witness to the removal of the student also learn this lesson. The more transparent the process is, the greater the impact the process will have to this end. Ultimately, it is the actions taken by education building leaders, teachers, and all other education staff have an impact on how well the purposes of education in Oregon are met. If educators are provided with a knowledge and understanding of these purposes, they will be empowered to ensure that their actions serve these purposes. They will also be empowered to identify situations in which serving one purpose of education (potentially) prevents another from being served. Perhaps, in a context with limited resources, choosing to hire an additional teacher (seeking to provide students with skills) means not being able to install updated security features in the building (seeking to provide childcare). Understanding the purposes of education in Oregon would further empower educators to formulate persuasive arguments for the provision of adequate resources in order to fulfil the purposes of education in Oregon. Potential Future Research In this section, I will seek to suggest what future research might be done as a result of the findings of this study. This will complete an answer for the third research question for this study, what are the implications for Oregon’s State legislators and future research? In particular, I will focus on future research that would help to fill some of the gaps that are present in this study. Specifically, this study looked at the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) that govern Kindergarten through grade 12 (K12) education in Oregon. As such, the five identified purposes of education in Oregon are limited in their application. In the following sections I will discuss how an exploration of other ORS; an 139 examination of the creation of some ORS that were, in this study, already examined; an examination of some of the ways that these ORS are implemented; and an extension of this research in other localities (i.e., outside of Oregon) would help to further clarify the purposes of education in Oregon. Further exploration of Oregon Revised Statutes. In order to focus the scope of this study, only those ORS that govern K12 education were examined. This left out those ORS that govern pre-Kindergarten and those that govern post-secondary education in Oregon. One of the policy goals of education in Oregon is create a coherent birth to career pathway for all Oregonians (Donovan & Capps, 2014). This specific goal of education did not arise as a result of this study because this study focused specifically on K12 education. The existence of such a goal, however, indicates that continuing this work to examine the ORS that govern both pre-Kindergarten and post-secondary education in Oregon would likely illuminate additional critical purposes and/or requisite mechanisms of action of education in Oregon. At a minimum, a study of pre-Kindergarten and post- secondary related ORS would serve to clarify that the five purposes of education identified through this study hold for education at all levels in Oregon. In addition to examining the pre-Kindergarten and post-secondary related ORS, it would be worthwhile for other researchers to examine the ORS that govern K12 education in Oregon. One of the main threats to the validity of this study is researcher bias (Maxwell, 2019). Other researchers repeating this study would serve to bolster and refine these findings. This would help to make the identification of the purposes of education in Oregon more robust and, ultimately, more agreeable to various education stakeholders. The recommendations made in the previous section to state- and local-level 140 educators and education policy makers hinge on the accuracy of these purposes of education in Oregon. Having other researchers verify and/or refute the findings of this study would help to clarify what these education stakeholders should use to guide their decision-making processes. Examination of the creation of Oregon Revised Statutes. As presented in the findings of this study and examined in the discussion of those findings, there are some ORS that seem to be somewhat contradictory (e.g., the fact that ORS 329.015 is titled “Education goals” and ORS 329.025 is more often referred to, by other ORS, as listing the goals of education). An examination of the policy process that created some of those ORS might help to clarify such contradiction. Thus, one way that future research could serve to fill the gaps left by this study would be to examine policy documents and meeting notes coming from the committees and legislative sessions that were responsible for the creation and wording of these ORS. It would be particularly interesting to examine the creation of all of those ORS that are listed in Appendix C, which explicitly state the goals of education in Oregon. It would also be worthwhile to examine those ORS that refer to the importance of the age- restriction and necessary safety of education in Oregon. The inference that I made from the synthesis of these ORS is that childcare is, in and of itself, a purpose for the existence of K12 education in Oregon. Perhaps an examination of the process through which those ORS came to be would reveal otherwise. Examination of the implementation of Oregon Revised Statutes. While an examination of the ORS did give rise to an understanding of the purposes of education in Oregon, limiting the scope of this study to this, highest level of state governance leaves 141 some questions unanswered. In particular, there are a number of ORS that provide other governing bodies (e.g., the State Board of Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, local Boards of Education) the authority to define how some education systems should work, which could, in turn drive the purpose of education in Oregon. There are two facets of the implementation of ORS that would help to fill this particular gap in the understanding of the purposes of education in Oregon: (a) an exploration of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) that arise as a result of the implementation of some ORS and (b) an exploration of the creation of local (e.g., district- and building-level) education policy. Exploration of the creation of Oregon Administrative Rules. As noted above, a number of ORS defer rulemaking to other education leadership bodies. In some cases, this leaves the purpose of education, at least in part, unstated within the ORS and defers the determination of the purpose of education to those bodies. One ORS serves as a good example of this. ORS 326.051 directs the State Board of Education to “(a) Establish state standards for public kindergarten and public elementary and secondary schools with the policies stated in ORS 326.111. (b) Adopt rules for the general governance of public kindergartens and public elementary and secondary schools. (c) Prescribe required or minimum courses of study. (d) Adopt rules regarding school and interscholastic activities.” Each of these mandates to the State Board of Education presents discretion for the Board to revise, add to, and change the scope of the purposes of education in Oregon as established by the ORS. In particular, the mandate to adopt rules regarding scholastic activities could give rise to an additional purpose of education to promote or provide sport (either for the sakes of the athletes or the sake of entertaining society), which would 142 not, necessarily, lie within the bounds of any of the five purposes of education in Oregon established by this study’s analysis of the ORS. Exploration of the creation of local education policy. In addition to the rulemaking deferred to other bodies, it would be worthwhile to examine how local education policy directs the purposes of education. Throughout this study, I have been careful to refer to the purposes of education determined through this study as the, “purposes of education in Oregon.” As discussed above, these five purposes are applicable to education throughout the state and various local educational contexts may have additional purposes of education within those contexts. This study leaves unknown how coherently these state-level purposes manifest at local levels. An examination of the policies enacted by local school boards would be one way to assess/determine how local contexts define the purposes of education. As a result of some ORS that direct local school boards to enact some specific policies, it would be interesting to examine how different districts focus those required policies. It would also be interesting to examine what district policies that are not required by the state would infer about the purpose of education within each district. Such findings could be compared with the findings of this study to determine how consistent the purposes of education are at the local level with the purposes of education at the state level. Such an examination of school board policy would be augmented by an examination of district-wide policy that is not enacted by the board (e.g., policies that are enacted by district superintendents). It would be enlightening to examine how such policies of practice speak to the purposes of education. This examination of enacted policy could be continued at the building level (e.g., by site councils and building 143 administration) and at the classroom level (e.g., by teachers, educational assistants, and students). Each level of policy action would bring a finer examination of what educators are all levels believe are the driving purposes of education. These kinds of explorations could also, potentially, manifest more ways in which the purposes of education are contradictory. Certainly, an examination at the individual educator level would provide an opportunity to discover how universally the five purposes of education identified in this study are accepted and how universally they are used to drive decision-making. Extension of this research to other localities and/or timeframes. One final opportunity for future research lies in extending this study to localities outside of Oregon and timeframes beyond the temporal cross-section of this study. Studies similar to this could be performed in other states, on a state-by-state basis, in order to determine the purpose of education in those states. Further studies could also examine how the purpose of education is changing over time within Oregon. I believe that the methodology and framework used for this study allowed for the accurate identification of the purposes of education in Oregon. As mentioned throughout this chapter, there are still gaps in knowledge and understanding where the purpose of education is concerned. Those gaps stem from the limited scope of this study. With the devotion of adequate resource and time, I believe that a study like this one could be performed in other states to elucidate the purposes of education in those states. Closing Remarks and Final Thoughts Ultimately this study sought to answer the following research questions: • Research Question 1: 144 a. What is the inferred purpose of education in Oregon based on the body of Oregon state education codes? b. Does this inferred purpose support the stated purpose of education in Oregon’s statute ORS 329.015? • Research Question 2: Can Oregon’s state codes of education be categorized as either (a) meant to advance individuals, (b) meant to improve individuals, (c) meant to improve society, or (d) meant to sustain education? • Research Question 3: What are the implications for Oregon’s State legislators and future research? The answer to the first research question can be most succinctly found in Figure 2. That is that this study identified five main purposes of education in Oregon: (a) empower historically underserved populations of students, (b) provide students with skills, (c) prepare individuals for their future, (d) positively impact society, and (e) provide childcare. These purposes should be fulfilled, at minimum, through a preparation of students to be engaged members of the electorate, the training of students for a lifetime of employment, and through direct actions to drive the economy. The answer to the second research question is, ultimately, that not all of the ORS can be fit into those four categories. The theoretical framework for this study only worked for the purposes of this study because it contained the option of “something else” that was not either (a) meant to advance individuals, (b) meant to improve individuals, (c) meant to improve society, or (d) meant to sustain education. That said, these four 145 categories of educational purpose and their themes, did align well with most of the ORS from which the five purposes of education in Oregon were fashioned. The answer to the third research question comes, in many ways, as a reiteration of the case argument for this study. In order for a coherent and productive system to exist, that system must be driven by clear, well known, and accepted purposes. This study serves to establish those purposes, with the limitations discussed throughout this chapter. As a final note to this end, I have included an epilogue of sorts. The intention of the epilogue is to provide a, relevant as of the time of this writing, example of how the five purposes of education in Oregon, as determined through this study, could be used to drive decision-making for education in Oregon. 146 EPILOGUE: AN APPLICATION OF EDUCATION PURPOSE IN THE TIME OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC On March 11th, 2020, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, characterized a global outbreak of a novel Corona virus (COVID-19) as a global pandemic (“Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) - Events as They Happen,” 2020). In an attempt to stymie the spread of the disease in Oregon, Governor Kate Brown issued a number of executive orders, taking escalating steps, which ultimately led to a state-wide stay at home order and the closure of Oregon public schools (Exec. Order No. 20-03, 2020; Exec. Order No. 20-05, 2020; Exec. Order No. 20-07, 2020; Exec. Order No. 20-08, 2020; Exec. Order No. 20-09, 2020; Exec. Order No. 20-12, 2020; Exec. Order No. 20-17, 2020). In this epilogue I will seek to examine how directives from state-level education leaders align with the five purposes of education in Oregon identified with this study. This will include directives from the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the Oregon Department of Education (ODE). I will follow this assessment with a hypothetical reenactment of how state-level education leaders might have better aligned guidance to the five purposes of education in Oregon. State Level Education Response to A Global Pandemic Public schools were initially, temporarily, closed not through an executive order but through a declaration by the SPI, who, in Oregon, is the Governor. The deputy SPI issued a statement summarizing the SPI’s motivations for this closure, which I have included here, in its totality as it was relayed to superintendents and school principals: 147 Schools are critical institutions that provide important services for all our students, but especially our most vulnerable, and during this crisis I have worked hard to ensure those critical services continue. So many of our families depend on school in order for parents to go to their jobs, and for students to access health care and receive nutrition assistance. However, I have heard from superintendents, school board members, teachers, parents, and students that it has now become impossible to functionally operate schools due to workforce issues and student absences. Schools are experiencing critical shortages in staff, and superintendents are concerned for school personnel who are at elevated risk such as those over age 60 and those with underlying medical issues. I want to be very clear: sending Oregon children home will not stop the spread of the coronavirus. While children are home, when at all possible, they should not be in the care of older adults or those with underlying health issues that are most at-risk from COVID-19. This is a trying time for our community and I am reluctant to increase the burden on families who are already struggling to adapt to and stay healthy during this crisis. However, we are left with little choice in light of school districts’ staff capacity and operational concerns. I want to thank all of the teachers and school employees who have worked hard to keep our schools open until now. (Gill, 2020a) In this statement, the SPI established the importance of schools to provide nutrition for students, and to provide for parents somewhere their kids can go so that they (the parents) 148 can go to work. This aligns with the purpose of education in Oregon of providing childcare. It is noticeable that the SPI did not make reference to empowering historically underserved populations, providing students with skills, or preparing individuals for their futures as critical functions of schools. In choosing to close schools because districts could not manage appropriate staffing without compromising the safety of educators, the SPI did infer that positively impacting society (in the present day via the gainful employment of educators) is an important function of schools. In addition to this statement, during this initial school closure, the deputy SPI directed schools to develop plans to continue to provide nutrition services; adequate cleaning supplies (presumably to ensure that school facilities would be safe for students to eventually return to); and directed the Early Learning Division to find ways to provide childcare for vulnerable families, healthcare professionals, and first responders (Gill, 2020a). These directions further support the idea that a primary purpose of education is to provide childcare. The only indication (in this order to close schools) that skill development is an important function of schools came in the form of the deputy SPI directing the ODE to determine the “impact the closure will have on instructional time” (Gill, 2020a). Following this initial school closure, a decision was made to close schools for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year. The executive order that effected this closure stated that “public schools that close… shall continue to receive allocations from the State School Fund, as if they had been actually in session during the closure period” (Exec. Order No. 20-08, 2020, para. 3). This same executive order also provided directives for public schools, which included some direction about how that money 149 should be spent. These directives were to continue to deliver education “through independent study and other appropriate options” (Exec. Order No. 20-08, 2020, para. 4(b)); continue to provide school meals; provide childcare to first responders, emergency workers, and health care professionals; and to “continue to regularly pay all employees of public schools” (Exec. Order No. 20-08, 2020, para. 4(e)). These directives continued to support the idea that education in Oregon should provide childcare and positively impact society by driving the economy. The directive to continue to deliver education through independent study was initially for schools to provide optional, supplemental instruction for students (Gill, 2020b). This was quickly escalated from optional, supplemental instruction to a mandatory continuation of learning, which the ODE referred to as “Distance Learning for All” (Gill, 2020c). This escalation emphasized the importance of ensuring students continue to develop skills despite not being able to physically attend schools. However, the manner in which schools were directed to enact Distance Learning for All seemed to imply that acquisition of skills was less critical than providing childcare. To that point, the guiding principles for Distance Learning for All were to “ensure safety and wellness,” “cultivate connection and relationship,” “center in equity and efficacy,” and to “innovate” (Oregon Department of Education, 2020, p. 14), in that order. It was clear from the communications that were sent from the ODE to district superintendents and building principals that the number one priority of Distance Learning for All was to ensure that all students and their families were safe and well. It is worth noting, however, the inclusion of language (throughout these communications) that implied that this wellbeing was critical because, “students need food, clothing, a safe place to learn and shelter, as well as 150 a sense of care and connection, in order to engage in challenging intellectual work [emphasis added]” (Oregon Department of Education, 2020). The guidance from the ODE also referenced the need to attend to issues of equity. The ODE acknowledged “that our public education system creates a problematic paradox around who the system is designed to serve,” going on to state that: we must heighten our attention to particular groups of students who often bear the burden of the system’s oppressive practices. We must see the strengths and meet the needs of students experiencing homelessness, students of color, Alaska Native and American Indian students, emerging bilingual students, students of migrant and farmworker families, students experiencing disability, students in foster care, and students navigating poverty. There is a real risk that students will experience further alienation and lack of access to learning, heightened by the out-of-school context. This risk is magnified by the digital divide and the rapid increase of unemployment in our communities. This lived reality requires resolve and focus as care, connection, and continuity of learning guide our charge. (Oregon Department of Education, 2020, p. 13) This statement speaks to a desire to empower historically underserved populations of students. With these guiding principles established, it is necessary to consider the practical guidance that districts and schools were given. Where seniors are concerned, the ODE directed that any senior who was on track to graduate as of March 13th (the initial date of school closure) and was passing all of the classes that the senior was currently enrolled in would meet the requirements for graduation (Oregon Department of Education, 2020). 151 This meant that the usual requirement for students to meet essential skills in math, reading, and writing in order to graduate was waived for those seniors who were otherwise on track to graduate in June of 2020 (Oregon Department of Education, 2020). Effectively, for these seniors, the requirement to continue to engage in learning was ended. Those seniors who were otherwise on track to graduate but were not passing the classes they were currently enrolled in (as of March 13th) needed to be provided (by schools) the opportunity to improve their grade to passing without being required to learn any material that was not taught before March 13th. With this guidance, the DOE seemed to infer that the last few months of learning that seniors would normally complete was dismissible. In an acknowledgement of this, the DOE stated: We will honor and recognize that seniors dedicated 12 years and 7 months of learning and progress during their K-12 careers. Our goal is to hold students harmless, recognize their accomplishments and protect their future plans. Less than 2 percent of seniors’ total K-12 learning time has been impacted by COVID- 19. (Oregon Department of Education, 2020, p. 34) This statement seems a clear acknowledgement of the circumstances surrounding this school closure and an inability for the education system in Oregon to provide an appropriate opportunity to ensure continued learning for seniors through the end of the 2019-2020 academic year. This guidance was extended to ninth through eleventh graders with one major alteration. All non-graduating high school students were to be issued passing credit for the work they had accomplished prior to March 13th (assuming that those students were 152 passing as of March 13th) and for work that they would continue to do through the rest of the academic year (Oregon Department of Education, 2020). The DOE issued further guidance that non-graduating students who were not passing as of March 13th should be given the same opportunity as graduating students to make up for the learning that they had not accomplished prior to March 13th. If any student could not complete the required distance learning, that student should be provided an incomplete grade (rather than a failing grade) and schools would need to work with those students in the following school year to create a plan for those students to earn passing grades. Additionally, incomplete grades could only be given to students if there was a record that the school was capable of contacting the student, the student was capable of engaging in distance learning, and the student did not engage in distance learning. If all of those requirements were not met, the student should be issued passing grades for whatever work that student had accomplished prior to March 13th (whether that student was passing as of March 13th or not) (Oregon Department of Education, 2020). This guidance materially lowered the bar for skill acquisition during the closure of schools. It would have been possible for a high school student, under these guidelines, to have learned nothing through the mechanisms of school prior to March 13th, continue to learn nothing through school for the remainder of the school year, and be awarded credit (indicating that learning had occurred). All the student (and student’s family) would have to have done would be to refuse to receive contact from the school. This lowering of the bar, so to speak, was extended to Kindergarten through grade 8 (K8) education (Oregon Department of Education, 2020). The ODE guidance on K8 education stated, “no child shall be held back or retained due to any impacts of extended 153 school closure” (Oregon Department of Education, 2020, p. 79). Thus, any K8 student who did not engage in distance learning, and consequently learned nothing from the education system, would be moved to the next grade-level material in the following year. The ODE was clear, however, that any gaps in student knowledge and understanding that resulted from the school closure should be accounted for and essential learning should be maintained in the years following the school closure (Oregon Department of Education, 2020). In this way, the academic bar may have been lowered but only temporarily. At the time of this writing, no further guidance has been issued by either the DOE or the SPI. In total these guidelines acknowledge the need for schools to meet all five purposes of education in Oregon. It is worth noting that an emphasis has been put on the provision of childcare as being paramount to the other purposes of education. It is also worth noting that the purpose of education to provide students with skills (and the purposes to prepare individuals for their future and to positively impact society, insomuch as those purposes are driven by the provision of skills to students) is a purpose that education leaders do not seem to think needs to happen in every moment throughout the K12 educational experience of students. It is allowable for the purpose of skill building to wax and wane, so to speak, so long as the set requirements for learning happen within the K12 timespan. The only exception to this seems to be in the case of seniors, who are given a pass on the last few months of learning (whatever learning that should have happened during that time). A Hypothetical State-Level Response to a Global Pandemic I would like to conclude this epilogue by offering a hypothetical response to a global pandemic based on the five purposes of education and their necessary driving 154 mechanics uncovered in this dissertation. The goal will be to attempt to ensure that each purpose of education is still fulfilled despite the closure of schools from March 13th to June 20th. Throughout, I will compare this alternative response to the actual response. Obviously, my bias in already knowing what the actual response was will be unavoidable but I will strive to ignore this bias as much as possible. My purpose here is not to provide a critique. Admittedly, this epilogue could be used to critique Oregon’s state education leaders’ response to a global pandemic by assessing whether that response is in line with the purposes of education in Oregon. Given the limitations of this study (and thus the formation of the five purposes of education in Oregon), however, such a critique would equally apply to the purposes of education in Oregon. Rather, my present purpose is to conduct a proof of concept. The underlying argument for this study is that the legislated purposes of education should drive what education accomplishes and how it is done. Thus, this hypothetical should be taken to serve as an example of how the purposes of education can be used to derive a response to educational circumstances (unforeseen or otherwise). We will assume that education in Oregon has the five purposes as found in this study: (a) empower historically underserved populations of students, (b) provide students with skills, (c) prepare individuals for their futures, (d) positively impact society, and (e) provide childcare. In order to accomplish these purposes, education systems should, at minimum, prepare students to be engaged members of the electorate, train students for a lifetime of employment, and drive the economy (see Figure 2). We will also assume that school buildings are to remain closed from March 13th to the end of the academic year and that physical proximity between students and educators is unacceptable. 155 Preparing students to be engaged citizens, preparing students for employment, providing students with skills, and preparing individuals for their future can all be accomplished by ensuring that classes continue to progress despite school site closures. That said, there is no need for these purposes to be accomplished immediately. Ostensibly, education systems in Oregon have 13 years (i.e., K12) to confer those skills deemed necessary to students. To that end, perhaps a prudent directive to give districts and schools is to use the school closure time to begin preparing alterations to the curricula for ensuing years. That process would need to start with accounting for all the skills that students were not getting (e.g., standards that would have been covered between March 13th and the end of the academic year). Educators would then be tasked with identifying ways to make sure that students were still being provided with skills that would prepare them for their future and would ensure that society would be positively impacted by those skills provided. This forward planning would likely have to be done, to some extent, every year for every class of students who are currently in the education system. It would be reasonable, I think, to leave such planning up to individual districts. Districts’ plans would, though, need to account for students who transfer between districts. With this guidance, perhaps K8 classes are ended outright for the remainder of the school year. For 9th through 11th grades (9-11), there may not be enough time to ensure that necessary skills are conferred to students. This level of guidance, given that graduation credit requirements are dictated, at a minimum, at the state-level, would have to be uniform state-wide. That is, the ODE would need to issue guidance for how to ensure that grades 9-11 would definitely accumulate the credits necessary to infer that 156 students had acquired the necessary skills. Perhaps this would not be possible by ending the school year early for grades 9-11. Some level of distance learning might be deemed necessary to ensure that the necessary skills were attained. For seniors, some level of distance learning would definitely be required. Districts would need to create end of year plans for each course that has enrolled seniors that would ensure that all seniors attain the necessary level of skill to be awarded the appropriate diploma or certificate (as previously determined for each student). The plans that districts would need to put in place to follow such directives would need to ensure that historically underserved populations of students were empowered throughout. This might be done by requiring districts to contact each student (and student’s family) and incorporate the needs of each student into their plans. For K8 that directive might be to audit the learning of each student, contact students and families, and work as an educational team (educators, students, and families together) to ensure that the needs of those students who are members of historically underserved groups are put at the forefront of consideration when planning alterations to future years’ curricula (i.e., the needs of students who are members of historically underserved groups should take precedence over the needs of other students, as necessary). This could be mirrored for 9- 12, though it would probably manifest differently. The foci of 9-12 educators would necessarily include the accumulation of credit and the planning for future careers of individual students. Such plans, however, could also be done in a way to put the needs of students who are members of historically underserved groups at the forefront. In order to do this, educators at all levels would need explicit definitions for what groups of students are historically underserved. Such definitions could be variable dependent on location but 157 the definitions would still need to be explicit (i.e., there should be no question as to whether a given student was a member of an historically underserved group). For seniors, in particular, it would make sense to contact individual seniors to ensure they have a post- graduation plan (e.g., employment or continued education) and to make sure that schools were doing was is necessary to ensure that seniors who are members of historically underserved groups are set up to succeed in those plans. With reference to driving the economy (as education should be doing in order to positively impact society), educators should remain gainfully employed and contracts and collaborations that districts have with businesses should be honored (despite school closures). To the extent possible, state education leaders should seek to procure additional funds for schools during a closure such as this to engage in new contracts with businesses. In particular, as many businesses will be forced to close their doors in order to adhere to physical distancing mandates, schools could find ways to pay those businesses for goods and services provided (e.g., contracts with restaurants to provide food, contracts with recreational facilities to provide childcare facilities). Such directives would ensure that four of the five purposes of education would continue to be served despite school closures. The purpose of providing childcare would be far more difficult, if not impossible, to provide. The problem lies in the need to physically distance students. Schools are generally just not physically large enough to ensure that students could maintain an adequate physical distance, let alone ensuring that students would actually keep that far apart from one another. This could possibly be done with small, intact cohorts of students. Say the Governor is willing to accept that families, within a single household, will not maintain physical distancing. Schools could, then, still 158 provide in-person childcare for smaller, intact classes of students. Maybe 10 students would be allowed to be cared for, in person without needing those 10 students to keep apart from one another. That would effectively just increase the size of one household to the size of 10 households (plus the household of any educators who would need to be in physical proximity of the students). Such a system would only be permissible if the Governor was willing to make that level of exception to physical distancing requirements and if schools could procure enough physical space to house all of the students during the day. Both of these caveats seem like they would tend to be untenable. In lieu of being able to provide childcare in person, schools could seek to provide childcare from a distance. Doing so would require being aware of the home-situation of each student and student’s family(ies). Given that the SPI is also the Governor, the SPI could direct the ODE to collaborate with the Department of Human Services to provide additional support in training educators how to effectively do this kind of work. Such training would take time, however. And though the provision of skills is something that can wax and wane over time (as long as necessary skills are eventually all provided) the provision of childcare is most useful if it is provided consistently and potentially useless if not provided consistently. Thus, it is possible that the occurrence of a global pandemic would prevent education systems in Oregon from accomplishing one of the purposes of education in Oregon. Hopefully, educators cleverer than I would prove me wrong and find some way to provide childcare to students while maintaining physical distancing measures. If, however, a global pandemic does prove to present a situation in which it is impossible to provide childcare, education systems could still do some things to help provide childcare. 159 Providing parents with things to do with their children would help (e.g., educational, or otherwise, activities to safely occupy the time of their children). Certainly, schools could provide in person childcare for some children, as was actually directed by the deputy SPI. Such provision could prioritize either the needs of the state at large (e.g., healthcare workers and first responders) or it could adhere to another purpose of education and prioritize the needs of families that are members of historically underserved populations or it could prioritize those families that are found, for whatever reason, to be least able to provide childcare in home. Schools could also help to provide childcare by providing educational opportunities and support services (at least virtually) to students’ in-home caregivers. Educators are, after all, highly trained childcare providers and could host classes to teach their craft to others who are in the position of providing in-home childcare and lack such skills. Doing so would also extend to care-givers education’s purpose to provide skills to students. All things considered, Oregon’s education leaders’ actual responses to this real pandemic were very similar to what one might have done specifically building a response from a consideration of the five purposes of education in Oregon. The directives given to districts to lower skill-acquisition requirements is the one major exception to the alignment of the actual response to my hypothetical one. If nothing else, this intellectual exercise functions as a proof of concept that using the five purposes of education in Oregon, as described in this study, to derive what education systems should do and how they should do it is likely to produce reasonable, if not ideal outcomes. 160 APPENDICIES 161 Appendix A A. LIST OF CHAPTERS IN TITLE 30: EDUCATION AND CULTURE. Chapter consists entirely of Chapter Included in this renumbered or Number Chapter Title study repealed statutes 326 State Administration of Education x 327 State Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education x 328 Local Financing of Education x Oregon Educational Act for the 21st 329 Century; Educational Improvement and x Reform 329A Child Care 330 Boundary Changes; Mergers 331 School District Elections x 332 Local Administration of Education x 333 County Unit System x 334 Regional Education 335 High Schools 336 Conduct of Schools Generally x 337 Books and Instructional Materials x 338 Public Charter Schools x 339 School Attendance; Admission; Discipline; Safety x 340 College Credit Earned in High School x 341 Community Colleges 342 Teachers and Other School Personnel x 343 Special Education and Other Specialized Education Services x 344 Career and Technical Education: Rehabilitation; Adult Literacy x 345 Career Schools 346 Programs for Persons Who Are Blind or Deaf x 162 Chapter consists entirely of Chapter Included in this renumbered or Number Chapter Title study repealed statutes 347 [Reserved] 348 Student Aid; Education Stability Fund; Planning 349 [Reserved] 350 Statewide Coordination of Higher Education 351 Higher Education Generally 352 Public Universities and Independent Institutions of High Education 353 Oregon Health and Sciences University 354 Educational Television and Radio; Distance Learning; Translator Districts 355 [Reserved] 356 [Reserved] 357 Libraries; State Archivist; Poet Laureate Oregon Historical and Heritage 358 Agencies, Programs and Tax Provisions; Museums; Local Symphonies and Bands; Archaeological Objects and Sites 359 Art and Culture 360 Tourism 361 [Reserved] 362 [Reserved] 363 [Reserved] 364 [Reserved] 365 [Reserved] 163 Appendix B B. EXAMPLE TOOL ORS Sub- ORS ORS Number section Title Text Purpose Checklist No Advance Improve Improve Sustain Inferred Individuals Individuals Society Education Other Purpose Note. This table is an example of the tool that was used to organize the data generated by analysis of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). The “ORS Number” column served as a place to list the identifying number of the ORS being examined. The “Subsection” column served as a place to list the subsection number for the ORS being examined. The “ORS Title” column served as a place to list the written title of the code. The “ORS Text” column served as a column in which the text of the ORS subsection could be copied. The “Purpose Checklist” columns were filled in with notes concerning how the ORS subsection either verified or refuted the theoretical framework for this study (for columns “Advance Individuals,” “Improve Individuals,” “Improve Society,” and “Sustain Education”). If the ORS subsection indicated that the purpose of education was something that did not seem to fit the theoretical framework for this study, note indicated what the inferred purpose seemed to be were added to the “Other” column. If the ORS subsection did not seem to infer any sort of purpose of education, an “x” was placed in the “No Inferred Purpose” column. Not shown here was an additional column (placed to the far right of these columns) for additional thoughts and emergent notes. 164 Appendix C C. OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) THAT EXPLICITLY STATE THE GOALS OF EDUCATION IN OREGON AND THEIR PARAPHRASED GOAL OR PURPOSE Paraphrased Goal(s) or Purpose(s) of ORS ORS Title K12 Education 327.506* Quality education goals; [defers goals to 329.015, 329.025, duties; report. 329.045] 327.800* Goals of strategic • 40/40/20 Goal investments; requirements; • Improve graduate rules. employability • Close achievement gaps for underserved populations • Engage education stakeholders • Improve outcomes for students 329.015* Education goals. • Education helps develop: o a humane population o a responsible citizenry o an informed citizenry o an adaptable society • Education should: o equip students for careers o motivate students to succeed o empower student to be life-long learners 165 Paraphrased Goal(s) or Purpose(s) of ORS ORS Title K12 Education 329.025* Characteristics of school Education should: system. • be accessible by everyone • have high expectations • meet individual students’ needs • appropriately support students • support physical and cognitive growth • provides skills in: o reading o writing o problem solving o communication o thinking o reasoning o technology o group-work o math o science o English o history o economics o civics o physical education o health and healthy living o arts o world languages o the world of work o family matters o citizenship o responsibility • ensure students are successful in a republic democracy • involve education stakeholders • transport students safely to and from school • reflect funding equity • be safe 166 Paraphrased Goal(s) or Purpose(s) of ORS ORS Title K12 Education 329.045* Revision of Common Schools should provide the following Curriculum Goals, curricula (at minimum): performance indicators, • math diploma requirements, • science Essential Learning Skills and • English academic content standards; • history instruction in academic • geography content areas • economics • civics • physical education • health • arts • world languages 336.625 Goals; district responsibility; Alternative education should be flexible registration; rules. in order to meet the needs of individual students 338.015 Legislative intent; goals. Charter schools should create an environment that allows for innovation and leadership in education in order to meet the goals of education 339.510 Student accounting system; Student withdrawal should be goals. accounted for in a timely fashion and should track the reasons for why students withdraw early from K12 schools. 342.437 Goal. Educators should be as diverse as students. Note. * denotes an ORS that describes goals and/or purposes of education at large. Those ORS not marked with an * describe goals and/or purposes of specific programs and/or initiatives. 167 Appendix D D. FUNDS DESIGNATED BY OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES ORS Fund Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 326.051 special fund as per ORS • Public donations • Benefit K-12 schools 293.265-293.275 • Federal funding • Educational purposes, school lunch, CTE, benefit • USDA national school lunch program K-12 schools, improve teacher training, teacher salaries, building, administration of ODE • Provide breakfast & lunch for PK-12 & residential facilities 326.350 Educational • ???? • For the function of educational organizations Organizations Fund 326.435 Early Learning Division • Public donations, transfers from federal or • Fulfill functions of Early Learning Division Fund state government accounts, appropriated by legislative assembly, investment earnings, other amounts from any source 326.540 Board of Education • Intellectual property rights acquired by gift, • Pay creators of the property, advance research Invention Fund purchase, or creation via contract (conducted w/in education system), acquire new intellectual property 168 ORS Fund Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 327.008 State School Fund • Public donation, appropriations by • Grant to all school districts (not capital legislative assembly, transfers from Fund for construction), education service districts for the Student Success, transfers from Education purposes of ORS 327.006 to 327.077, 327.095, Stability Fund, transfers from Oregon 327.099, 327.101, 327.125, 327.137, 327.348, Marijuana Account 336.575, 336.580, 336.635, 343.243, 343.533, 343.941 and 343.961 and sections 1 to 3, chapter 735, Oregon Laws 2013 • Providing for Youth Corrections Education Program and Juvenile Detention Education Program enrollees in the same way as common & union high school 327.008 Small School District • State School Fund ($2.5million) • Serve the needs of small school districts Supplement Fund 327.023 Special and • Appropriations from state funds • Deaf, Medicaid matching funds, hospital programs, Compensatory Programs day treatment, disabling conditions, early childhood Funding special education, early intervention, evaluations for disabled students, Socio-economically disadvantages, early childhood education, child development specialists, youth care centers, staff development & mentoring, career technical education, special science programs, talented and gifted programs, pediatric nursing facilities 327.294 School Improvement • ???? • Fulfill the 21st Century Schools Act goals, improve Fund student achievement, early childhood education, class size reduction, increase instructional time, professional development, remediation, at-risk youth, close achievement gap, vocational education, literacy programs, school libraries 327.320 School Facility • ???? • Construction and maintenance of school buildings Improvement Fund so that education goals (state and local) can be fulfilled and so the state can experience economic expansion as a result of new construction and maintenance 169 ORS Fund Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 327.405 Common School Fund • The sale of sections of townships, proceeds • Support and maintenance of common schools in from real property and lands, gifts, proceeds each school district to state not otherwise appropriated, sale of Estuarine Research Reserve 327.711 School Capital • State Lottery Bonds (≤$150million) • Education projects; instructional training; the Construction, acquisition, construction, improvement, remodeling, Maintenance and maintenance or repair of public school facilities in Technology Fund the State of Oregon (e.g., land, site preparation costs, permanent or portable buildings and equipment, telecommunications equipment, computers, software and related technology, textbooks, library books, furniture and furnishings, vehicles); planning for bond issues and capital improvements; payment of debt service on obligations issued for such projects 327.856 High School Graduation • Legislative assembly will make sure that this • Improve graduation rates and college/career and College and Career money exists + public donations (≥$800/HS readiness of high school students via career Readiness Fund student per year; this money is guaranteed technical education, dropout prevention, making beyond any other funds provided) college credit available in high school 328.005 County School Fund • Bonds approved by a majority of electors • School building construction, removal of asbestos, w/in bond boundaries acquisition/improvement of property, debt pay off 329.183 Prekindergarten Program • Public donation, federal grants • Provide educational, social, health, nutritional Trust Fund development; enhance likelihood of success in school; provide grants to higher education to develop good pre-Kindergarten programming 332.337 Healthy School Facilities • State School Fund ($2million) • Address environmental hazards in school buildings, Fund lead testing in water and food preparation 336.810 Student Driver Training • Oregon Department of Transportation • Reimbursement for driver safety training Fund ($210/student) 170 ORS Fund Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 336.856 Oregon Digital Learning • ???? • Provide online education (academically equivalent Fund to education that is not online) 342.122 National Board • State & federal moneys • Help fund educators seeking National Board Certification Fund Certification 342.953 Educator Advancement • State School Fund ($39.5million) • Improve professional development for educators to Fund the end of improved function of education in the state of Oregon 342.971 Educator Preparation • Public donation • Improve the preparation of educators Improvement Fund 344.685 Vocational • Sate Vocational Rehabilitation Account • For Department of Human Services to use for Rehabilitation Revolving (≤$750,000) vocational rehabilitation programs Fund 346.019 Educational Facilities • Tuition and fees collected for school of deaf • Establish and maintain the Oregon School for the Fund Deaf 346.315 Blind and Visually • ???? • Provide education for visual, auditory, orthopedic, Impaired Student Fund autism, and traumatic brain injury disabilities; provide for education of blind students Note. ???? denotes the fact that the source of funding was not specified or implied. A funding amount is presented in parentheses if a specific funding amount was specified. 171 Appendix E E. GRANTS DESIGNATED BY OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES ORS Grant Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 326.125 Hardship Grants • Facilities Grants portion of the State School • Building new and maintaining existing facilities Fund (unspent from $7million; $500,000 grant) 327.008 [unnamed grant] • State School Fund (≤$6million) • Assist school districts in managing capital costs 327.013(1) General Purpose Grant • State School Fund (calculated by formula in • General purposes ORS 327.013) 327.013(3) Transportation Grant • State School Fund (calculated by formula in • Approved transportation costs (as defined by the ORS 327.013(3)) State Board of Education) 327.013(4) Facility Grant • State School Fund ($7million; 8% of new • Construction of new buildings building costs grant) 327.019 General Service Grant • state school fund (calculated by formula in • General purposes for use by education service 327.019) districts 327.026(2) Special Youth • State School Fund (calculated by formula in • General purposes in addition to General Purpose Corrections Education ORS 327.026(2)) Grant for Youth Corrections Education Grant 327.026(3) Special Juvenile • State School Fund (calculated by formula in • General purposes in addition to General Purpose Detention Education ORS 327.026(3)) Grant for Juvenile Detention Education Program Grant 327.298 Improve Achievement • ???? - • Improve achievement in low income schools, in High Poverty Schools summer programs in such schools Grants 172 ORS Grant Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 327.339 Local Option • General Fund (all money needed, provided • Make it so local option taxes in low property value Equalization Grant the state does not go into debt to make the areas are just as beneficial as local option taxes in necessary payments) high property value areas 327.365 Automated External • Federal grant funds + public donation [not • Any automated external defibrillator related Defibrillator Grant the state school fund] (60% of cost of expense (procuring & training) automated external defibrillator) 327.527(1) [unnamed grant] • ???? ($0.05/summer lunch provided + • Providing summer lunch through any existing ≤$20,000) national summer lunch program 327.527(3) [unnamed grant] • ???? (≤$5,000) • Summer lunch program equipment upgrades 327.531 [unnamed grant] • ???? (actual price of lunch provided) • Provide lunch for anyone eligible for reduced price lunch 329.425 Child Development • ???? (≤$50,000) • Child development programs Grant 329.425 Teenage Parent • ???? (≤$25,000) • Teenage parent programs Program Grant 329.488 [unnamed grant] • State School Fund (≤$550,000) • Contracts to replace state accountability test with some other equivalent assessment 329.492 [unnamed grant] • Oregon Historical Society • Oregon Studies programs 329.501 Physical Education • ???? • Kindergarten through grade 5 physical education Grants requirements 329.795 [unnamed grant] • ???? • Beginning teacher and administrator mentorship programs 329.841 Grant for Advantaging • ???? • Money for early childhood education programs to Disadvantaged Youth improve outcomes for historically disadvantaged youth 173 ORS Grant Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 329.885 Grant for Developing • Public donation • Develop programs to help transition students from School-to-Work school to work Transition Programs 336.029 [unnamed grant] • ???? • Provide professional development for Oregon Civics Day for teachers 336.113 [unnamed grant] • federal [& other] funds • Implementing multicultural education 336.204 [unnamed grant] • ???? • Fund school nursing programs 336.431 [unnamed grant] • ???? • Get Oregon made/processed foods into schools 343.396 [unnamed grant] • ???? (only if available) • Talented and Gifted programs 343.401 [unnamed grant] • State School Fund (≤$350,000) • Talented and Gifted programs; administration of, creation of, and training for Talented and Gifted programs 343.499 [unnamed grant] • Available federal funds • Run the State Interagency Coordinating Council 344.075 [unnamed grant] • ???? • Youth job development programs 344.095 [unnamed grant] • ???? • Support Frontier Learning Network & career technical education programs 346.070 [unnamed grant] • ???? (≤$1,000/student per year if funds • Grants for deaf students to attend college available) Note. ???? denotes the fact that the source of funding was not specified or implied. A funding amount is presented in parentheses if a specific funding amount was specified. 174 Appendix F F. ACCOUNTS DESIGNATED BY OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES ORS Account Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 326.115 Department of Education • General fund, public donations • Carry out functions of Oregon Department of Account Education • Public & private funding sources • Establishing a connection between PE and academic performance • fund teacher and administrator mentorship program • Farm to school program 326.340 Education Training • When conference fees are made available • Training programs Revolving Account 327.022 Pediatric Nursing • State School Fund (as much as needed to), • Provide education for students enrolled in pediatric Facility Account any other state and federal moneys available nursing facilities 327.344 Statewide English • State School Fund (12.5million), public • English language learner teacher costs, English Language Learner donation language learner programs Program Account 327.348 High Cost Disabilities • State School Fund ($35million) • Any district that has a student who costs >$30,000 to Account educate gets funding: that district has to pay the $30,000 and grants from this account pay the remainder of the costs to educate that student 327.376 Connecting Education to • ???? • Support STEM, provide funds for proven STEM Careers Account programs, recruit underserved students into STEM, support career and technical education in various ways • ???? (≤$250,000) • Educator preparation programs for STEM preparations 175 ORS Account Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 327.385 STEM Investment Grant • ???? • STEM startup grants (programs should be self- Account sustaining after 3-yrs, ideally) 327.485 Education Cash Account • General Fund • Fill the needs of the Oregon Department of Education 327.525 School Lunch Revolving • Donated commodities • Make sure donated commodities are distributed to Account districts fairly (with respect to cost of transport of those commodities) 329.839 School District • ???? • Implement new career pathways for teachers, new Collaboration Grant evaluation programs for teachers and administrators, Account new compensation models for teachers and administrators, new enhanced professional development for teachers and administrators 336.104 Early Learning • Early Learning Division Fund • Improve readiness for Kindergarten Kindergarten Readiness Partnership and Innovation Account 336.212 Vision Health Account • Public donation, legislative appropriation • Reimbursement for vision screenings (for necessary (≤$3.20/screening per student per year) expenses) 339.336 Center for School Safety • Federal sources, any other source • Improve school safety Account 340.330 Accelerated College • ???? • Improve high school programs that award college Credit Account credit 343.247 Special Education • State School Fund (operation costs) • Hospitalized children, residential treatment facility Account students, deaf students 344.620 State Vocational • Moneys earned by Vocational Rehabilitation • Encourage individuals to develop working and Rehabilitation Account efforts, public donation service skills 176 ORS Account Name Funding Source Acceptable use of funds 346.041 Special Education • ???? • Transportation needs for students receiving special Transportation education services Revolving Account 346.290 Commission for the • Public donation • Promote welfare of persons with visual impairments Blind Account and carrying out other commission duties Note. ???? denotes the fact that the source of funding was not specified or implied. A funding amount is presented in parentheses if a specific funding amount was specified. 177 Appendix G G. THE NUMBER OF OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) WEIGHTED WITH THE INDICATED COLOR PER CHAPTER AND PURPOSE Advance Improve Improve Sustain Other ORS Chapter Individuals Individuals Society Education Purposes 326: State Administration 0 green 0 green 0 green 1 green 1 green of Education 2 teal 2 teal 2 teal 0 teal 2 teal 11 yellow 0 yellow 0 yellow 1 yellow 20 yellow 3 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 327: State Financing of 4 green 5 green 3 green 3 green 1 green Elementary and Secondary 8 teal 8 teal 1 teal 3 teal 6 teal Education 20 yellow 11 yellow 1 yellow 10 yellow 4 yellow 1 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 328: Local Financing of 0 green 0 green 0 green 0 green 0 green Education 0 teal 0 teal 1 teal 0 teal 0 teal 1 yellow 0 yellow 0 yellow 0 yellow 0 yellow 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 329: Oregon Educational 10 green 24 green 12 green 3 green 13 green Act for the 21st Century; 9 teal 22 teal 3 teal 10 teal 5 teal Educational Improvement 29 yellow 16 yellow 9 yellow 8 yellow 9 yellow and Reform 2 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 332: Local Administration 0 green 0 green 0 green 0 green 1 green of Education 0 teal 0 teal 0 teal 0 teal 4 teal 6 yellow 2 yellow 1 yellow 0 yellow 7 yellow 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 335: High Schools 0 green 0 green 0 green 0 green 1 green 0 teal 0 teal 0 teal 0 teal 0 teal 2 yellow 0 yellow 1 yellow 2 yellow 0 yellow 0 orange 0 orange 1 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 1 red 0 red 336: Conduct of Schools 0 green 1 green 4 green 1 green 9 green Generally 16 teal 4 teal 14 teal 0 teal 11 teal 17 yellow 6 yellow 8 yellow 4 yellow 28 yellow 1 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 1 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 178 Advance Improve Improve Sustain Other ORS Chapter Individuals Individuals Society Education Purposes 337: Books and 1 green 0 green 0 green 0 green 0 green Instructional Materials 0 teal 0 teal 1 teal 0 teal 0 teal 0 yellow 1 yellow 0 yellow 0 yellow 0 yellow 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 338: Public Charter 0 green 2 green 0 green 3 green 0 green Schools 2 teal 1 teal 0 teal 0 teal 1 teal 3 yellow 0 yellow 2 yellow 0 yellow 1 yellow 2 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 339: School Attendance; 2 green 2 green 2 green 0 green 2 green Admission; Discipline; 2 teal 7 teal 6 teal 4 teal 7 teal Safety 24 yellow 8 yellow 13 yellow 2 yellow 36 yellow 5 orange 0 orange 1 orange 4 orange 5 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 340: College Credit 3 green 0 green 0 green 3 green 2 green Earned in High School 12 teal 6 teal 1 teal 1 teal 0 teal 11 yellow 1 yellow 2 yellow 3 yellow 0 yellow 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 6 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 342: Teachers and Other 2 green 2 green 0 green 0 green 0 green School Personnel 7 teal 4 teal 2 teal 0 teal 0 teal 8 yellow 5 yellow 3 yellow 2 yellow 11 yellow 1 orange 1 orange 0 orange 3 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 343: Special Education 0 green 2 green 1 green 0 green 0 green and Other Specialized 6 teal 2 teal 1 teal 1 teal 2 teal Education Services 21 yellow 1 yellow 1 yellow 2 yellow 9 yellow 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 344: Career and Technical 2 green 7 green 4 green 0 green 0 green Education; Rehabilitation; 2 teal 8 teal 3 teal 1 teal 0 teal Adult Literacy 6 yellow 2 yellow 4 yellow 0 yellow 3 yellow 0 orange 2 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 346: Programs for Persons 3 green 1 green 1 green 0 green 1 green Who Are Blind or Deaf 3 teal 2 teal 0 teal 0 teal 2 teal 8 yellow 2 yellow 0 yellow 1 yellow 7 yellow 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 orange 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red 0 red Note. The numbers reported in the “Other Purposes” column represent ORS subsections that were ultimately determined to infer purposes of education that could not be fit into any of the purposes of the theoretical framework for this study. 179 REFERENCES CITED Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033001004 Abowitz, K. K., & Stitzlein, S. M. (2018). Public schools, public goods, and public work. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(3), 33–37. doi: 10.1177/0031721718808262 Anyon, J. (1981). Schools as agencies of social legitimation. International Journal of Political Education, 4(3), 195–218. Apple, M. W. (1978). Ideology, reproduction, and educational reform. Comparative Education Review, 22, 367–387. doi: 10.1086/445993 Babbie, E. (2012). The basics of social research. Cengage Learning. Boly, S., Gerot, B., Hamann, G., Russell, M., Smith, J., Stiegler, J., … Henry, S. (2018). 2018 Quality Education Model Final Report (p. 58). Oregon Department of Education. Collins, R. (1971). Functional and conflict theories of educational stratification. American Sociological Review, 36, 1002–1019. doi: 10.2307/2093761 Crow, M., Anderson, D., & Whitman, K. (2018). Academic enterprise as a new institutional logic for public higher education. In A. Heijnen & R. van der Vaart (Eds.), Places of engagement: Reflections on higher education in 2040—A global approach. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press B.V. Dooris, P. (2019, May 6). A brief history of Oregon school funding [Video]. In KGW. Retrieved from https://www.kgw.com/article/news/education/by-the-numbers-school-funding-in- oregon/283-3de13051-f3a2-4d4d-9bac-af728c202008 Douglass, J. (2019, August 27). Back to School: How Oregon’s Student Success Act money will be spent. In KATU News. Retrieved from https://kval.com/news/local/back-to-school- how-oregons-student-success-act-money-will-be-spent Education and Culture. , 326.011-353.612 O.R.S. § 9 (2018). Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990. , 20 USC § 1401 (1990). Evans, R. N., & Hunter, A. (1979). Value added by education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 17(1), 64–67. Every Student Succeeds Act. , 20 USC § 6301 (2018). Fitzgerald, L. F., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH. (1985). Education and work: The essential tension (Information Series No. 304). Retrieved from https://eric-ed- gov.libproxy.uoregon.edu/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED260306 180 Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Goldin, C. (2003). The human capital century. Education Next, 3(1), 73–78. Hanson, A. M. (2006). No Child Left Behind: High-stakes testing and teacher burnout in urban elementary schools (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Phoenix. Hellman, W. (2013, June 3). What the sad legacy of Measure 5 says about us: Guest column. Oregonlive.Com. Retrieved from https://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/2013/06/what_the_sad_legacy_of_measure.html Hodgson, N. (2010). What does it mean to be an educated person? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 44(1), 109–123. doi: 0.1111/j.1467-9752.2010.00744.x Johnson, C. (1982). Our investment in public education. Today’s Education: Social Studies Edition, 71(1), 15–17. (Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN= EJ258590&site=ehost-live&scope=site). Labaree, D. F. (2011). Consuming the public school. Educational Theory, 61, 381–394. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2011.00410.x Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3–16. doi: 10.3102/0013189X031006003 Manning, R. (2014, May 16). About Oregon’s 40-40-20 Goal. OPB. Retrieved from https://www.opb.org/news/series/classof2025/about-oregons-40-40-20-goal-/ Martinez, C. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Eddy, J. M. (2004). Promoting academic success among latino youths. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(2), 128–151. doi: 10.1177/0739986304264573 McMahon, K. (2010, November 8). Ballot Measure 5 Turns 20. Oregon Public Broadcasting. Retrieved from https://www.opb.org/radio/programs/thinkoutloud/segment/ballot- measure-5-turns-20/ Meier, D. (2004). Many children left behind: How the no child left behind act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Nexis Uni®—Sign In | LexisNexis. (n.d.). Retrieved August 9, 2019, from https://signin.lexisnexis.com/lnaccess/app/signin?back=https%3A%2F%2Fadvance.lexis. com%3A443%2Fnexis- uni%2Flaapi%2Fresearch%2Fhome%3Fcontext%3D1516831%26primaryipauth%3Dtrue &aci=nu Oregon Property Tax for Schools and State Operations, Measure 5 (1990). (n.d.). Retrieved August 9, 2019, from Ballotpedia website: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Property_Tax_for_Schools_and_State_Operations,_Meas ure_5_(1990) 181 Oregon State Funding for Dropout Prevention and College Readiness, Measure 98 (2016). (n.d.). Retrieved August 9, 2019, from Ballotpedia website: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_State_Funding_for_Dropout_Prevention_and_College_Re adiness,_Measure_98_(2016) OSBA. (2018, August 1). Oregon’s revenue system fails school funding, Quality Education Commission report says. Retrieved August 9, 2019, from News Stories website: https://www.osba.org/News-Center/Announcements/2018-08-01_QEMreport.aspx Parker-Moore, J. L. (2006). Educator perceptions of school improvement since No Child Left Behind. Central Michigan University. Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2014). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. SAGE Publications. Salinas-Jimenez, Ma. del M., Artes, J., & Salinas-Jimenez, J. (2011). Education as a positional good: A life satisfaction approach. Social Indicators Research, 103, 409–426. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9709-1 Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. London, England: Penguin Books. Smith, J., & Gasparian, H. (2018). Development of a 50-state typology of education governance. International Journal of Educational Reform, 27(2), 127–155. doi: 10.1177/105678791802700202 The Arbinger Institute. (2016). Developing and implementing an outward mindset: Participant handbook. The Arbinger Institute. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. , 20 USC § 6301 (2002). 182