Schools; annual reports for the Oklahoma School Testing Program; requiring certain reports. Effective date. Emergency.
SB 867 updates Oklahoma’s school accountability and reporting statute for the Oklahoma School Testing Program. It keeps the existing annual school grading framework, but clarifies and expands the measures used to evaluate schools, including statewide assessments, graduation rates, English learner proficiency, and an additional school-quality indicator such as climate, safety, engagement, or postsecondary readiness. The bill also specifies that elementary and middle school grades should include measures like ELA, math, science, growth, ELPA progress, and chronic absenteeism, while high school grades should include those measures plus graduation rate and postsecondary opportunities such as AP, IB, dual/concurrent enrollment, internships, mentorships, apprenticeships, and industry certifications.
The bill amends 70 O.S. 2021, Section 1210.545, affecting how the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education prepare annual school report cards and assign school grades. It requires school site report cards to include at least five indicators of enrichment and support opportunities and at least three indicators of staffing experience and retention, expanding the information parents receive about school offerings and workforce stability. It also preserves separate treatment for certain virtual and online students, allows alternate accountability systems for some school types, and authorizes the Legislature to consider school performance in performance-based funding policies. The bill includes an effective date of July 1, 2025, and an emergency clause.
The available record suggests the bill was introduced as a policy update to school accountability rather than as a controversial overhaul. Its emphasis on broader school quality measures, parent-facing report cards, and postsecondary readiness indicates a generally reform-oriented, transparency-focused approach. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the expanded reporting requirements and the specific weighting of accountability measures. The bill requires at least 70% of the overall grade to come from academic indicators and caps the additional school-quality indicator at 30%, which could draw debate over whether nonacademic factors are weighted appropriately. Another possible issue is the mandate to report staffing experience, retention, and school enrichment offerings, which may raise administrative burden concerns for districts. The bill also preserves separate treatment for virtual and alternative programs, which could be debated by stakeholders concerned about comparability and fairness in school grading.