Shimiko Montgomery was on track to be the next chair of the Oregon State Board of Education, a nine-member committee tasked with turning state laws into ground-level rules to guide public schools and the state’s education department.
As a member of the Micronesian community and a former school board member in Bend-La Pine, she came to the board four years ago to bring her community’s perspective into state education policy.
Instead, June’s meeting turned out to be her last on the board. Her application for re-appointment was denied by Gov. Tina Kotek. Montgomery questioned the timing of her ouster, which came after she spoke out against the governor’s recent executive order to ban school districts from cutting school days.
“It has raised questions about the independence of this board and whether thoughtful critique from our board is welcomed by the Governor’s office,” she told her board colleagues at the June meeting.
Gov. Kotek’s office declined to comment on Montgomery’s exit.
The way Kotek pushed through her executive order on instructional time — and the reaction it received — reveals an ambiguity in Oregon’s public education system: the state board of education’s role, scope and authority are unclear. These concerns are especially relevant in Oregon, the only state where the governor is both the state superintendent and empowered to appoint members of the state board.
To some former board members, their approval has become a box to check without any real room for feedback. At the same time, some local school leaders want the board to take a stronger role and push back on changes that would impact classroom teachers and other school staff. Now, as the board finalizes plans to build a new accountability system for Oregon’s public schools, the state board finds itself in an identity crisis.
Former Oregon State Board of Education members Becky Tymchuk, left, and Shimiko Montgomery, right. Tymchuk and Montgomery left the Oregon State Board earlier this year.
Courtesy of Becky Tymchuk, Shimiko Montgomery
Oregon’s governors have not always taken a strong hand in directing education policy. But a big exception occurred last April, when Kotek tackled a widely publicized shortcoming of Oregon’s public schools: that students don’t spend enough time in class and that it’s too easy for school districts to cut instructional time when budgets are tight. Kotek’s response was an executive order pressing the state board to take immediate action to protect and increase student time in the classroom.
Tensions rose at April’s board meeting as state board members heard about Kotek’s order on instructional time for the first time. Board members both in person and virtually raised their hands, eager to add their comments. Some nodded while state board member Mona Khalil raised concerns about how the order would work in practice and how districts are already making tough financial choices.
“I want to give you a glimpse into my world, and our district, and what that looks like,” said Khalil, who works as an instructional coach in the Tigard-Tualatin School District. She explained the financial reality: cutting budgets for years, blending classrooms to save money, and seeing her own job become “two positions in one.”
A student participates in Ignite! Reading, a virtual tutoring program at Durham Elementary in the Tigard-Tualatin School District, on Nov. 7, 2022. A TTSD staff person who sits on the state board of education was among the board members to recently question an executive order on instructional time.
Elizabeth Miller / OPB
Kotek’s order prohibits school districts from cutting instructional time as a cost-saving measure, and requires districts who have done that to restore lost time.
“What are the levers for us, as a state board, to reduce the harm this will cause?” Montgomery asked at the April meeting, acknowledging the financial straits districts are facing. “And if we pass this, how exactly will [the Oregon Department of Education] be helping local districts who are out of options without increasing funding?”
Mid-meeting, the board recessed while ODE made updates to the temporary rules codifying the order. Board members tabled the most controversial part of the order, which would prevent districts from counting professional development and parent-teacher conferences as instructional time.
Two months after that meeting, Montgomery’s term on the board ended — despite her interest in staying.
How Oregon’s state board works
The state board is made up of nine members, appointed by the governor. In addition, there are non-voting members representing students, teachers, administrators, school board members, and proxies for the Oregon Treasurer and Secretary of State.
According to its website, the state board of education is meant to provide “equitable policies and practices that lead to the educational and life success of every Oregon student.”
But when it comes to enacting policy, the state board is often last in line. This is how it typically goes: First, the legislature passes a law, then staff with the Oregon Department of Education write rules to follow that law. ODE publishes draft rules for public comment, which includes sharing them with a group called the Ongoing Rules Community Advisory. That’s three big steps before anything lands in front of the State Board of Education.
That’s part of the reason another board member, Becky Tymchuk, also stepped down in June.
“I felt like I was not really making a difference with the role that I was trying to play,” said Tymchuk, who had a non-voting role on the state board representing board members of local school districts.
“I felt that it was best to take my time and my energy and put it somewhere else, where I can make a difference for students.”
Tymchuk sits on the board of the Northwest Regional Education Service District, one of 19 ESDs in Oregon that support local school districts with special education or other services. Tymchuk said the state board’s role feels more like a “rubber stamp” of approval.
“In the 16 months that I was on there, there were very, very few times where the Board of Education did not go along with what was already being proposed,” Tymchuk said.
Montgomery says one way to increase the state board’s influence is to weigh in earlier.
“The board could play a stronger role in helping develop a shared vision for public education, setting statewide priorities, and making sure new policies fit together as part of a coherent system,” she wrote to OPB in an email.
Leaders from local school boards want to see the board take that stronger role too, in part to stave off problematic policies from state leaders. In an April public comment to the board, Forest Grove school board chair Kristy Kottkey asked board members to take a stand and think before approving the rules put before them.
“This body has both the authority and the responsibility to intervene when legislation undermines educational best practices,” Kottkey wrote.
Montgomery agrees that the state board could be empowered to do more on behalf of schools. But she also worries that the problems go deeper than the state board. She’s concerned that support and funding for schools can’t keep up with the increasing demands placed on districts, and wonders “whether that is reducing the capacity of our schools to give our students the support they need to thrive.”
Both Montgomery and Tymchuk say the state has a fundamental problem that goes beyond the questions of funding and resources: Oregon lacks a shared vision for education that everyone from the state down to the local districts can get behind.
“You’d have to be blind to see that our students are not thriving as much as they should,” Tymchuk said. She said it’s important to get everyone on the same page: “That goes for the Governor’s office, it goes for the legislature, it goes for our school districts, it goes for our families, it goes for everybody.”
In response to OPB’s questions about whether Oregon has a “vision” for public education, a representative from Gov. Kotek’s office said K-12 public education has been one of Kotek’s “top priorities” since taking office three years ago.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek signs four education bills that passed the 2025 legislative session at a ceremony Thursday, July 31, 2025 at Prairie Mountain K-8 School in Eugene. Bills passed in 2025 include Senate Bill 141, also called the Education Accountability Act. The Oregon State Board of Education is now in the process of finalizing rules for that accountability law.
KLCC / OPB
“Her vision of public education includes sustained investments in things that work, like her early literacy initiative and summer learning, and holding school districts accountable for achieving performance targets,” Lucas Bezerra said in an email to OPB.
That push for greater accountability is proving to be the latest stress test for the state board.
With new accountability comes new authority?
In 2025, Kotek and legislators passed a law requiring state and local districts to set targets for attendance, graduation, and performance on standardized tests. Districts that don’t reach those goals may face state intervention through coaching, and if they go four or more years without hitting their targets, the state can take over up to 25% of a district’s budget.
The accountability law, Senate Bill 141, is 26 pages. Turning the high-level legislation into meaningful guidelines for school districts has required months of policy work, which comes to the state board for approval. But as the stakes for Oregon schools get higher, Montgomery says the state board’s authority doesn’t extend as far as some might think.
“I think many Oregonians assume that the state board is setting the overall vision for public education or driving the state’s policy direction,” Montgomery shared with OPB.
“In reality, much of that direction comes from the Governor and the Legislature, while the board is responsible for adopting the rules that put those decisions into practice.”
During a June hearing updating legislators on the implementation of the bill, Oregon Department of Education officials said that the state board had adopted targets for achievement, as well as parts of the policy mandating how coaching would work. Tymchuk said it felt like an exaggeration of the board’s true role.
It’s another example of how the state board is being held responsible for a system, without the authority to make big changes. During that June hearing, Oregon School Boards Association’s Director of Government Relations and Communications Stacy Michaelson recapped how the state board’s discussions of rules around an ambitious math target ended.
“They and the department were butting up against, ‘we have a statutory deadline we need to meet, we need to adopt these rules,’” Michaelson recalled.
In other words, even if state board members wanted to discuss further changes, they didn’t have the power to give themselves the time necessary.
Tymchuk, who’s no longer on the state board but still helps supervise an ESD, said the rules the board approved have administrative and financial implications for Oregon’s school districts.
“This is a cultural change for us as a state to be paying attention to the rules that the board of education is passing,” Tymchuk said. “We already knew that we were supposed to be paying attention closely when the legislative session was in, now we need to pay closer attention [to the board].”
Local school leaders are watching the state board’s next moves, hoping for clear guidance to go with the lofty goals.
Students work in a math class at McKay High School in Salem, Ore., on Sept. 13, 2023.
Natalie Pate / OPB
In a recent comment to the state board, Salem-Keizer Public Schools Superintendent Andrea Castañeda asked the board to “demand a reasonable and sequential Oregon Department of Education-led plan”. As the leader of Oregon’s third-largest school district, Castañeda says there’s agreement about where people want the schools to go.
“Oregon’s shared destination is clear … let’s build the coherent, transparent, ambitious, and achievable accountability system that Oregon students deserve.”
The road to get there won’t be easy, and there are still rules to be made for the accountability bill.