I'll merely point out the obvious -- The 5 "winning" counties are concurrently 5 of Oregon's least populated counties. In particular, Harney & Wheeler Counties are ranked near the bottom, population-wise.

While it would certainly be good if the averages on the chart provided were more equitable, less-populated and/or poorer counties can't be expected to pay for their educational systems all by themselves.

Wheeler, for example, only has a county population of 1,550 (OR Blue Book), less than almost any Portland or Salem neighborhood. Their assessed property value is only $81 million. Compare this to Marion ($24.9 billion), Multnomah ($47.3 billion) or even Curry ($1.9 billion).

Wheeler only has 3 incorporated towns, the largest being Fossil (the county seat) with a whopping 460 residents.

My point here is that, while the chart tends to make things look out of kilter, in order to provide children in Wheeler County with a quality education, other counties in the state must subsidize their schools. I don't see any other way around this fact.

Might this chart also represent the fact that the State manages approximately 750,000 acres of forest land in NW Oregon, and about 2/3rd of the proceeds go to the county governments and local taxing districts?

Here's the thing- the anti-Portlanders at the state capital better be quiet, or we'll take our $100 million from Multnomah County and leave. It would be interesting to see another version of this article on the gas tax, which I think would should the same thing -- Portland subsidizes the rest of the state.

The sharpest cut in the article for me was that we send $100 million out of the county, then pass our own income tax to raise $82 million/year to backfill.

Am I for funding equity (including factoring in school needs)? Yes. But when the anti-Portland faction keeps attacking us and taking our money, it starts to rub me the wrong way.

Yes, the urban side of the urban-rural divide has a lot to learn. But so does the rural.

Progressives should celebrate this revelation! This reflects our values. We agree that for the benefit of society it is reasonable for the wealthier to subsidize those less fortunate because it benefits the whole. It is a responsible effective process that allows those less fortunate to stay within reach of those doing better.

This is not a hand out to deadbeats, or a free ride to wealth without merit. It's merely an equalizer. As Oregonians it is something of which we should be proud because we do agree that there should be No Child Left Behind, but in Oregon we put our money where our mouth is.

Here's the main problem with the current system: We in Multnomah County are paying for other communities to get a better education that we get here.

No wonder the 'winner' county's legislators choose not to increase school funding, because their schools are doing beter than ours.

The article details rural recipient counties getting new books, having the programs we've lost, and not cutting teachers.

SO, no wonder that recipient legislators are hostile to metro area parents who try to say that things are struggling here.

I would argue to Gregor and others that this is not a manifestation of our values. Rather, this is an example of progressives being naive and getting ripped off.

Do we share the misery or share the wealth?

I think the country schools should be constrained, but I don't think we need to suppress them. I'm curious how the economies of scale fail to provide Portland with better resources then the country schools, all things being equal. I also wonder how these country schools get so much money if they are so poorly represented numerically.

Gregor raises two good questions. It seems like the article suggested that economies of scale are offset by increased costs overall.

As for why the formula is how it is, with the crappy weighting that's described, seems like a political one. Is there anyone out there with the necessary 'in the building' experience to answer this one?

I can't quite figure out the motivation behind the O's story.

As I read the opening paragraph I wondered what it would look like if the O's took the same approach to classes of taxpayers. Obviously the next question for the O is to examine the relative return on the dollar between classes of taxpayers for all government services.

I'm waiting for the graphic comparing the value of government services used by Phil Knight (e.g., $1 worth of gov service for every $100 worth of taxes paid) versus a family on full public assistance (likely the reverse).

It appears President Reagan's stereotype of the "black welfare queen in the Caddy" has been replaced with a new, truer one: a white farmer in rural Oregon getting paid millions of dollars to not plant crops while receiving subsidies for water, power, schools and yes, his beloved $85,000 Hummer with the twin DVD players.

Maybe it's time to move me, the Mrs. and kin to an old school bus on some borrowed land in Malheur County and watch the school money just roll in.

But, then, we're living in Malheur County. No thanks.

Gregor wrote -

"I'm curious how the economies of scale fail to provide Portland with better resources then the country schools, all things being equal. I also wonder how these country schools get so much money if they are so poorly represented numerically."

Have you ever seen the administration building that the Portland Schools have? It is about the same size as the Les Schwab 10-acre tire warehouse here in Prineville.

Actually, it isn't that the rural schools get any more money - all Districts are now on the same funding schedule except Portland that gets extra local income tax money. We are paid the same amount per student, the same amount per special ed. student, etc. The State does reimburse a per mile cost for bus transportation. With a 3,000 square mile County here in Central Oregon - that can add up. But overall, the funding is the same.

What the graph represents is the income VERSUS the tax output. More than anything, it tells me that per capita there are more students in the + 5 Counties as compared to wage earners; than in the - 5 Counties. In Wheeler County, not only is the population low, but there is hardly any business there. But there are three schools systems in the County.

So, what does this stuff mean? - maybe nothing but a demographic hiccup.

My shoulders are broad enough to think that the children of Oregon belong to all of Oregon. My future is as tied to the income those kids in Portland will earn as it is tied to the income those kids in Fossil will earn. Everyone deserves an equal chance to pay as much taxes as possible to keep me warm and safe in my old age! So, everyone deserves an equal education.

In Wheeler County, not only is the population low, but there is hardly any business there. But there are three schools systems in the County.

And why do counties like Wheeler, Malheur and Harney have several school districts despite having low population? Because, as Steve aptly points out, some of these counties are LARGER in territory than some eastern states!

For one, look at Malheur County. From north to south, the county is nearly 200 miles wide. One wouldn't expect kids in Ironside (north end) and kids in Burns Junction or McDermott (south end) to travel all the way to Ontario or Vale for schooling. Heck, their travel time would EXCEED their time in class!

Several of the districts in Malheur will be compensated a great deal to get students to class. This, of course, will skew the averages presented.

It strikes me as a misallocation of resources to spend $63,000 per student to educate 3 students in Brothers School District.

Not a lot of money in the overall scheme of things, but it would cost less to send those kids to boarding school and utilize district employee talents in larger districts in Oregon.

There is also the possibility of paying for satellite equipment and "distance learning" at home in Brothers as well as other sparsely populated districts.

Equalization is a good thing from a progressive viewpoint if it is equalization of educational opportunity, not of educational dollars. Rural counties have higher costs for transportation and areas effected by economies of scale. Urban areas need to pay higher salaries and, in many cases, more expensive services.

Clearly, the formula for equalization needs to be more complex than it currently is. Of course, making any change that benefits urban students will not be possible as long as R's dominate state government [funny how having the governor's office and the senate in D hands does us little good].

Do these huge disparities come about through legislative nonfeasance by the metro counties delegations? How do the interests of 50% of the voters in this state get so totally disregarded? Why are we Ted Ferrioli's tax farm?