HB 3460 - A Teaching Moment
Jeff Bull
One would be hard-pressed to find a better example of the competing theories government budgeting and spending than the difference between a pair of education bills rattling out of the Oregon House. While the GOP's version will likely stand as the House's voice – they do, after all control the lower house - you can learn about the philosophical separation between the parties by comparing that to it's apparently doomed competitor.
Before digging in, I ought to admit to some confusion. I've seen two listings for the bill that will likely pass the House, and as early as today at that: HB 2450 (which shows up here) or HB 3460. For the purposes of this post, I'll ignore all references to the former and go with the text of HB 3460 (it's easier to find). The competing bill, over which there is no confusion, is HB 3498.
The crucial separation between the two bills comes with how they would fund education in the state of Oregon. Here's the relevant text of each:
HB 3460:
"Directs Legislative Assembly to appropriate to State School Fund amount equal to 51 percent of projected personal income tax revenues beginning with 2007-2009 biennium. Requires that subsequent biennial appropriations equal 109 percent of amount appropriated for prior biennium. Allows Legislative Assembly to appropriate additional amounts if money is from Education Stability Fund and constitutional requirements for appropriation are met."
Now, HB 3498:
"The State Quality Education Funding Standard for each biennium shall be calculated by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The superintendent shall calculate the standard based on the parameters of the Quality Education Model specified in the final report issued by the Quality Education Commission in December 2004….when combined with the estimated amount of local revenues and federal funds available for that biennium, [the total] would equal the amount of moneys sufficient for full implementation of the Quality Education Model. The Minimum State Public Education Funding Standard is equal to 80 percent of the State Quality Education Funding Standard. The Minimum State Public Education Funding Standard shall be calculated by the Superintendent of Public Instruction."
To put all this in the most direct terms possible, does the Oregon Legislature provide schools with a budget and ask that they live within it, or does the Superintendent of Public Instruction tell the Legislature what schools need and leave them to figure out how to balance that against everything else (they might even, say it softly, raise taxes)? For a neutral observer of the political process (which I'm not quite), this is just bliss. These bills so perfectly contrast the tough-love, tight-fisted GOP with the there's-work-to-be-done-what's-the-damage Democrats.
To help sort this out, there are some good rubber-hitting-the-road looks at HB 3460, a bill so associated with Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis that it's been referred to as "The Minnis Plan." Of those lined up against, the best came in this morning's Oregonian through a David Sarasohn column; the best part of that comes with a clear-eyed look of what Minnis' proposed 51% would look like when compared to the status quo:
"In the current budget period, 2003-05, Oregon is spending $4.916 billion on schools, about 55 percent of personal income tax revenue. At 51 percent of the income tax proceeds, Oregon schools would be getting $4.587 billion. So if the plan were in effect now, schools would be getting $329 million less, or about 7 percent, than they're getting today."
Sarasohn also astutely points out that the House's number – $5.275 billion for 2005-07 - amounts to 53% of the state budget. Maybe it is harder than it looks...
Those lined up against Minnis' bill score some decent points, but they're relatively silent on the question that most obsesses their opponents: the perception of a bloated, growing and wasteful education bureaucracy. And it's useful to look at the implications of what the Democrats in the House are proposing as a counter. Led by Representative Larry Galizio (D – Tigard) (see his name as sponsor on HB 3498, this letter to the Oregonian and a post elsewhere on Blue Oregon), the Dems seem more comfortable tossing around lines like "80 percent of the State Quality Education Funding Standard" as opposed to dollar figures. But what does that percentage mean in dollar terms?
For that, you only need to hit this page on the Oregon School Boards Association site and open the pdf file for the executive summary of The Quality Education Commission Report to the Governor 2004 (or the full text of the report for you masochists):
"For the 2005-07 biennium, the Quality Education Model estimates that State funding of $7.1 billion is required to get 90% of Oregon students to meet the State’s academic standards. The Governor’s proposed budget of $5.0 billion leaves a funding gap of $2.1 billion for the biennium, over $1.0 billion per year."
Now to confess some further confusion, I'm not clear as to whether we're talking about that $7.1 billion straight up, or 80% of that (which comes to $5.68 billion). Based on the above text, the clear use of the term "state funding" and the direct talk of Teddy K's figure from his proposed budget, I'm afraid we may be talking about the former, larger figure (which has as much chance in Oregon politics as a Wal*Mart has of squatting on Burnside Ave in the heart of downtown Portland).
As I'm fond of noting, how you see this depends so much on the outcome a given voter wants to see and both sides have reasonable points. But I'll close with one additional point for our side: there's a lot of talk in the pieces opposed to the Minnis Plan about per-pupil spending. By fetishizing a dollar figure, these immediately dodge the central question that the people who need convincing immediately ask: can we do this better or cheaper – just generally more effectively? Are we throwing good money after bad? Questions of that kind come into sharper focus when one reads anecdotes about $20 million in savings rather casually ignored (and by the GOP to boot), can't voters be forgiven for accepting charges of waste and bloat?
Rather than accuse the GOP of "cheating schools" and "hating children like the vermin they are" (OK, I made up the last quote…and I love kids), begin by addressing the charge of waste directly; rather than appeal to some abstract figure (per-pupil-spending always sounds shockingly high in any case) show them how the money is needed and why it can't be cut. Just a thought…
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 22, '05
Bravo jeff for a simple explanation of what is at stake. I, for one, have only been confused by mainstream media reports of the "Minnis Plan" (sounds like something drastic that you use after Plan A fails). My only question though, is one of curiousity. Do you see there being actual waste that needs to be chopped? Any thoughts on what areas of the education budget can turn into money-savers in the future?
Jun 22, '05
Honestly, I'm just only getting up to speed on the school funding issue. I think one of the most useful - and tedious - project anyone could manage would be to pick through as many schools budgets as necessary just to get their heads around the question.
One thing I do believe is that it's hard to defend per-pupil-spending as a stand-alone figure; I just hopped on the Web to see what I could dig up on the fly and found that as recently as 2000-01, Oregon ranked #17 nationally, spending $7,511 per student (it's worth noting that, according to one of the sources used above, we've fallen, at least in the rankings, to 31st. Is that a lot? How does that compare with a year's worth of private school tuition? What goes into it? Does anyone know? (By the way, the first link in this thing seems to provide an answer; I'll have to poke around that one.)
Jun 22, '05
Honestly, I'm just only getting up to speed on the school funding issue. I think one of the most useful - and tedious - project anyone could manage would be to pick through as many schools budgets as necessary just to get their heads around the question.
One thing I do believe is that it's hard to defend per-pupil-spending as a stand-alone figure; I just hopped on the Web to see what I could dig up on the fly and found that as recently as 2000-01, Oregon ranked #17 nationally, spending $7,511 per student (it's worth noting that, according to one of the sources used above, we've fallen, at least in the rankings, to 31st. Is that a lot? How does that compare with a year's worth of private school tuition? What goes into it? Does anyone know? (By the way, the first link in this thing seems to provide an answer; I'll have to poke around that one.)
Jun 22, '05
I'm not clear as to whether we're talking about that $7.1 billion straight up, or 80% of that (which comes to $5.68 billion).
I think the 80% figure refers to 80% of the Quality Education Model's $7.1 billion, that is $5.68 billion. This would be the minimum under the House D's plan. Makes total sense.
From the Statesman-J. article it seems pretty clear the Oregon School Boards Assoc. cut a deal with Minnis to avoid losing their insurance gravy train. Shame on them.
As for overall "waste," for the R's doesn't it really boil down to their hatred of the teachers' union? I don't consider teacher compensation a "waste." As for the rest of school expenses, anyone who has set foot in schools lately can tell you they have been cut to the bone.
Jun 23, '05
as an insider, much of the waste i see is in central administration. pps just cut 85 teaching positions while adding 3 curriculum czars [i forget their actual job title - damn summer vacation] to the tune of $500,000. my [personally biased] opinion has always been to put the money where the students are. at least 10 teaching jobs could have been saved if the curruculum czars had not been hired.
pers is another place where many people find waste. i am new enough to oregon teaching to be in the dreaded tier 3, which as far as i can tell means i have to bend over and take it. tier 1 folks [and maybe tier 2 - i am pretty pers dumb] get a sweet deal with guaranteed growth independent of actualy fund performance. sounds like a great deal for the folks in teir 1 and a crappy one for the government.
but pers is not just an education system problem. i wish it could somehow be seperated from education funding in this debate. [fat chance!] having been inside portland schools as a sub and full time teacher i do not see how pps schools could survive on less money. maybe setting a limit on percentage of funding that can go to administration is the solution.
the minnis plan is not the solution. and the status quo - a feast or famine situation - is not the solution either. stable funding and more of it are needed.
Jun 23, '05
Let's see if I can comment just once this time (stupid machine...)
Keyfur, great comment. If it's not an improvement on the original, it's damn close; thanks for passing it on. While it's frustrating at times to read more about the problem as opposed to solutions, this entire issue, with all the weird inputs like PERS, is more complicated than any talk out of the political arena suggests. This is more than a shouting match about "cheating" kids versus cheating tax-payers.
Based on the little I know of the subject, central administrators do seem like the third arm of school budgets (no offense to all you fine bureaucrats out there). Without really examing the question (next project?), I've always figured that these bureaucrats grow out of well-intentioned calls from parents and constituents demading that this or that be better managed. That assumption could be off, I suppose, but it's at least logically consistent.
4:39 p.m.
Jun 24, '05
Hey Jeff Bull, in the second link you have, to the Oregonian Op-Ed by BEVERLY PERTTU, in it, the statement is put that "While it is disappointing that the Senate has not proposed a better plan, the Minnis proposal is fatally flawed."..
I am not quite sure how to read that. The Senate does not create budget plans. That comes form the House, so why on earth would someone carp about the Senate not coming up with a better plan when it is not the Senates function to create budgets?
Am I missing somethign here?
Jun 24, '05
Jeff Bull wrote: I just hopped on the Web to see what I could dig up on the fly and found that as recently as 2000-01, Oregon ranked #17 nationally, spending $7,511 per student (it's worth noting that, according to one of the sources used above, we've fallen, at least in the rankings, to 31st. Is that a lot? How does that compare with a year's worth of private school tuition? What goes into it? Does anyone know? (By the way, the first link in this thing seems to provide an answer; I'll have to poke around that one.)
Catlin Gabel and Oregon Episcopal School run between $13,000 and $17,000 per year. Many Catholic schools come in around $7,000. If you talk to them (and others) they'll tell you the parish subsidizes some of their costs. The gross figures are a little misleading for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that elementary costs are much lower and high school much higher. Two of the exceptionally performing elementary schools closed by PPS this spring had costs of approximately $4400 per student.
<hr/>