I would guess that it (or similar taxes) won't have a chance, until voters are convinced that the extra funding will not be going toward the most expensive (by a considerable amount) benefits package in the U.S. It is the "total compensation" for individual K-12 employees that is the limiting factor Oregon education, not lack of revenue.

I'm of the same mind. I think we've reached our capacity of selling tax revenue as THE solution. The battle to fix our schools is MUCH bigger and is going to require MUCH more. Would I vote for it? Probably. Do I think it will pass? No.

This such a waste of time. People should be putting their time and effort to force Salem to fund Schools. Why not find a way out of subsidizing other regions of ORegon if Salem does not get its act together.

I dont think it would pass.

I just wish they would be realistic about how much money they really need to run a school. They already spend over $11,000 per kid if you include all funds. When will it end?

This shouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative or a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Oregon is ranked 36th in affluence ("per capita income") down from 25th in 1990. "Per capita income" rankings move slowly, because it is Dependant upon many segments of the Oregon economy. It is most likely that our status won't change anytime soon. So how can we be compensating (8th highest for K-12 employees) the largest part of our state budget so highly, without damaging other departments within Oregon? It seems like common sense that our compensation is very out of line and detrimental not only education, but most other public sectors.

I agree that Mark and Liz can work wonders, but we're stepping out beyond Multnomah County here. The bigger the region, the more attention it draws, the harder the battle. Also, the paper describes this as three campaigns, not one, because it has to pass in each county. I look forward to watching and commenting either way. I reserve my judgement of the merits for when I see more detail.

With their credibility in decline with more people everyday idea is ludicrous. Does Potter or those who support this idea think they are improving the their credibility?

In the schools alone we have mulitple problems not being addressed because of bad programs and poor management.

PERS Lavish retirement benefits, Runaway healthcare coverage, CIM/CAM School Reform Bilingual education Whole math Whole language Cultural Competency program

And Potter and company are doing nothing about any of them. In fact they are doing just the opposite.

Furthermore, it has become abundantly obvious to a growing segment of the public that most of any new money would be quickly devoured by these same problems. Leaving little or none for what people do want and the problems much bigger.

Kari, The data cited is the most misunderstood piece of data in Oregon K-12 funding.

"Our total costs per student are below national averages."

That statement is true and it about matches our 36th ranking in affluence. For 12 out of the last 15 years we have been above the national average.

What is misunderstood, is our (now) lower than average "per student cost", combined with the 8th highest (in the U.S.) individual "per employee" compensation. This is the primary reason for the K-12 funding problems in Oregon. The above combination is the reason why Oregon is struggling for complete school years, struggling with the 4th highest student/teacher ratio in the U.S. and curtailing programs. The high individual compensation is preventing Oregon from hiring an additional 5,000 teachers for K-3. The high individual compensation reflects on our poor graduation rates and our very poor (ranked 49th) attendance rates.

Jenni, You say, "Everyone needs to work together to fight for full funding, rather than being content to fight over the scraps Queen Minnis throws them."

There is enough money in the system. Oregon compensates K-12 employees $500 million a year more than the average state just in benefits. Just in teacher salaries it is another $180 million per year. This is enough to hire 7,000 more teachers, have complete school years, complete programs and smaller classes.

Kari-

I got my numbers a few months ago from the ODE website.

According to the ODE, the PPS 1j budget for 04-05 is just a bit above $577 million. And there are about 50,000 students in that district now? The math says it breaks down to $11,540 per student. Now if they say they are actually only spending roughly $9,000 per student, I would really like to know where that budget number came from, or where the other $2100 per student is going. Especially if they are asking for more.

Jenni, It is the K-12 compensation "per individual employee" that creates the problem. "Per student", yes we are a little below average now. That is where the problem is. All of the education dollars are spent on a relative few number employees. The only thing increased funding gets us is more of the same (8th highest compensation in the U.S., "The Condition of K-12 Education in Oregon", January 2005, ECONorthwest, Chalkboard Project, page ix.)and relatively few teachers.

This is some of the data. I have more, but this is probably enough. If you have a specific question I can give you more. What is interesting is that the more data I obtain, the more consistent is the content. Did you read the Oregonian article? "Benefits eat schools' cash" (07-10)or the editorial (07-17), "Sink or swim"?

1) Oregon has been ranked between 25th and 36th in affluence for the last 15 years. (Bureau of Economic Analysis, Per Capita Personal Income, July 2005). Several similar studies and statistics support. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2005/04April/SPI.pdf page 78

2) From an American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO) study,Average Teachers Salary Compared to Per-Capita Personal Income, there are only four states ranked higher than Oregon. This illustrates the lofty compensation compared to what is possible for Oregonians to afford. www.aft.org/salary/2002/download/SalarySurvey02.pdf , Table I-6.

3) From AFT study, State Rankings Average Teacher Salary Adjusted by AFT Interstate Cost-of-Living Index. Only nine states are ranked higher. www.aft.org/salary/2002/download/SalarySurvey02.pdf , Table I-7.

4) From NEA and AFT statistics, Oregon teachers are the 13th highest state in K-12 average salaries. NEA(2005) has Oregon at 12th highest ($49,169). www.nea.org/edstats/images/05rankings.pdf , page 19. Note: Oregon "Average Teacher Salary" includes the contract amount plus 6 percent for the employee portion of retirement contributions.(page 99)

5) From OSBA study, Comprehensive analysis of K-12 Education Finance in Oregon, by ECONorthwest, stated that there were only 5 states with higher total compensation for all Oregon K-12 education employees. This data is three years old, but contracts since that time have not changed the ranking from what I can tell. Also, "Benefit expenditures total $17,684 per full-time staff member(2001-02), which ranked 1st nationally and is 11 percent higher than second-place Wisconsin." From the CHALKBOARD PROJECT (April 2004). www.osba.org/hotopics/funding/2002/analysis/final.pdf

6) Oregon has the 4th highest student/teacher ratio (NEA, 2005). This is a direct result of the high teacher total compensation. http://www.nea.org/edstats/images/05rankings.pdf , page 17.

7) There are approx. 29,150 K-12 Oregon teachers (OSBA). www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/0203smap.pdf

8) We (Oregon) could freeze teacher salaries for five consecutive years and their compensation would still be greater than the 25th ranking state in salaries (from NEA 2005). This illustrates how far ahead the compensation has gotten in Oregon.

9) Only eight states have a "higher public union workforce", 57%. www.trinity.edu/bhirsch/unionstats/State%20U_2003.htm . This, in a state where the private sector work force is less than 9.4% unionized.

10) The percentage of "Education Employee (K-12) Benefits to Salaries" in all U.S. states is 24%. In Oregon that percentage is 38%. (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Aug. 2003) www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt165.asp

11) In a comprehensive study of the effects of collective bargaining on education, University of Oregon professors Randall Eberts and Joe A. Stone concluded: "The major difference we detected between union and non-union districts is the cost of education: for the same level of education quality, the annual operating cost per pupil in union districts is 15 percent higher than in similar non union districts." (Page 173)

Anyone who wants to overturn the Measure 8 decision (elected officials and the voters can't break contracts), turn collective bargaining back 50 years, say administrators deserve large pay packages because they aren't those awful union members, and otherwise use statistics or studies like this one 11) In a comprehensive study of the effects of collective bargaining on education, University of Oregon professors Randall Eberts and Joe A. Stone concluded: "The major difference we detected between union and non-union districts is the cost of education: for the same level of education quality, the annual operating cost per pupil in union districts is 15 percent higher than in similar non union districts." (Page 173)
should run for office with that as a platform.

Kim Thatcher got elected as the woman from Measure 30. She's since said to a reporter that the legislature was more complex than she realized.

Of course, it is so much easier to just complain on a blog--no one will reject you to your face or say "fine, if you can get the votes for that, go right ahead--but you're not getting my vote".

In response to the $11,500 per student school spending -

Because of the way government accounting works, it is wrong to take the total budget of any government and call it spending. There are three types of things in governmental budgets that are not spending in the common meaning of the word: (1) transfers between funds and interfund charges, (2) ending balances and contingencies that are not spent, and (3) principal payments on loans.

For example, say you want to build a $100,000 addition to your home. To keep track of funds you open a new account to pay for the addition. You transfer $50,000 in savings to the new account and you borrow $50,000 and deposit it in the new account.

Let's say that by the end of the year you have completed and paid for $40,000 in improvements. So this means there is $60,000 left in the account. In addition, you have been making payments on the loan out of your regular income and by the end of the year you have paid $5,000 in principal and $2,000 in interest.

So, how much have you spend on this improvement this year?

If you use governmental budget accounting and add the "all funds" budget as Jon did, your answer would be $157,000, as shown below:

$50,000 transfer from savings to improvement account $40,000 checks written from improvement account $60,000 ending balance in improvement account $5,000 repayment of principal on loan $2,000 interest payments on loan $157,000 total

That total is clearly ridiculous, but that is what you are doing when you take the total budget off the ODE website and call it total spending.

It turns out that there are a variety of reasonable ways to answer the question. For example if you use the National Center for Education Statistics methodology (see earlier post), the answer would be $42,000:

$40,000 checks written from the improvement account $2,000 interest payments on the loan $42,000 total

As the earlier post indicates, total spending (including capital costs) on Oregon schools under the NCES methology was $8,646 per student in 2002-03. This was almost $500 less than the national average of $9,136.

Incidentally, if you account for the example in the way a private business would, the cost of the improvement would be amortized over the useful life of the improvement. So the answer would be $4,000 in the first year:

$2,000 depreciation of improvement (assumed over 20 years) $2,000 interest payments on the loan $4,000 total

Finally, Jon characterized Portland's dilemma as asking for more than it got in its 2004-05 budget. To the contrary, Portland's problem is that is losing three major fund sources - the county income tax, its local option, and its capital bond levy. Portlanders will first notice some of this next year when they get a significantly lower property tax bill for schools.

Together the three sources totaled about $120 million in the 2004-05 budget. All of the discussion in Portland has been about replacing some of the loss, not getting more.

Let me ask two questions:

What is PPS's student/teacher ratio (average class size?)

What is the PPS's student/employee ratio

Thanks JK

Jenni

FYI. The local (Multnomah County) income tax was distributed according to number of students; not according to number of residents.

Figures lie and liars figure... or so they say.

Numbers can be fun... oh yes... but the bottom line... according to the GOP in Salem, Suzie Castillo, DOE, NEA and ACT is that Oregon spends $1,000 less per kid, per year, than the national average. Less money. Fewer dollars.

I would not expect Radio Gods With Declining Ratings (RGWDR) who barely finished high school in Tillamook County (and their underemployed listerners) to be able to grasp such shocking information.

The 3,300 Portland Public Schools teachers will take a five-year pay freeze the same day hell freezes over, and not a minute earlier, Ms. Bailie.

And as always, if we public school teachers have it SO SO easy, why don;t you, Ms. B., come on down, get two college degrees, practice alone in a classroom with 30 kids for a year or so and then TEACH.

How hard could it be, huh Ms. B? Answer: so hard, you pass, every time.

Hadit,

Good for you for trying to explain things from a teacher's perspective.  I, too, am a teacher.  I gave up a lucrative broadcasting career knowing I would be paid less but I did it for one reason.  It was a chance to give back to kids because one teacher gave me the courage to believe in me.  I have taken grant-writing classes to bring in additional revenue to my classroom and school.  I have found ways to beg companies for additional equipment.  I have listened and grew frustrated listening to the talk show hosts that fuel the fire against public educators.  You know, I get the last laugh when folks talk about my "huge salary and compensation" when I see those high school kids come back and tell me I made a difference and that they found their niche in my classroom and they now work as broadcasters, producers, and editors.

hadit and Deborah,

If you are a teacher, I'm disappointed that you mis characterized my comments. I have never said that teachers are "greedy". I have never said that they "don't work hard". Where did you get that information? Do Oregon teachers work harder than teachers from many other states who receive considerably less compensation and produce better academic results? I have said that Oregon K-12 employees are the 8th highest compensated in the U.S. (Chalkboard Project 2005). I have said that Oregon K-12 employees have the highest ranking benefits package in the U.S. There are only 12 states which pay higher K-12 teacher salaries than Oregon (NEA 2005). Also, that there is no state in the U.S. which has a greater spread between teacher salaries and resident "per capita income". I have said that Oregon is a relatively poor state, now (2004) ranking 36th in affluence ("per capita income").

The above data from along with data from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), ODE, OSBA, the Rand Corporation, Education Research all point to the same conclusion. Oregon would have an additional $300 to $800 million per year if it weren't for the very high relative compensation for K-12 employees. This added cost is the primary reason why Oregon is enduring a K-12 funding crisis. It is the reason why other states, which fund education at the same rate as Oregon, have lower student/teacher ratios, complete school years and are hiring teachers, rather than laying them off. Oregon could easily hire 5,000 more teachers, have complete school years and programs with lower K-12 employee compensation (per employee). As a by-product, graduation rates would go up and our 49th ranking in attendance would most likely improve.

We (Oregon) have among the highest compensated K-12 employees at the expense of having very average academic results. I am looking for solutions for the Oregon K-12 funding crisis. What is your solution, or have you thought about it? This is a quantitative discussion/problem. A qualitative discussion (it's for the children") is fine, but it doesn't solve the problem. If it were "for the children", we would have 5,000 to 8,000 more teachers, still be paying individual K-12 employees in the upper half of states, and have better academic results. All of this at no additional cost.

Sid,

How do you imagine more people will ever be willing to hand over more money when the those asking for it, and working to find ways to forceable take it, are also defending and promoting failed and wasteful programs?

PERS Lavish retirement benefits, Runaway healthcare coverage, CIM/CAM School Reform Bilingual education Whole math Whole language Cultural Competency program

It would be far more productive to address these versus calling people stupid, underemployed and unable to grasp information.

Heya be nice,

Lets take em one at a time.

PERS (reformed twice and you want more?)

Lavish retirement benefits (75% of pay after 30 years work while Morgan Stanley pays their CEO $150,000,000 to leave after screwing up the company to near-bankruptcy)

Runaway healthcare coverage (yup, Big Pharma is making BILLIONS of you and me, with the single highest profit margins of any business on Planet Earth)

CIM/CAM School Reform (On death bed)

Bilingual education (PPS cut dozens of those teachers, despite the fact it works)

Whole math (Say what?)

Whole language (research shows it works, still, some kids need phonics so I taught a combo of whole lang/phonics at Sunnyside)

Cultural Competency program (Diversity is not a bad thing, Ms. B. Heck, George W. Bush has dozens of the smartest, whitest guys surrounding him and he hasn't made ONE good decision yet, in five long years)

I have a question for you, Ms. B. If teaching is so easy and lucrative, why don't you try it?

(That'll shut em up. Always does)

"I have a question for you, Ms. B. If teaching is so easy and lucrative, why don't you try it?"

You appear to have the same problem other teachers on this blog have had. I have never said, teaching was "easy". I have never said, teaching was "lucrative". I have always worked full-time. I have hired many teachers, however, to work for us in their time off. Got to give them credit for trying to keep busy year-around.

Funding for K-12 education in Oregon has nothing to do your George Bush, "white guy", "Big Pharma", Morgan Stanley digs. It is all about Oregon paying the 8th highest (of all states) compensation per K-12 employee. It is about Oregon being ranked 36th in "per capita income". It is about the unique K-12 funding problems that Oregon has, that other states do not have. It is about states which fund education at the same (or lower) level as Oregon, but have a much smaller student/teacher ratio and superior academic results. It is about all of the states which have higher graduation and attendance rates than Oregon, but have much lower individual K-12 employee compensation.

Sid,

You're a teacher?

Yes, lets take em one at a time.

PERS. Reformed twice never fixed. The average School District PERS contribution will increase 85% over the next 2 years. Some reform!

Lavish retirement benefits. Why not simply compensate our teachers the same amount Washington does and save hundreds of millions and our classrooms?

Runaway healthcare coverage. With Portland nearing 1000/month per teacher for health care, higher deductibles and CO-pays are a must. If it's good enough for Washington teachers it's good enough for Portland and Oregon.

CIM/CAM School Reform. What death bed? Democrat legislators are huddled up defending it. Be prepared to welcome another couple years of wasted time and money because of the same people which you, for some unknown reason, support.

Bilingual education? In your opinion it works? California is proving Immersion is better and fast tracks English learning. 2 years vs 5 years. "PPS cut dozens of those teachers"? That's because they had to pay a lot more for the ones they keep.

Whole math. New Math. Portland Math. Figure it out teacher.

Whole language (research shows it works)? Works for what? Today's phonics gets far better results. You are simply wrong.

Cultural Competency program (Diversity is not a bad thing,,,, George W. Bush has dozens of the smartest, whitest guys surrounding him and he hasn't made ONE good decision yet, in five long years)

Diversity? Have you read the Cultural Competency program, teacher Sid?

No?

Is the Portland City Council is all smart white guys?

"Be nice" is absolutely correct!

Oregon should run schools just like Washington.

So, when do YOU want institute their 8 percent (or is it 9) sales tax?

That way, we can keep our INFAMOUS $10 a year business income tax, the smallest state business tax in America, since 1934.

You say, "we can keep our INFAMOUS $10 a year business income tax". I do hope you realize that that $10 corporate tax applies only to those corporations that lose money. I hope you also realize that any corporate tax almost always gets passed on to the consumer. It is the consumer who foots the bill for business taxes.

Who said, "Oregon should run schools just like Washington."? Again you seem to have great difficulty in staying on-topic. Running schools is quite different than, "Why not simply compensate our teachers the same amount Washington does and save hundreds of millions and our classrooms?"

Are you sure you were a teacher?

Willamette Week and Oregonian both report that 2/3 of Oregon businesses pay just $10 in business income taxes, same rate since the Depression.

Oh, I AM a teacher in PPS and have been for 10 years now. Middle School. Science. 125 kids a day and LOVIN it.

Before that, I ran a small business (and paid more than $100,000 in taxes over the years... not 10 measly bucks). After college, I helped run a Fortune 500 company back East which paid me about 5 times my starting teacher salary. I work harder in my classroom in a day than I did in a week at one of the biggest companies on Earth.

I sure MISS all those business park coffee breaks, smoke breaks, 20-minute water cooler chats, coming in late, leaving early, and those long, liquid lunches my boss (no, the taxpayers) paid for.

It's all in a movie called "Office Space". Seen it, Ms. B? I have and it's a teacher favorite! We miss loafing for a living, like so many Americans who work in offices and say they do not have enough work to do.

This may be a couple years old.

http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/school/03f33pub.pdf

WA spends $359 less per student. They have more revenue per student but spend less. They also are spending 6 times the amount on land, existing structures and educational equipment at the same time they spend less, while having less than twice the students? Every graph I looked at shows Washington to be run more efficiently.

Oregon spends $262/student more on salaries and benefits $137/student more on education salaries and benefits $319/student more on support services Page 23 is the report is one of the more interesting.

Their teachers work hard too, get paid too, get retirement too, get health care too and deal with everything ours deal with.

So, Washington is more efficient. Do they have a statewide salary schedule, statewide health insurance? What is the mix of state mandate and local control? Is their teacher licensing board less bureaucratic than our TSPC? Is it easier to renew teaching certificates or become a mid-career teacher in Washington than here? Are teachers respected in Washington, or is their every word and action critiqued as it is by some in Oregon?

The reason I ask is that in the 1980s there was a social studies teacher in E. Oregon who was very active as a political volunteer and shared what she learned with her students. She was the kind of teacher that students still talked about when they reached college (I met her through politics and later met a former student of hers who was a college student --maybe this was in the early 1990s).

But here is my question. Why isn't she still teaching in Oregon if teachers have such a great deal? What the college student told me was that she was really sorry when this teacher left her home town high school, but she got a pay increase by moving to Washington and working in a school of equal size in E. Washington.

Not everything is statistics--there are individual decisions involved.

Is the grass really greener on the other side of the Columbia?

One of my best pals, someone you ALL KNOW, has a wife who teaches in a Vancouver elementary school, top tier, by Salmon Creek.

While y'all are watching "Extreme Home Makeover" reruns, she is working for FREE, for hours and hours a night, filling out one NCLB form after another. For free.

Her husband, a HARD CORE Republican, is furious over the weeks of work she is doing at home, at night, for free. Vancouver Schools refuses to pay her for her extra work, despite it being hours and hours and hours of work.

So, the secret of Vancouver's success? Slave labor, baby. Slave labor.

Have a great day, folks!

PERS costs.

Some the PERS related expenses do not go to teachers . . . they go toward Wall Street folks would have an advantage in managing (manipulating) the equity pricing bubble. The money vanished into the wilderness and the trustee is deflecting the blame from where it should land, upon the state treasurer. The state needs to get out of the investment trust business.

In a previous post I described why a school district’s “all funds” budget on the ODE website overstates true school spending. Rob Kremer wrote and agreed.

In the same and prior post, I quoted figures from the National Center for Education Statistics for 2002-03 Oregon and 2001-02 Portland “all funds” spending per student. I used these figures because they are the latest available on schoolmatters.com, a national Standard and Poor’s website that facilitates comparisons of states, school districts, and schools.

Rob Kremer also wrote to that he had made a calculation similar to NCES’ that yields a substantially different result. He feels confident his calculation “deals honestly with the question of how much per student does the district spend” and he wants to know the difference.

Personally, I expect that NCES has put more thought and effort into their calculation than either Rob or I have. I also wonder about the value of an alternative calculation for Portland or Oregon if the purpose is to compare entities using the same definition. Nonetheless, in the interest of furthering understanding, I offer the following as potential explanations.

(1) As Rob suspected, NCES uses an enrollment measure, not the ADMr measure he uses. Although ADMr may be useful for General Fund comparisons, I believe it is inappropriate for “all funds” comparisons. Portland serves many students that are not included in ADMr – students in full-day kindergarten, Head Start students, regional special education students in three counties, birth-to-five special education students (recently transferred to the ESD), state-responsibility students in places like the Parry Center, and even pass-through programs benefiting students in private schools. These programs are largely funded by grants and self-payments outside the General Fund. So using ADMr for General Fund comparisons perhaps makes sense. But “all funds” comparisons demand something broader. Enrollment does not pick up all the above students, but it does get closer.

(2) Excluding transfers, ending balances, and capital spending does not get out all double counting. Portland, like many districts, imposes internal assessments to fund enterprise activities. For example, Portland imposes an internal payroll assessment to fund workers compensation. Because Portland is large, it is largely self-insured. The assessment is deposited into the self-insurance fund and benefits are paid from the fund. It works like a transfer but does not appear like on the books. Another example is the administrative charge imposed on most grant receipts to cover the accounting, audit, and other expenses of administering the grant. I do not know how diligent NCES is in ferreting out this type of double counting, but at least they are using the same definition for all.

(3) NCES excludes repayments of loan principal. Rob apparently excludes capital expenditures instead. If done properly, this should amount to the same thing over time. However, it could cause differences in any given year.