Paul,

Absolutely it creates predictability, which is good, but the numbers in that predictability do stink. I remember back a couple months ago watching the Education Forum hosted by the D's in Salem (which no R attended by the way) and virtually every superintendent (from all across the state, Red and blue areas) said two things:

1. We want predictabilty

BUT

1. If the level of predictabilty is too low, that's worse than having an unpredictable yet higher number.

The level of funding is too high. It keeps the Oregon K-12 status quo in place. That is the last thing Oregon needs. At this time K-12 is hemorrhaging because of very poor allocation of funding. We have the 8th highest compensated K-12 workforce (Chalkboard Project 2005) at the expense of shortened school years, laid-off teachers, 4th highest student/teacher ratio, curtailed programs, poor graduation rates and the next-to-the-last attendance record in the U.S. If Oregon teachers were compensated in line with Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Montana, North and South Dakota and others, we would have an additional $300 to 900 million per year. The result would be 5,000 - 8,000 additional teachers, complete programs, full school years and smaller classes. An additional by-product would most likely be higher graduation and attendance rates.

Oregon is ranked 36th in affluence ("per capita income")(http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2005/04April/SPI.pdf , pg 78). . We can't afford the high spending we would like to become accustomed.

If Oregon teachers were compensated in line with Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Montana, North and South Dakota and others, we would have an additional $300 to 900 million per year.

And if Oregon teachers were compensated in in line with Walmart employees, we would easily be able to afford twice the number of teachers. Of course they would be all high school graduates (with a few dropouts as well). But look at the incredible teacher to student ratios! And we could have the longest school years in the nation! I am sure Oregonians can't wait for that to happen!

Seriously, I don't understand why teachers should not be paid more, since they already get less than people in the private sector with the same level of education. The problem is not primarily teacher pay, there are a lot of things that could be done to improve education with the current funding, but since those things would not hurt the teacher's unions, R's in the House and Senate are not interested. I could talk to my senator and representative about the rising cost of health care coverage and PERS until I turn blue in the face, they are not going to do a thing about it unless it hurts the evil teacher's unions.

Marcello, Why should Oregon K-12 employees receive higher compensation than almost all other states? The average salary per Oregon K-12 teacher is $50,790.00 (NEA, June 2005). Oregon's K-12 benefits package is the highest rated in the U.S. with Wisconsin a distant 2nd, 11 percent behind Oregon (Chalkboard Project 2005). This very high compensation has become the limiting factor for expanding educational opportunities in Oregon. What is more important, quality education for Oregon's children or very high compensation for the teachers? It is obvious that we are not getting both. The states previously mentioned have, by most measures, better academic results than Oregon.

Chuck, I agree with your question. Oregon does not have a funding problem. Oregon does have an allocation of funding problem. Circumstances change and that is why we have a legislature. Too bad it is not as functional as it should be. The powers of Oregon (including Gov. Kulongoski) are clearly not guided by what is best for the students/children of Oregon.

Marcello:

Your assertion: - "I don't understand why teachers should not be paid more, since they already get less than people in the private sector with the same level of education." - does not contain much validity.

<h2>How do you define "level of education"?</h2>