With the final installment of the Multnomah County I-Tax due on April 17, 2006, I doubt many City of Portland voters will be in the mood to vote for a continuation of a (slightly lower) new I-tax less than a month later. I give this tax almost no chance of passing. If they had waited until November the tax might have had a chance, but they couldn't have picked a poorer time to put this on the ballot.

Why should I support a tax that siphons money out of my two children's school district (Parkrose) and puts it into the Portland School District. According to today's paper, the superintendent of David Douglas showed how Portland would receive approx. $1100 per student and David Douglas would receive approx. $600, so my guess is Parkrose would receive even less than $600. Where's the equity in that?

Either it's divided equally on a per student basis or I will not vote for it.

Why don't they stop taking funds that are suppose to go to the schools and giving it to the PDC. If this was corrected we wouldn't have the budget issues today. Oh well, whats another tax, after all I am not that attached to the money I work hard for anyways.

J.W.

MikeD,

Yes--Superintendent Rommel is not happy with the lack of equity with the formula coming from City Hall personal. David Douglas was starting to talk about maybe a levy for a new middle school--but we do not have any land to build one really without destroying a park. If PPS has 60% of the enrollment then it gets 60% of the monies--if that make their per student average equal or lower then Parkrose or David Douglas--then it is a nice benefit to being a smaller school district.

I will canvass all of David Douglas, Parkrose, Reynolds and Centennial school districts to "EDUCATE THE VOTERS THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF PORTLAND IS NOT BEING EQUITABLE NOR FAIR" dealing with this travesty that Mayor Potter is calling this campaign “to put children first” to help with the school funding crisis within city.

November is no good because the tax would face a double majority. The 57 million dollar shortfall is equal to 15 weeks of school or 1/4 of the teaching staff. It sucks that the legislature failed us and couldn't come up with an adequate funding plan for schools. I just don't think we should punish Portland's children for Salem's incompetence. Seriously, if we don't pass this tax to keep Portland's schools open for a full school year, we are not only denying a quality education for our children, we are sending a message that Portland does not value education enough to do what it takes. If Oregon's biggest and very progressive city doesn't care about keeping schools open, why would our legislature feel compelled to come up with a real plan for schools? We can whine and complain and say “the city should have done this” or “or the legislature should have done that” but all the should haves we come up with don’t mean jack to the kid who will be getting a lousy education for a partial school year if we don’t step up.

JW asked """""""Why don't they stop taking funds that are supposed to go to the schools and giving it to the PDC."""""""

Because they don't want to.

That's why the PDC refuses to complete the State Law required yearly UR impact reports. They don't want the public to know how much is being siphoned away from general fund budgets. Worse yet, in keeping with the methods of the Tram process, they don't want to know themselves the impacts of what they do.

Now would be a great time for a public outcry to force the completion of an impact report. State Law apparently isn't enough force, maybe the public can be.

miked said Why should I support a tax that siphons money out of my two children's school district (Parkrose) and puts it into the Portland School District. According to today's paper, the superintendent of David Douglas showed how Portland would receive approx. $1100 per student and David Douglas would receive approx. $600, so my guess is Parkrose would receive even less than $600. Where's the equity in that?

acccording to the oregonian's article, other districts [my guess is that includes parkrose, but no specific mention is there] would recieve $1.30 for each $1.00 that they pay in the proposed tax. how's that for equity?

as far as the tax goes, there might be better solutions to pps' problems out there but i have not heard them. as a property owner i would be more than happy to get the recently expired property tax back. as an income earner i plan on voting in favor of the proposed tax.

working in the schools i see daily how the lack of sufficient funding hurts them. when the extracurricular programs that students love [drama, art, music, sports] are cut, cancelled, or made into fee based programs, it hurts. these are the things that keep student in local schools.

really, the solution is a salem solution. our legislature has to do something. sadly, they and our governor continue to ignore the state's lack of adequate funding for education [and many other porgrams].

tinker asks:

"we are sending a message that Portland does not value education enough to do what it takes. If Oregon's biggest and very progressive city doesn't care about keeping schools open, why would our legislature feel compelled to come up with a real plan for schools?"

I think that if Portland comes up with the money, the Legislature will have no incentive to do anything anyway. It's a lose/lose proposition. If Portland doesn't do anything, the legislature could make that argument, but if Portland does do something, then the Legislature doesn't have to do anything. What is being proposed here is essentially a permanent income tax on Portland residents because other districts in the state aren't have the kinds of problems Portland is having. This extra tax burden piled on City of Portland residents will simply drive people out of the city to suburban locations that don't have the tax and whose schools are in better condition. This will further exacerbate Portland's problems and the problem will continue to spiral downward.

And, with regards to the double-majority, I thought that only applied to serial levies and to measures intended to raise property taxes. That was one of the reasons why there was no enthusiasm for a citywide or county wide or tricounty wide increase in the property tax -- the double-majority requirement. So why would the double-majority not apply to an I-tax measure in May, but apply to the same measure in November? I'm not claiming any authority on this topic; I just don't remember seeing the distinction you're making between May and November elections.

If I understood the article correctly, the City plans to distribute the tax to those districts that have schools within the city limits, but five other school districts (North Clackamas-Milwaukie, Riverdale, Lake Oswego, Tigard-Tualatin, and Beaverton) have residents within the city, but no schools within the city. Following up on MikeB's point about inequity between Portland and David Douglas, the residents of those five districts who live in the City will be paying an income tax that won't go to support their schools at all.

Tinker, 'we' didn't fail the schools, and that state legislature didn't either. You can lay almost all our public school problems at the feet to of the Teachers' Union. I know that statement will raise the ire of most of the people on this blog, but it's time to face facts. We fund our kids well over pretty much any other industrialized nation and have worse results.

It's time to wake up and realize the current status quo is not working. Salaries, COLAs and PERS consume a huge part of school funding. Unions want to stifle competition and choice. They want to regulate charter schools. They fight school reform at every turn.

We need to analyze how the funding is spent, not just throw more money at the problem.

To respond to Tinker, only property tax levies need the double majority (not new income taxes). That was the case with the Multnomah County I-Tax. Furthermore, nothing needs a double majority on a November General Election Ballot.

One of my biggest problems with this proposal is that it fees into the notion that government can not be trusted. We were told that the Mult. Tax would be temporary and would go away. I’m actually proud of Diane Linn (and I really don’t like her) for keeping her word. But now we have another “temporary tax” and, I for one, do not believe that the Legislature (or the Gov.) will provide the leadership to make revenue enhancements next session or the session after that.

This state is still not quite ready for an increase in taxes or radical tax reform. It may come soon, but even if the Legislature makes some changes, it will probably be sent to the voters who will not approve it.

What do we do: I don’t know, but it seems the concept of school equalization has hurt many Metro area schools district while helping some rural district. I think it is hypocritical to be for “School equalization” but then let Portland enact an income tax to provide more money for their schools. We either have school equalization or we don’t

Finally, while I have family and friends who live all over the state, I am sick of hearing people say “Portland takes all the money”. If they really believe it then why don’t we have an initiative that says that 90% of all income tax, property tax, and user fees have to stay within the county boundary they we take from (exempting Higher Ed and Roads). Also put a protection clause in that this could change with a ¾ vote of the Legislature.

If nothing else it might change the debate that currently Portland is taking all the money!

Pay now @ $6,600 a kid per year in PPS... or $30,000 an inmate per year... at OSP.

Your choice, Portland, your choice.

Let us do the math:

Amount of what PPS: $57 million(direct from the Mayor)/$1105(average from the super from David Douglas) would be approx 51583 students enrolled in PPS. The actual enrollment of PPS is lower than that--direct quote from the Approved Budget 05/06 of PPS:Total enrollment for the 2005-06 school year is projected to be down again next year from the October 2004 actual enrollment count of 47,656. That means that if the enrollment were at 2004 numbers PPS would only get $52659660. But since that the enrollment numbers are declining that amount should be lower than $52659660!! The Mayor is not being fair or equitable to David Douglas, Parkrose, Reynolds or Centennial school districts. Hence the statement from the Super of David Douglas:"give lots of folks a reason to vote no."

C'mon Sid.... that's just inflammatory. What keeps kids out of OSP is attentive parents. Regardless of the amount of funding at their school.

A couple quick things to pass on, mainly over how the two sides are going to talk this through. I ended the post on my site (LINK) with two quotes from the opposite sides; both came from the Portland Tribune's write-up. I've thought about these a bit more since and see the debate getting off to a pretty wretched start for the "pro-tax" side (unfair, I know, but accurate).

The first comes from Jason Williams of Taxpayers' Association of Oregon:

"As long as they’re not going to change the problems in education, we’re going to oppose another tax grab.”

Compare that to this clunker from Mayor Potter's chief of staff Nancy Hamilton:

""Failure is not an option. We owe this to our kids, and shame on all of you who aren’t with us. The greater good will prevail. We have to do this. There is no other choice, and it doesn’t matter whether you like it or not."

Now I'm looking up this comment thread and I'm seeing a fair amount of concern about this proposal. And we've got Hamilton saying "shame on you" and "we have to do this?" What does that sound like to voters who are anywhere near the fence? Retract, step back, do anything...but, if you want this thing to actually, pass DO NOT speak in those terms again.

What gets my goat beyond Nancy's statement as stated in the above post. "When Commissioner Randy Leonard showed Potter those numbers, the mayor agreed to rethink the distribution formula. Nancy Hamilton, his chief of staff, said Potter was firm on the overall tax rates and the need to raise $57 million for Portland Public." Much to some business leaders' chagrin, the mayor also wants to extend a business license fee surcharge for schools another four years. The Mayor is trying to walk very fast on a broken-down picket fence..if he does not watch it..he will going to get himself skewered by the rusty nails(business groups) and massive splinters(outer East Portland).

Aaron,

I don't get it. You have posted twice saying the David Douglas and other districts should vote against this (I'd say cutting off their nose to spite their faces, since they'll be far worse off without it).

Are you criticizing the Mayor for reconsidering the allocation formula? Why would that "get your goat"? Isn't that precisely what you've been arguing?

On businesses, Potter's proposals eliminates double taxation of business income. But don't you think businesses should carry part of the load here? Don't businesses benefit from a healthy school system?

"What keeps kids out of OSP is attentive parents. Regardless of the amount of funding at their school."

Larry, you can't be serious. In a perfect world every parent is attentive and every child lives in a home with two loving parents who are educated, have great jobs, are mentally healthy and have plenty of time to nurture their children. In a perfect world these very parents grew up in similar households of perfection.

Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. Those children who’s parents who are uneducated, poor and don't have time to nurture their children because they are picking up an extra shift at Wendy’s are the children who need stable schools the most. Allow yourself to image what it would be like to live in an unstable household while attending an unstable school. Hopelessness breeds desperation. A good school can provide hope in an otherwise chaotic situation.

My dear Larry...

Trying to reform schools without fixing poverty is like trying to clean one side of a screen door... hopeless.

Kids spend 83% of their waking hours at a place called "home" and about 17% sitting in a classroom.

Here's the scoop:

http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0602/berliner.html

Thanks for reading.

Paul,

If you read the post above of my last one and my critique of Nancy Hamilton stated that there is not any changes on what goes to PPS. If the Mayor changes the equation then PPS will not get the $57 million. That would leave approx $20million for approx 23000 students to divide up that would give David Douglas would be getting around $8.5 million; Parkrose around $7 million, Reynolds and Centennial would get remaining $4.5 million.

But if you do a per student basis(approx 70000 children that go to public schools in Portland), like Commissioner Leonard want. This would be approx. $1135 per student and that would give PPS just around $53million, David Douglas $11million, Parkrose $10million, the others would get ethe remaining $6million. That is alot to resources that the Mayor wants to give PPS and that will be taking away from David Douglas, Parkrose, Reynolds and Centinnal school districts.

As a pro-Ed businessman, who actually attended Nancy Hamilton's "non-sneak preview" reception for 35 at the Portland Business Alliance on Wednesday, I can say they have got to get a handle on their message. Even then, I am going to have to urge a NO on this one.

Nancy said that the Portland Association of Teachers have accepted a "healthcare cap and are paying part of their healthcare costs". This is FALSE. The school board got them to costshare 8% of the costs, then upped their pay and step increases to cover the increase. There was NO CAP.

Nancy said that districts don't reduce teacher counts as student numbers decline. That "it might take years to do so". This is false. PPS has cut staff midyear to manage resource the second half of the year. She's confused because a declining population district like Portland can keep funding based on the higher student count of a previous year, despite steep declines in the current year.

In a conversation about the BIT and BLF chasing out businesses and forcing families to leave and leading to further student declines for Portland, Nancy said student population was declining "to some extent because of a lack of stability in education funding in Portland". False. Right here on BO, PPS's own studies, cited by the former PPS budget chair state that there is no correlation.

In response to very passionate inquiries surrounding the PROMISE that the BIT/BLF surcharges would expire PERIOD this year, NO WEASEL WEASLE WORDS ALLOWED, Nancy basically said - You're right. You got screwed, and you're going to get screwed again. - It was very disappointing for those of us that, in very heated negotiations three years ago, dragged "rock solid" committments out of the Mayor/County Commission.

Now they want to skew the numbers toward PPS, as some reward for their fiscal mismanagement? No thanks. I think they can pay half their health costs like most other districts in the state, reprioritize their staffing and close a couple extremely low population high schools with a reshuffle of the boundaries. As for Nancy saying that the City has $12 million unallocated right now, toss that into the mix too. Get the county commission to throw in too. "kids first", right ladies?. Should get us to another legislative session, but don't think, pray, count on or "HOPE" for a significant increase in state dollars. Budget locally, and budget responsibly.

It's just too much to ask and that's from someone that had "HOPE" three years ago.

Enough.

The reason that closing low enrollment schools is off limits is because some of the more vocal wild eyed activists helping to pass the ITAX are indeed the parents that send their lil darlings to those low enrollment schools.

If the school board were to make rational non-political judgements to close 8 schools and two high schools and sell that property, the 57 million dollar deficit would vanish for atleast 3 years....and all we need is 3 years before the state fixes things....right?

In any case.....a SALES tax is far more palatable for long term school financing in the metro area....and believe me, augmenting the legislature's school funding will be LONG term. The ITAX, if passed, will be with us for the next 20 years.

As for the complaints from outer Southeast....hey get over it! The PPS needs the money far worse than you do! The district is under absurd management and a stifling teachers contract. We need a funding cushion to allow for that incompetenance dang it!

All the doom and gloom over not passing this tax in May is a crock. If we vote it down it will send a strong message to Potter and Co. that if you want a special tax it has to be fair....PERS pensioners cannot be exempt and ALL districts MUST receive the same per pupil funding. VOTE FOR A SALES TAX IN NOVEMBER!

WOW.....what a great string of posts! Good points by all. It appears that this dog of a tax proposal will never get of the kennel in May.

If education funding is such a big emergency, why doesn't the City kill its urban renewal projects, thus letting the tax revenues go back to the schools. I am tired of the City whining for more money from taxpayers, while at the same time giving away tax breaks to rich developers. The City has the power to turn this around tomorrow - with no new tax revenues. The pipe-dreamers at City Hall have sold education and public safety down the river for the sake of wealthy Pearl District condo dwellers. I am voting NO on this turkey.

Oh good gosh... Two of you here are freakin' killing me. Where do I start?? Oh boy, here we go.....

I said: "What keeps kids out of OSP is attentive parents. Regardless of the amount of funding at their school."

Tinker, you said, "Larry, you can't be serious. In a perfect world every parent is attentive and every child lives in a home with two loving parents who are educated, have great jobs, are mentally healthy and have plenty of time to nurture their children. In a perfect world these very parents grew up in similar households of perfection. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world."

My reply: Okay Tinker, please find me ONE mental health professional and/or child psychologist that will say that attentive parents are not the NUMBER ONE factor in whether a child ends up incarcerated or not. Of course many children today grow up in homes that are less than perfect, but guess what? No amount of school funding can make up for shitty parents.

And to be honest, the school shouldn't be trying to make up for bad parents. We, as a society, should be holding parents responsible for their (and their kids') actions.

Sid, you said: "My dear Larry... Trying to reform schools without fixing poverty is like trying to clean one side of a screen door... hopeless. Kids spend 83% of their waking hours at a place called "home" and about 17% sitting in a classroom."

My reply: Who the hell said anything about poverty? Prior to my post, I don't think poverty was mentioned AT ALL. I was responding to YOUR post that was trying to make a silly inverse correlation between the amount of money spent educating a child vs. the amount of money it takes to incarcerate an adult. Poverty was nowhere in the conversation. By the way, if you have access to any study that shows that increased school funding results in less incarceration, I'd love to see it.

Sid, your "83% of kids' time is spent at home" statistic (if it's real) actually buttresses my argument that PARENTS are the number one factor in whether a kid grows up playing nice vs. robbing banks.

And by the way, your "My Dear Larry" is awfully damn condenscending. I'm not an idiot.

Geesh. I'm amazed that ANYONE could take issue with my post: "What keeps kids out of OSP is attentive parents. Regardless of the amount of funding at their school." Are you kidding me??????

Paul wrote:

"If you think parents will flee to West Linn, Beaverton, or N. Clackmas, you haven't looked at class sizes in those districts. We'll lose the upper middle class to private schools and the middle class to Vancouver.

I can only communicate the informal opinions of the parents that I talk to every day. Of my 7th grade daughter's closest friends, I know only one (of about a dozen) whose parents are planning to hold on into the high schools."

I can tell you from experience that there aren't enough slots in the private high schools to accommodate many more than the flood of upper middle class to upper class kids who are already enrolled in the region's private middle schools or K-8 schools. At my daughter's private school right now, there are 10 applicants for every opening in the middle school. At the high school level, even with the normal attrition that occurs between 8th & 9th grade, there are 20 applicants for every opening - this for the opportunity to pay more than $20K per year. So don't count on the private schools absorbing this group of people.

No one mentioned any specific suburb - and of those you mentioned - I only consider one a viable choice. But that leaves dozens of others in Clackamas, Washington, and even unincorporated Multnomah County, plus Camas that still have reasonably funded schools and better student/faculty ratios than PPS. Since we've been in the market for housing we've found many of these locations and there is an astonishing amount of new construction going on in these areas. Given the types of housing we've been looking at, I'd say that not too many of the economically disadvantaged will be able to move there.

Take my word for it. Your own anecdotal figures support this. People are already looking for other solutions to the school problem, and having Portland attempting to pick their pockets for another "temporary" tax to "bandaid" the PPS will only accelerate the flight out of the district. We don't have to worry about the school issue wherever we live, because we made our decision to leave the public school system 9 years ago. Nevertheless, we continued to live in Portland, pay our property taxes, voted for the 3-year temporary I-Tax, and have been paying a solid 4 figure iTax for 3 years, including the current year. But, our house is no longer satisfactory for our needs, and can't be changed to meet them in the future. Therefore we will be moving, and the continued problems in the PPS and the unending stream of requests to transfer money from our pockets to PPS is a significant factor in our search being limited to very specific areas outside the City of Portland (actually, outside Multnomah County). We have no faith in a fairer solution from the state and feel that Multco/Portland are trying to guarantee that no more widespread solution will ever have to be found. Thus, we'll be gone from PPS, Portland, and Multnomah County before next school year begins. We could actually vote for the new ITax with impunity except for the time we'd still be in City of Portland - another 6 months at most. But, we have no confidence that giving this money to PPS will encourage it to make some of the harder decisions (closing smaller schools, selling off property, consolidating the district) that seem so difficult for them to make now. We'll just have more of the same old same old.

I continue to think this is a lose/lose proposition, and nothing anyone has written has persuaded me otherwise.

And P.S. - to those who think that recent PERS retirees will somehow have to pay the tax while earlier retirees won't, think again. There has been no change in the state law; no change in federal law. PERS, federal, and other civil service retirements are all exempt from the I-Tax, both old and new.

This kills me, how's this work? The Timber Receipts Repair money sure didn't end up out here because Education moneys go to all... Please, don't tell me how expensive it is for schools in the City, Keeeripes.

One of my biggest problems with this proposal is that it fees into the notion that government can not be trusted. We were told that the Mult. Tax would be temporary and would go away.

I don't remember anyone even suggesting that the temporary Multnomah County Income tax it would not be replaced by other revenue. Its true the idea was for the state to come up with more money. It didn't.

More to the point - we are the government. Citizens in Multnomah county decided the income tax would be temporary and it was. I don't know why citizens in Portland should feel bound by that decision and vote down a city tax to support their schools. Its actually pretty silly to suggest they should care at all. The question is do they want to tax themselves to support the local schools, not what citizens of the county did four years ago. If you don't want to pay the tax, vote no, but don't blame it on Multnomah County.

PPS could follow Riverdale'slead and solicit annual donations from parents and neighbors.

Riverdale asks for a flat $3,000 a year per student from its mostly affluent parent base.

PPS would use a sliding scale from four levels of affluence. Based on 45,000 PPS students each group amounts to 20% or 9,000 students.

PPS would ask the most affluent 20% of parents to donate $3,000 for 9,000 students or $27 million; next most affluent 20% donates $2,000 per student or $18 million; third 20% $1,000 or $9 million; the 4th 20% $500 or $4.5 million. That adds up to $58.5 million for PPS before contributions from business and the public at large come in.

Incidentally mrfearless47, Riverdale is advertising on TV for transfer students from public districts that allow them or tuition paying students from districts such as Portland that do not allow such transfers. I believe Riverdale tuition is still under $10,000 a year.

Howard notes:

"Incidentally mrfearless47, Riverdale is advertising on TV for transfer students from public districts that allow them or tuition paying students from districts such as Portland that do not allow such transfers. I believe Riverdale tuition is still under $10,000 a year."

We are aware of Riverdale's program. Ironically, Riverdale is geographically the closest high school to our current residence. Our daughter is only in the 7th grade now. While we have a guaranteed slot her current school for high school, we are considering other private (and Riverdale) options as 9th grade approaches. We have St Mary's (my wife's an alum - a legacy admit), Jesuit (a common place for 9th graders from my daughter's current school to go), Riverdale, and several others to consider. Riverdale is attractive because the founding principal of the school is the former principal of her current school's high school and the curricula are quite parallel. We've made no decision about high school yet, but other than Riverdale, there are no public schools under consideration. But, regardless of the high school our daughter ends up at, we won't be living inside the Portland city limits after next fall, whether the i-Tax passes or fails. We've budgeted high tuition into our lives and the Portland public schools have already failed two of my children in incalculable ways (thank goodness they were bright enough to recover from the damage by college time, and both have excellent high paying jobs - one in Portland, one in Minneapolis). I'm retired and don't have a downtown Portland workplace that I need to commute to daily; my wife works in Clackamas Country and commutes away from Portland daily. We have no need to be living in Portland anymore, and our current house no longer meets our needs (or our physical infirmities). So, it will be bye-bye City of Portland.

Ross Williams....you may have amnesia but Vera Katz campaigned mightly for the original ITAX and did indeed come out strongly that it was a three year tax and another ITAX proposal should not follow it. As Portland's mayor at the time I consider that a promise by the city equal to the one made by the county. We've been betrayed.

I'm not suggesting that we should stand by and do nothing....a sales tax or property tax proposal in November would be a much fairer approach (requiring Tom Potter to pay Tom Potters tax on his pension like I will have to on my pension). A sales tax of 3% would solve this area's school funding problems for decades to come and it WOULD pass.

This dog of a tax won't hunt.

There are just as many "Red Portlanders" who will move if it does pass. One "temporary" tax is expiring precisely as a new "temporary" tax comes online: they couldn't have timed that better? If they had made it 2% with the proviso that Wapato would oeprate at full capacity, they would have gained access to a larger voting block.

What about the additionals costs associated with a whole new adminstrative and collection function: new forms, new database, new compliance/enforcement specialists. Unless they outsource these functions to Multnomah County, the CoP will be starting from scratch.

As Portland's mayor at the time I consider that a promise by the city equal to the one made by the county.

Whatever Vera said, she could only speak for herself. That has nothing to do with whether the citizens of Portland want to tax themselves to support their schools.

I consider that a promise by the city equal to the one made by the county. We've been betrayed.

Did you vote for the county tax?

Unless they outsource these functions to Multnomah County, the CoP will be starting from scratch.

Do you even live in Multnomah County? Its hard to believe, since you would likley know that the city of Portland was responsible for managing collection of the county income tax.

Ross:

I do live in Portland. I voted against the Multco I-Tax because I feared the "temporary" part would not pan out. I was not aware the City has been collecting the County's tax. Why? I trust the County reimbursed the City for their staff/admin/overhead costs?

It only blurs the line even further between City and County: this is a continuation of the I-Tax by the collection authority. The funding is dedicated to a service (education) not included in the City Charter. It merely constitutes a transfer payment (or subsidy) from the City of Portland to a State/County mandated service.

If the City of Portland can subsidize education, how come they can't fix the bridges or open Wapato Jail? Maybe even start replacing some 100 year old sewer pipes?

I predict the City Income tax will be defeated 60/40 or better. Even Portland's voters will see this "new" tax for what it is: a continuation of the county's I-Tax with a rate reduction to make it more politically viable.

I voted against the Multco I-Tax

Then you have nothing to complain about, do you? Since you didn't vote for the tax, no one betrayed you. I voted for the tax and as far as I am concerned it was "temporary" because it would end without us voting for it again. It is ending. The city is picking up the very necessary tab for schools.

If the City of Portland can subsidize education, how come they can't fix the bridges or open Wapato Jail?

It could. But those two things are not nearly as important to Portland residents as the city's education system. If the Sellwood bridge was closed tommorrow, most people and businesses in Portland wouldn't notice except when they saw it in the news. Same with Wapato - open it and the only people who will notice are criminals and police. Not that fixing the Sellwood bridge or opening Wapato isn't important, but I would be more concerned about keeping the Buckman pool open.

But the fact is Portland's failing school system is a threat to every homeowner and business in Portland. It is a major threat to the region's economic vitality. If the public schools continue to decline it is going to be difficult to keep the talented young people who are flocking to Portland once they start to have children.

Ross: in the interests of full disclosure, you ought to preface your comments with a "Multnomah County Employee" disclaimer. It doesn't mean your opinions are less credible, but you clearly have a dog in this fight.

Is there any way that Multnomah County could have reduced spending over the past 3 years, thereby freeing up funds that could have been directed to schools? 2% for public art comes to mind, or paying employees who didn't show up for work. I am confident there are other examples of frivolous spending in the County budget, each with it's own vested interest fighting for survival.

If "putting children first" is the mantra, how come the County spends money on so many discretionary programs that fail to put children first? I'm just looking for a little intellectual honesty here, not perfection.

P A U L !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geeeeesh I hate responding to defend my comments when the dolt who questions them doesn't read them carefully!

I said close those 2 high schools and 8 elementary schools AND SELL OFF THE LAND!!!! That my friend would balance the budget for three years. PPS has at least 20% more school buildings than the student count justifies. My plan would only address a portion of that surplus.

As for a sales tax...there have been three local polls over the last 90 days that indicate a sales tax within Multnomah countyr would indeed have a good chance of passage IF all proceeds were limited ONLY to the schools and nothing else. AND....if a property tax proposal were put on the ballot in November it would have a decent chance of passing too. The double majority is not a problem in Nov like it is in May.

The mayor lacked any imagination or leadership on this issue, and instead seems content to carry the water of Portland's radical wild eyed school activists to avoide being criticized.

"TOM POTTERS PENSION IS EXEMPT FROM TOM POTTERS TAX"

EDDIE! I DID READ YOUR COMMENTS. AND I FIND YOUR CLAIMS OF 157 MILLION DOLLARS in savings by closing 8 elementary schools and 2 high schools unbelievably high.

As of the most recent figures I could find (Metro report dated 2003: http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/2040_report.pdf), land acreage ranges in value from approximately $500,000/acre for developed commercial to $125000/acre for single family homes.

If we value the 10 schools at the maximum, each on what, two acres of land, and as if they were already developed commercial facilities (truly absurd), and then we double the value figuring the buildings are easily convertible to commercial use (also absurd), we pencil out at a one time figure of $20,000,000.

now let's assume I'd being completely conservative and we'll triple my estimate. Gee, we're only NINETY MILLION DOLLARS SHORT. You think we spend 90,000,000 on staff in 10 schools?

Tom Potter didn't make the laws regarding pensions. The implication of your comment is that Potter proposed this tax rather than another because he is not subject to it. Do you really believe that? If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

"Ross: in the interests of full disclosure, you ought to preface your comments with a "Multnomah County Employee" disclaimer."

1) What does Multnomah County have to do with it? The money form this new tax goes to the schools. And I don't have any kids, grandkids or nephews in the school.

2) I am not a Multnomah County employee, and haven't been for a while. Moreover when I was, I had no connection to any elected official. I worked for the Citizen Involvement Committee, an independent group of volunteers. I had less influence on how the county spends money than you have.

3) Full disclosure - I don't live in Portland any more either.

So I really don't have a dog in this fight, other than caring about Portland.

IF YOU DON'T LIVE HERE, THEN PLEASE DON'T ADVOCATE IN FAVOR OF RAISING MY TAXES

Let me guess, you moved to Vancouver? Havana?

If you care about Portland, we happily accept checks made out to Portland Schools Foundation, which can be mailed to:

Portland Schools Foundation 905 NW 12th Avenue Portland, OR 97209

Did anyone read today's very fair coverage of the schools battle today in the O? I was really quite impressed with the balance and the facts presented, many of which I either did not know or had not considered. The "failure" of the legislature was one. They apparently increased the schools budget by 7%, and in order to replace PPS's I-tax money, would have had to allocate $1 billion more dollars to the schools. That's a chunk. So it's apparently not fair for the mayor to be saying the legislature failed us, a refrain I hear often and am always tempted to repeat.

It also made mention of the efforts to curb spending on health care costs which, although not declining, have been slowed in growth. I think it's apparent (at least to me) that two things are required - first is PERS reform. The State Supreme Court made that one tricky, but it must be worked on. The system is simply unsustainable.

The second as I see it is to make all the PPS schools charter schools, heading each with a strong principal (and schools like Jeff and Benson should get the pick of the litter) and allow those principals to run their schools as they see fit. Pay good teachers more, much more. Fire bad ones. Fast. Quit teaching to the test and foster an environment of curiosity, creativity, and community. Let any student in the district go to any school in the district. Let the dollars flow with those kids. Most people will send their kids to the neighborhood school unless it's awful anyway, so there shouldn't be too much shuffling.

Let the school board monitor the success of the principals and pay them or fire them accordingly.

That's my idea of a new way of doing business. Thoughts?

(tongue firmly planted in cheek)

Sounds like union busting to me, Don. I can't believe you have the audacity to suggest that school spending went up 7%, when every teacher can tell you spending went down. Down, down, down.

You haven't been paying attention: the problem is not enough money. Remember, its FOR THE CHILDREN. The children need more money, money, money, money, money. Money is the only thing that can make a difference. Teachers can't make a difference, Principals can't make a difference, parents can't make a difference, the school board can't make a difference. Nothing can make a difference except MORE MONEY.

More money for the children, Don. Don, Don, Don. If you ever ran for the PPS board, you would be done, done, done.

Here's the best part of today's article in the O (by Steve Carter):

Portland, with its high priority on retaining neighborhood schools, has 25 percent more students than Beaverton but twice as many schools.

Does it sound like we should be closing some schools?

Ironically, Beaverton's student to teacher ratio very close to Portland's: 19.8 vs. 19.1; however, if you add in instructional assistants, then Beaverton closes the gap and both ratios improve. To wit, Beaverton at 16.3 vs. Portland at 15.8 (students to total instructional staff).

It's worth noting that since 1997-98, Portland's student to teacher ratio declined from 21.44 to 19.06 (in 2004-05). That's right, Portland: your Student to Teacher ratio declined by 2.38 students over the last 7 years. If you're tired of large class sizes, move to Tubman Elementary: only 10.7 kids per teacher.

click here for Oregon's Department of Education staffing statistics

Another way of looking at the data: from 1997 to 2004, student enrollment in Portland declined from 55,321 students (with 2,580 full-time equivalent Instructional Staff) to 47,674 (with 2,501 full-time equivalent Instructional Staff), without including instructional assistants. If they had maintained the 1997 student to teacher ratios (21.44): they would have 2,223 teachers (vs. 2,501 in 2004-2005). They "lost" 79 teachers but should have lost another 278 teachers (rounding up from 277.6), in order to achieve an aggregate decline of 357 teachers. Which begs the question: how much do 278 teachers cost? Remember, its FOR THE CHILDREN!

Hmmmmm....looks like Paul has his kids in the wrong school. My granddaughter attends elementary school in PPS......her class has 21 students in it. Last year she had 19 in her class.

Alices figures seem right on. If PPS laid off 278 teachers to reflect the rapidly declining enrollment that would be a savings of right around $15 million a year. Then as Eddie suggested, they close some schools (20 rather than Eddie's scenerio of 10) to also reflect the rapid declining enrollment they might be at a point that money from the city and country general funds could provide a full school year.

THEN....we wouldn't care if Tom Potter's pension was exempt becasue there would be no Tom Potter Tax! Whoopeeee!

How about a program aimed at trying to keep families with school age children from fleeing to the suburbs or private school? Something besides: if mommy and daddy care about kids, they'll vote yes on the City's New Income Tax.

Don't forget that public school funding is dependent on how many kids actually show up for class. With declining enrollments, and a large fixed overhead budget, increasing Student to Teacher ratios may be the only solution to maintaining the generous PERS benefits our educators negotiated without a local funding option.

You would think Portland's intelligentsia would be falling all over themselves trying to make the city more family friendly. Maybe every subsidized Condo Farm should include a public restroom and play area on the ground floor? Toys on the Tram? Lifejackets for kids who want to bicycle on the Esplanade? Crayons at every 2% for Art unveiling?

Ross: I heard it's going to be 81 degrees in Havana today. You lucky dog.

How about a program aimed at trying to keep families with school age children from fleeing to the suburbs or private school? Something besides: if mommy and daddy care about kids, they'll vote yes on the City's New Income Tax.

Don't forget that public school funding is dependent on how many kids actually show up for class. With declining enrollments, and a large fixed overhead budget, increasing Student to Teacher ratios may be the only solution to maintaining the generous PERS benefits our educators negotiated without a local funding option.

You would think Portland's intelligentsia would be falling all over themselves trying to make the city more family friendly. Maybe every subsidized Condo Farm should include a public restroom and play area on the ground floor? Toys on the Tram? Lifejackets for kids who want to bicycle on the Esplanade? Crayons at every 2% for Art unveiling?

Ross: I heard it's going to be 81 degrees in Havana today. You lucky dog.

".her class has 21 students in it. Last year she had 19 in her class."

Which is still higher than the averaqe class size cited by Alice.

There is no question that there is a contrast between Beaverton where kids are going to classes in temporary buildings without plumbing and Portland which is closing schools for lack of kids. This is a symptom of the classic problem with new development, you have to build new infrastructure to support it even when you already have the infrastructure available elsewhere. The result is that both Beaverton and Portland schools are having financial problems.

The apparent argument that the inefficiencies created by how the region is growing should be taken out on the kids seems to me specious. Eventually things will even out again but that won't help the kids who are in school today.

Portland has closed some schools, but there are plenty of good reasons not to close schools as a solution. The fact is that if you own a home in Portland, closing the local school is not going to help your property values. We have schools in places like Halfway that have very low class sizes for the same reason. Schools are part of what makes a community work. Its not at all clear that closing schools to save money doesn't just drive more people with children out of the community - which leads to more school closings. Allowing that cycle to run itslef out may makes sense if you are a free-market ideologue, but not if you own a home and pay taxes in Portland.

Senor Ross:

19.1 is the average class size I cited for Portland's School district in the 2004-2005 school year.

Charlie said of his granddaughter"...last year she had 19 in her class"

19 is less than 19.1, not "still higher", as you mistakenly noted above. Did you attend Portland Public Schools? Take any math? True or False: 19<19.1

I own a home 3 blocks from a local middle school and 10 blocks from a local high school. My car has been broken into, my home has been vandalized all by neighborhood kids, I see kids smoking God-knows-what on the basketball court on my evening walks. A home across the street from the middle school recently sold and the owners lost money on it (they moved to Vancouver). I agree with Larry that parents are the most important "teachers" a child will have and would modify what Ross has written:

Having a school in your community doesn't make the community work unless it's a GOOD school (though kids should be able to walk to school, which might actually help our childhood obesity problem).

My suggestion, which reflects a pet peeve of mine, is to have a graduated tax that would allow parents with children in a particular school system pay more tax money into a dedicated fund for that school system. I'm willing to do my part for the community aspect of schooling but I have also chosen not to have the 2.2 kids that most people on this overpopulated planet thinks it's their God-given right and responsibility to have. In fact, I recently spent a bit of my own personal, post tax money to ensure permanently that I would not have kids, my contribution to a problem I feel strongly about. Why can't those of us who don't want kids pay a smaller tax to support the community and keep our neighbors' kids in school/out of trouble, and let the proud parents of Portland throw the weight of their wallets behind PPS?

NSGN:

I don't smoke and have three hard-wired (battery backup) smoke detectors in my home. I don't own a BBQ. I clean my oven twice a year. I've never had a house fire, and would hope I could put a fire out with the multiple fire extinguishers I have placed in my garage and kitchen.

Can my taxes be reduced to account for the fact I don't wish to support Portland's Fire Department's generous pension and disability funds, given that I never anticipate using their services. This is a problem I fell VERY strongly about.

I'd also like a refund for Voter Owned Elections and all foreign travel expenses on "official business" that city leaders and staff have incurred.

Alice:

You seemed to have missed the class size of 21 in that example. The average of 21 and 19 is 20, which I think is still higher than 19.1. Not that it matters very much.

A home across the street from the middle school recently sold and the owners lost money on it

To be fair, I don't think anyone who lives across the street from any school beyond elementary school wouldn't be happier if the school was a few blocks away. Talk to the neighbors of Central Catholic, presumably a pretty good school. Kids are kids and they sometimes act like it.

Can my taxes be reduced to account for the fact I don't wish to support Portland's Fire Department's generous pension and disability funds, given that I never anticipate using their services.

Before you propose that, contact your insurance company and find out what your insurance costs will be without any fire department. I think you will find you are far better off paying the pensions.

The data from the 1997-1998 school year was 21 students (per FTE Instructional Staff, or FTEIS); Charlie was referring to the 2004-2005 school year, which the Oregon Department of Education pegged Portland's ratio at 19.1 students per FTEIS.

Here's what matters most: student enrollment is declining quickly, while the number of teachers employed is declining s l o w l y. That creates a funding problem when the district is paid "per pupil" and their legacy/overhead costs are (largely) fixed or rising.

On the childless tax reduction vs. unused fire services: both examples are silly. That's my point.

Thank you Alice....now I see the difficulty some of the elementary teachers have in teaching math....Ross was obviously a challenge back in his grade school days. BUT!!! We got him there!

Several letters to the editor in the big O today concerning Tom's Tax. A couple even blew their horn for my funding solution...a 3% sales tax. With a sales tax we'd be assured that all those that work in Portland but live in the suburbs (like me) and all the PERS recipients (like Tom) would contribute to the funding problem. AND YES....if someone in Gresham or Beaverton works in Portland they consume city services at some level so I DO think they should contribute.

ALAS....Tom took the easy, unimaginative, safe way out and went with the old ITAX idea. No courage in that.

Paul:

The DOE data is not segmented by individual grades at each school. The average student to teacher ratio at Duniway is 21.1.

PPS may have more accurate data.

All of your statistical concerns ignore the global trend: Portland Public Schools have reduced their average class size by ELEVEN PERCENT (over the past 7 years), from 21.44 to 19.06. All the while we've been told the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Truth be told: the sky is rising, together will many PERS accounts and annual contractual cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs).

Charlie was referring to the 2004-2005 school year, which the Oregon Department of Education pegged Portland's ratio at 19.1 students per FTEIS.

Charlie made reference to two years, this one and last "her class has 21 students in it. Last year she had 19 in her class." I averaged the two.

And just to be clear. It would seem that the average class size and the average size of a student's class are different calculations. If you have classes of 30,20 and 10, the average class size is obviously 20. But the average size of a student's class is 23.3 since more students are in the larger classes. And half the students are in the class of 30. That may explain why most students apparently are in larger than average classes. Or not, depending on who is doing the figuring.

Not that any of this has anything to do with whether people should vote to pay for schools.

I understand where your numbers are coming from. Guess I should have been clearer, sorry.

Jenny -

That comment wasn't in response to your numbers, I was composed it before seeing them. In fact student/teacher ratio is pretty clear. The problem is when people start interpreting that as having a direct relationship to the number of students in the typical class or the typical student's class.

I really think the last measure is the one that matters. Parents are concerned about their student's class size, not system averages. If half the students are in classes of 30, then half the parents see that as what they can expect from the school system. And those parents are going to be looking for alternatives even if the student/teacher ratio is only 19.

Paul:

The PPS 2005/06 budget shows (on page 31) they have budgeted 19.26 full-time equivalent teachers at Duniway, with a projected enrollment of 412 students. That produces a student to FTE ratio of 21.4 which is better than the 23.8 district target ratio.

The data appears to include 2 administrative/support positions, which would increase the ratio to 24 students per teacher.

I've got an idea: if one parent VOLUNTEERS with their kid's class once a month (24 parents and roughly 20 school days allows for 83% participation, assuming each child has one parent), then you can cut the Student/Adult ratio by 50%. Alternately, if two -- highly motivated --parents split the month in half (8% participation), the ratio is still cut in half! And parent volunteers don't earn PERS or healthcare benefits. We can call this innovative program PARENTING!

Jenni: we're using the same data, but my starting point was the first year the data is available online (1997-1998 school year).

Ross: you are guilty of intentional misrepresentation or you're not reading very carefully. Charlie's granddaughter's class size was for the last two years (meaning 2004/05 and 2005/06). It makes no sense to average 1997/98 and 2004/05: they are totally disparate data sets.

It seems like you and Jenni are both trying to obfuscate the truth.

It makes no sense to average 1997/98 and 2004/05

No, it doesn't.

Charlie's granddaughter's class size was for the last two years (meaning 2004/05 and 2005/06).

And the average of the two classes (which I referenced) is 20.

you are guilty of intentional misrepresentation or you're not reading very carefully.

Or somebody is ...

That produces a student to FTE ratio of 21.4 which is better than the 23.8 district target ratio.

FTE's are entirely a budgeting statistic, they tell you little or nothing about the typical class size or quality of education a student receives. Are we discussing labor negotiations or the future of Portland and its public schools?

Ross:

You're better at debate tactics than math.

If you want to monitor a decline in student to teacher ratios over time, it makes no sense to start averaging sequential years. It just dilutes the trend. As for the real world value of the statistics: blame the Oregon Department of Education or Portland Public Schools. If I was running the show, it would take less than a week to produce a real time snapshot of how many kids are in every classroom in every school in the district. If they don't publish this data its because they don't want us to know.

Remind us again why you care so much about this tax, since you're not going to pay it (you don't live in Portland), and you don't have any kids in Portland Public Schools. You are beginning to sound an awful lot like a shill for the teacher's union.

Paging Tony Larson AGAIN. District teacher population math assistance requested. Anybody have his email address? The one I have is dead.

If you want to monitor a decline in student to teacher ratios over time, it makes no sense to start averaging sequential years. It just dilutes the trend.

What does that have to do with Charlie's anecdotal comment about the increase in his grandchild's classroom sizes over the past two years. His grandchild's class size went up so ...?

No one should care about the trend in student-to-teacher ratios anyway. They aren't meaningful.

As for the real world value of the statistics: blame the Oregon Department of Education or Portland Public Schools.

The fact that you are misusing them here does not mean they don't have any use.

If they don't publish this data its because they don't want us to know.

Or because they have no use for it. What would they use it for?

If I was running the show, it would take less than a week to produce a real time snapshot of how many kids are in every classroom in every school in the district.

Which is why you aren't running the show, wasting our tax dollars gathering data for blog debates. I'm sure there is tons of interesting information to be gathered.

You are beginning to sound an awful lot like a shill for the teacher's union.

Uh, no. I think the teacher's unions are particularly concerned about teacher/student ratios. I'm not.

Paul: I agree that 24 kids is too many in one classroom, especially in the first 3 grades. I hope there is at least one F/T instructional assistant or several volunteers in those Duniway classrooms. You may have heard that California capped k-3rd grade at 20 kids per classroom. I don't recall how it was funded.

Jenni: I believe parental volunteers can make all the difference in the world. Granted, not every parent can take time off from work; however, there are many stay at home parents that could carve out one day per month. If nothing else, it would remind parents what a challenging task the teachers face. A concerted "support your schools" campaign might also persuade some fence sitting voters on future tax measures.

I don't believe the public schools can raise our children for us. Based on personal observation, I know there are parents who do very little parenting. Their teachers or neighbors are left to take up the slack. That's wrong.

Nevertheless, with class sizes going down, and salary and benefits comprising fully 83% of the PPS budget, I will vote no against the latest incarnation of the I-tax. Maybe every City Employee could volunteer one day per month "for the Children."

Everybody's right. One set of numbers is derived by dividing total certified staff into ADMr. The other set is derived by a survey of class size amongst certificated staff. The difference is that certificated staff may have out of classroom placements. ('tis also why a focus on bumping class ratio by that instrusive 2.4 students would likely yield $5-6 million, rather than $15 million)

Please don't get too excited about ODE's database initiative website. It has very little utility, for historical comparisons. Data mishaps and an intervening upgrade in the state chart of accounts makes for very unfortunate "apples to zuchini" levels of analysis. -Tony Larson

Alice,

Yes, Duniway benefits from a very well-funded PTA, which is why we have music at the school, and lots of parent volunteers. That's why we moved into the neighborhood.

Unfortunately, all this become irrelevant once you begin specialized topics in later elementary and especially middle and high school. Parent volunteers are of course critical, but few can teach algebra, physics, social studies, etc.

Nor do parent volunteers typically grade homework or prepare lesson plans.

Creating something called a "adult/child" ratio may work for k-3rd grade. After that, it just doesn't cut it. And, as Jenni points out, using the availability of parent volunteers as an excuse to cut funding is highly, highly unfair socioeconomically.

I don't know where the 83% figure comes from, or what comparable figures are in other districts ( The PPS website (http://www.pps.k12.or.us/news-c/budget2c.pdf) reports 73% of expenditures for all staff costs). I'm not surprised to find a very labor intensive enterprise like education has a large proportion of its expenditures dedicated to personnel costs.

I don't know what

Does Tony Larson speak on behalf of the PPS District, or is he expressing a personal opinion?

Total enrollment divided by classroom teachers ("students to teacher ratio") is a very important number. These are the people that our children depend on for direct instruction. It is a scalable number: it can be compared from classroom to classroom, school to school, and district to discrict. If they choose not to calculate that number then shame on them. If the survey method (presumably employed by PPS?) is more accurate, then I would love to see a historical chart of that number for the past decade.

If they make it so complex that you cannot track it from year-to-year, I am inclined to wonder why? Who benefits from the inability to determine whether average class size is going up or down? Facts are stubborn things.

I stand by my analysis of the Oregon Department of Education database: we have more full time teacher equivalents on staff today than in 1997 relative to the current enrollment in PPS.

More to the point, just because PPS or ODE have data integrity issues is no reason to give them more money. The pragmatist in me says Hogwash! they know precisely how the student to teacher ratio has changed over the last decade.

If they have teachers assigned to "out of classroom placements" perhaps it's time for all hands on deck, and into the classroom. It's for the CHILDREN don't you know.

Hi Alice - Non-district communications. I'm a professional mediator, who has served on the district's budget review committee for eight years, the last (six?) as Chair... as well as on just about every other geeky advisory body they could devise. I'm a PBA member, and served, in the past, on the Board of Community and Parents for Public Schools and the Interim Legislative Roundtable on School Finance Reform.. but that is going wayyyyyyyy back.

There is "class size" and there is the all funds "student/teacher ratio". There was a little bit of interchangeability going on in the above conversation,.. so that just needs to be sorted out.

You are saying different things, but all are correct. You just need to be aware that there is the "all certified to student ratio" and the "certified, and in the classroom to student ratio" (class size).

These are large-scale levels of analysis types of data,.. whereas on the ground... you will find classroom teachers, certified support staff, certified staff on special assignment (TOSAs), and classroom to classroom,.. the ratio is heavily impacted by funding sources and expenditure limitations (Special Grant Funds, Title I, Foundation dollars, etc.) and even specialized placements (ELL-BL/ESL, Special Ed., etc.).

The Big "O" did a bang-up job.

The Portland Public Schools Citizens Budget Review Committee (CBRC) April 11, 2005 Report is found at page 19 (pdf page 22) of the 2005 Approved Budget document at:

http://159.191.14.139/.docs/pg/400/rid/10656/f/Approved_Budget_2005_06.pdf

Comparing "classroom to classroom" does not always show special ed teachers, librarians, and other necessary staff. Or are those not important because all that matters is the classroom teachers? And what of the teachers (I have substituted for them, I know they exist) who don't have a permanent classroom and might be in Rm. 23 for 2 periods and then Rm. 6 for 2 periods, etc. Or the part time teachers who work in secondary schools but there wasn't enough money in the budget for full time (or .3 or .5 school librarians, for that matter)?

Impeccable credentials, Tony. Thank you for your service.

At the risk of sounding cynical: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

At the risk of sounding stupid, are there more or less teachers (per x number of students) employed by PPS today than in 1997?

NSGN says his neighbor LOST MONEY selling his home in Portland.

A person has to work really really really hard to lose money in Portland, so props to your neighbor... Lars Larson and his dinghy!

Paul: that level of detail is not available on the PPS website. I have left a voicemail for the appropriate person at PPS. While the "sum over classrooms" data may be most relevant to parents, I am very interested in the long term trend of the aggregate data: it will demonstrate if the resources devoted to direct instruction have expanded or contracted over the past decade. That data should prove more interesting to voters.

Vickie Phillips noted -- on page 3 of her budget statement for 2005/2006 (page 6 of the PDF)

How will this budget affect typical class size? it's always hard to be exact. After all, many of these school staff are counselors, librarians, secretaries, reading specialists or other non-classroom staff.

Effective ratio of Average Daily Membership to General Fund Licensed FTE (Ranges illustrate variation among schools) Proposed 2004-05 Budget 2005-06 Elementary School.................11:1 to 22:1............18:1 to 22:1 Middle School.......................14:1 to 20:1............18:1 to 21:1 High School...........................12:1 to 22:1............18:1 to 21:1

Hi Alice, et al. - I haven't forgotten you. We're digging for it.

Here is enrollment data going back to the 1870s:

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/depts/mis/enroll/2002-03/er_023.pdf

Enrollment 1997 - 1998 vs. 2005-2006

It provides 1997-1998 enrollment as being: 56,583** I'm going to tread lightly on this number, as at the time... there was a problem with the double counting of certain vulnerable, and transient, populations... therefore the figure reported to ODE, of 55,321, is the applicable baseline.

http://www.ode.state.or.us/sfda/reports/r0045rpt.asp

The 2005-2006 enrollment figure is published as 47,008, on the Fall 2005 Enrollment Report of December 22, 2005.

STAFFING:

1997-1998: 2,595.7 FTE Certified Staff

2005-2006: The Budget Office is working on my request for the January split at this very moment. Please hold tight. I'll report, once available.

Those interested in receiving a ten page .pdf containing the six year enrollment trends for Portland Public Schools programs, please write me at: [email protected]

Again,.. busy time of year.. please hold tight.. we're producing as fast as we can on many fronts.

Thanx !

-Tony Larson

It is a start, but I don't think you can limit the discussion (with the Teachers Union) to healthcare costs.

If salary and benefits consume 80% to 85% of the general fund, you need to expand the discussion to include everything: days of instruction, salary schedules, COLA's, hiring/firing practices, employee share of healthcare premiums, even (dare I say) PERS.

If you want to decrease the growth in General Fund expenditures, you have to get some concessions from the Teachers. Reelection concerns might prevent the School Board or the CoP from exacting any real concessions from the Union. If you want better education for your kids, some forced retirements or no-contest terminations have to occur.

Well, it does appear that Tom Potter (actually Nancy Hamilton)didn't have all the ducks in a row when he announced his new ITAX proposal. In my opinion there are three things that make this tax a non-starter with the electorate:

1. The county ITAX was "sold" as a 3 year maximum/no repeat promise. You can make the somewhat lame argument that it isn't a county
   tax anymore, just a city tax. The only people who are impressed by that argument are me and my neighbors in Gresham and we won't be casting any votes this time around.

2. PERS pensioners are exempt. It may be the law folks but the slogan:

   "Tom Potters pension is exempt from Tom Potters tax, is yours?"

   is Don McIntire's dream campaign tool. I know Don socially (yes he is rather amusing in a social setting) and he is already laughing about the bumper stickers with that on them.

3. The allocation per student across districts. Oh my oh my how did Nancy talk Tom into that? She (and the mayor) knew they'd lose
   Randy Leonard in a heartbeat....not to mention all the businesses and school activists in East county.

I think Paul Gronke's plan deserves some discussion. November won't present the double majority obstacle for a property tax and SURELY the city and the county can find some bridge money for a year.

I for one still think that by uniting all the school activists in Multnomah County and campaigning long and hard for a very well written SALES TAX measure....that sets the tax at 2% with no increases without another election, and dedicates ALL proceeds to the schools, we would be successful! (AND the schools would get a bit more over a 5 year period than they would with Tom's ITAX). Hell....raise it to 4% and eliminate all or most of the business tax. The business community (normally a hard sell on sales taxes) would join in the campaign with untold vigor and MONEY!

Plus, with little or no business tax watch the jobs flow back into Multnomah County from Washington, Clackamas, and Clark counties! Watch those who work in Portland and escape to the suburbs contribute! Watch all the visitors contribute! Watch all the PERS retirees contribute! Watch Charlie contribute!

PLEASE don't bring up the regressive nature of a sales tax. They manage to swallow hard and ignore that in all the other Blue States. Besides....it isn't anymore regressive than the flat ITAX.

Imagination...the electorate is crying for imagination.

The "employer contributions" that are demanded by PERS does not belong in the school budget. It is a cost that is rightly pegged to the Investment Bankers who failed to deliver returns that they promised they would. The last I heard, they are still promising 8 percent returns. Make them live up to their promises or quit making such promises. The Attorney General and the local District Attorney couldn't find financial fraud if an unbonded roofer fell from the heavens upon their head collective heads, or is it asses.

Support:

Associated Portland Educators pdxape.us and OregonLiberty.us

The Portland Schools Foundation is a front for these Pro-Wall Street folks. Their donors are linked to the State Treasurer's choices as a member of the Oregon Investment Council.

YOUR SCHOOL BUDGET is being used to raise funds to hand to the Oregon Investment Council and justify the issuance of bonds to deliver even more cash to the Oregon Investment Council to do things like PURCHASE YOUR LOCAL FRED MEYERS in good old GRESHAM OREGON.

The DA today has a claim, if he should choose to use his prosecutorial discretion, to take the GRESHAM deal makers on the last union deal to jail, really. Let them sue me, if they think I am joking. I can then get standing, which is so hard to do already.

The kids, and their parents, had better start asking questions.

Does anyone remember the Fred Meyer strike a decade ago? Did you know that the OIC gave money to KKR to make a leveraged buyout of Fred Meyer's and then proceeded to squeeze the employees (like in the toilet paper commercial) . . . and that the Gresham store is still one of the most profitable in the chain. The Meyer Trust is a regular donor to the Portland Schools Foundation, and other pro-tax outfits. It surely is not out of their altruistic hearts -- as the OIC just made a 1.5 billion dollar commitment to buy a piece of KKR, even after KKR had used every accounting trick in the book to boost its market value to generate returns. But the returns are tied to the potential future resale value and the OIC was that buyer, from themselves in a scheme to change hats, so to speak. This is so far removed from an arms-length transaction that it makes my head spin. It can only be called criminal.

The union folks are not the enemy, but the victim. Give me liberty to choose somewhere else to place my retirement savings other than with the criminal enterprise known as the Oregon Investment Council. I want out! I'll take my pay in cash, in full and in complete satisfaction of all labor services at the end of each week, and I won't threaten to close schools in five or ten or twenty years from now as part of a plan conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer.

Target Gresham-Barlow first for corrective action on their budget. Until then the folks in Gresham have little credibility on the pro-kid front. Picket the Gresham-Barlow headquarters, in a sympathy strike, so that tier-three teachers can get out of PERS.

Ms. Minnis needs to figure out how to clean up the corruption in her little back yard, like her absolute silence on the redirection of school money to the OIC criminal enterprise.

Paul,

The Oregon Constitution prohibits the government from taking an interest in stock. Yet the government has borrowed more than 4.5 billion dollars and placed the proceeds into accounts held in the name of various governmental entities. It was and remains at variance with the law. The question is not one of whether private PERS accounts of tier one folks need to be topped off by reason of their investment losses. There is zero claim to liability by reason of investment loss and it is expressly excluded as a component of liability. The court thus used statutory contract arguments to expressly avoid reaching the issue of investment loss, in resolving the Strunk case. There is still tension between whether PERS is "independent" for purposes of the prohibition on public investment in private stock and the placement of PERS assets generally in stock and particularly the lump sum accounts from bond proceeds, bond proceeds that would go immediately back to the respective government employers if PERS were terminated in total today.

The legal and PR gamesmanship on PERS is just too odd and complex to grasp let alone explain.

The bond payments for the employer's investment accounts typically escalate dramatically in future years. This is a different perspective then that of the employees/retirees. The employers risk is increased by investing new money in stock through bonding. We have some real shady characters pushing this crap down the middle-class taxpayers throat. Bond counsel, generally, know the game.

Post-Strunk there is absolutely no legal justification for the government not to terminate PERS and settle up. If I were in the shoes of a recent tier-one retiree I would demand a complete and final court determination of my rights and I would demand that any proceeds held to cover future annuity payments not be placed in stocks. I may even assert the same regarding the recent filing of a class action law suit, and assert that the court is confined to offering a final settlement for all the named parties and that no monies held to cover the annuities at issue be placed in private stocks and equities. It is a solution that would not satisfy the investment bankers desire for a captive set of depositors, employee and employer alike.

If all government employers merely offered straight pay, without compelling the public employee to participate in a specific health care plan, then both public and private employees would, together, have a shared interest in focusing on the price of health care that we all face uniformly. Ideally, this would lead to aggressive enforcement of laws against unfair trade practices.. Kitzhaber wants a one-payer solution to exert bargaining power that is already available through prohibitions on unfair use of monopoly power. Kitzhaber's limited solution is to avoid the already existing solution, that if enforced would piss off lots of folks that make very good money . . . and he seems to want to perpetuate monopoly pricing (for all folks not in his proposed plans) by just getting the government to keep footing the bill for the too-high prices that the poor must pay. It is a pro-price-support scheme.

As to Gresham-Barlow in particular the contract that was signed late 2005 included retroactive pay increases back to July 1, 2004. This was blatantly unlawful and both the lawyer for the district and the lawyer for the employee bargaining agent knew this at the time. I made sure likewise that the DA was aware of the same, should he choose to do the right thing. Perhaps he has higher priorities.

On a per student basis, PPS general fund revenues increased by 25% from 1997/98 to 2005/06. Where's the funding crisis?

In absolute terms, general fund revenues increased from $335.6 million to 365.6 million (from 1997/98 to 2005/06).

Over that period, the number of teachers fell by 16.4% (from 2,580 to 2,156) and student enrollment declined by 15% (from 55,321 to 47,008).

The net effect: PPS has more general fund revenue (per student) with fewer teachers on the payroll today than in 1997/1998. Fewer teachers earn more total compensation with nearly the same student to teacher ratio as in 1997-1998.

It is a cost containment crisis, not a funding crisis. The Teachers negotiated a great contract, they'll earn (on average) nearly as much as City employees, and more (on average) in retirement. So there is less money to hire new teachers: it should come as no surprise. But class sizes will be increasing, because the funding pie is not getting any bigger in the near term.

If the City or County want to contribute money to PPS, they should reduce funding elsewhere. 2% for Public Art comes to mind. Out of state/out of country travel expenses could be curtailed. How about a City of Portland salary freeze? If Mayor Potter and the 4th Street Five are willing to inflict pain on the rest of us, they ought to remember the old refrain "Charity begins at home".