Funding Schools Locally
Jeff Bull
This morning's Oregonian reports on an upcoming summit of school leaders who will meet this Thursday to wrap their heads around Portland Schools' $57 million shortfall for the coming school year. With the apparent death of Mayor Tom Potter's city income tax and the cold reception given to a local-option property tax (forgive me if I botched the phrasing on that one), there's a scramble underway to either find something that city voters will support, or, failing that, to return to scrounging through the Rose City's couch cushions.
It's a hell of a challenge. More than that, however, there's a real question about what the city can do but throw more money down the hole. One can gain some perspective on that by poking around another pair of items in this morning's paper.
First, there is the "featured compilation" of Letters to the Editor talking about the school funding issue. These are pretty uniformly cranky, though they also shop around the blame; one letter complains about corporations not paying their "fair share" to support schools and another grumbles about money going to teacher "conferences." But one that best captures the mood I've most encountered so far appears in Paul Vermilya's letter, which tops the section:
"We were promised the Multnomah County income tax was a 'temporary fix.' We were promised a comprehensive, long-term solution. The citizens of Portland are fed up with shouldering a disproportionate burden of the state's school funding dilemma. Too many local tax dollars are allocated to rural districts."
The O's article on "lingering differences" between the David Douglas School District and their teachers' union provides more specific examples. Here's a short compilation of excerpts on some of the issues on the table out that way:
"...David Douglas has built more than $40 million in reserves, thanks in part to proceeds from the three-year Multnomah County income tax...the proportions of students learning English as a second language and students from poor families have risen to the highest in the Portland region, putting added stress on teachers...The district also faces steep Public Employees Retirement System cost increases and a $63 million unfunded liability for PERS retirement costs.""The union's salary and benefit proposal would cost $2 million more than the district's offer over the proposed three-year contract, the district estimates. That's an average of $667,000 a year, less than 1 percent of the district's operating budget."
"Currently, the district's starting teacher salaries are relatively high among Portland-area schools, administrators say. Its top pay scale is in the middle of the pack, and its health benefit contribution is relatively low. Teachers make $49,468 a year on average."
Where is the wiggle room in there, specifically from the city's perspective? Are school boards politically independent, or can the city lean on them? I suppose that withholding the funds, whether by choice or courtesy of voter frustration, could influence the districts' behavior. There's also the question, one that the article raised pretty directly, as to why the district is building a reserve as class sizes expand beyond manageability. Still, what leverage does the city have with either the teachers' unions or the districts?
From there, look at the other issues: challenges posed by demographics (second-language and poor students), the rising cost of PERS, rising cost of healthcare. In a word, where is city government in this equation? They can't reform PERS on their own (can they?) and, returning to Mr. Vermilya's letter, the city neither passed Measure 5, the chief culprit for the transfers to which he's referring, nor, unless I'm mistaken, do they have the authority to address that unilaterally. So, what are their options? What should the city council be doing here?
On one level, I get the frustration voiced in Paul Vermilya's note: some of what I've read strongly suggests that, yes, we were promised a comprehensive solution. If it wasn't promised, it was certainly strongly implied. And, on that level, I fault city leaders for pushing the County I-Tax by promising what they couldn't deliver.
Still, the question stands: are the right set of feet over the fire? What should the city be doing now to address the issue?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 14, '06
You wanna back up your assertion that the city did not pass Measure 5????? We South of Metro folks appreciate the fact that YOU DID !!! ;-)
Feb 14, '06
While it would be nice if the Legislature took this seriously on their own volition, most of the state (and its representatives) are not as affected by M5 as the Portland schools are. I would be pleasantly surprised if this just pops onto the state agenda, especially considering the rural-urban animosity over the last few years. Perhaps an initiative to end "equalization" would be in order? That could get ugly, but maybe it would prompt the legislators who are less affected to take this seriously. Forcing Portland to tax itself at a higher rate so that, essentially, it can help provide BETTER financing for rural areas is patently unfair and bad for the future of the state.
Feb 14, '06
That's a fine distinction, but I see where you're going with it. It's also possible I'm misunderstanding all the little overlaps.
What I'm saying is that the Portland City Council didn't pass Measure 5. It wasn't their baby. I'm not familiar with the breakdowns of which counties and municipalities voted for Measure 5, so I couldn't tell you whether the city voted for that measure. The point, though, is one of jurisdiction. The city, to my knowledge, can't unilaterally repeal, or opt out of, a state law. They can't opt out of PERS, not without running afoul of the "equal than or better" clause that allows for the continued existence of the Portland Fire and Police Disability and Retirement thing.
Hopefully, that answers your concern.
12:24 p.m.
Feb 14, '06
I have seen a poll by Riley Associates that reports a much closer split on the tax than the poll results released by the PSF. This is a public release document, and if people are interested, I can post some of the figures here.
I am hoping that PSF will allow some of us a closer look at the questionnaire and the data to see what might be a productive direction for the future. I hope I can get a little time to roll the data tapes and post results here, but I have offered to do so and write a confidential report if that is what is needed.
After looking at Riley's data, I'm concerned that Potter may have pulled out too quickly.
Feb 14, '06
"I'm not familiar with the breakdowns of which counties and municipalities voted for Measure 5"
I don't recall for sure what counties, but basically the NW quadrant of the state passed it, not the rest of the state.
Feb 14, '06
The people of this great state are on the verge of suing the Governor and Legislature for 15 years of unfair school funding if PPS is left to die on the vine.
See ya in court, Ted.
p.s. You may want to think about buying a new suit. Thanks.
Feb 14, '06
This is definitely a very serious issue. Either Portland or MultCo needs to raise the revenue to get the school district through the year; if this doesn't happen, I must say that suing the legislature may not be the worst idea.
Other creative solutions that might assist with a long-term fix, however, are:
Selling the facilities of the school district (physical buildings) to the City for use as community centers. Basically, night-time, weekend and summertime uses would be allowed in these buildings, the city would manage the properties, and the school district would just get first crack at them. This could provide a one-time cash influx, as well as transfer the long-term operations and maintenance costs from the district to the city. However... if the city were to ever find itself in worse financial shape than the district, this could backfire in a very serious manner. It might open up some of the property for redevelopment on a lease basis, however, which could partially offset this danger by providing lease income to cover operating and maintenance costs.
OK, that's all I've got. discuss.
Feb 14, '06
The CoP now has 12,000 acres and approximately $3.2 BILLION of assessed value in their Urban Renewal "increment".
That's 3.2 BILLION in assessed value NOT getting taxes for schools and other basic services.
The PDC and city are covering this up.
$3.2 Billion X $5.00/1000 for schools = $16 million in diverted school funding this one 05-06 fiscal year alone in the CoP.
County wide it grows. I don't have Mult. Co numbers.
Clackamas County has $1.34 BILLION of assessed value in their UR increment which is diverting $25 million this year away from basic services, of which $6.7 million is from school funding.
Clackams county is about to spend $23 million in UR borrowed funding to help expand Clackamas Town Center.
Portland is about to ramp up their UR borrowing and spending.
Apparently no one is going to say or do anything about it.
1:42 p.m.
Feb 14, '06
Rumor has it that when the city and the PPS's demonstrate fiscal responsibility, voters will emerge in support of their schools. Taxpayers read in the big "O" about cost overruns for the tram, and Portlanders who make purses out of duct tape. In 2002, Mayor Katz's called for a Creative Community to drive economic development. City taxpayers are still waiting for that golden goose. During Kitz's 8 years his focus was on the Oregon Health Plan. Don McIntire put Measure 8 on the ballot in 2000 to limit taxes which thankfully failed. Even Grover Norquist's outside money couldn't help him. The enshrined Kicker is where many taxpayers would like to go digging for dollars to support our schools. Hand me a spade.
Feb 14, '06
It is continually overlooked that Oregon is a relatively poor state (36th in per capita income) and has historically supported K-12 education very well. The problem for Oregon is not lack of revenue, but how the revenue is allocated. We can't compensate K-12 employees (8th highest in the U.S.) as if we are an affluent state. It is that simple. As evidenced by Measures 28 and 30 (which were outspent by the opposition more than 10-1), the taxpayers of Oregon are understanding the situation very well.
What has been the advantage for Oregon to have among the highest compensated K-12 employees in the U.S.? Certainly, there is not a correlation to academic results, which one might expect. I have eight external (to Oregon) studies on my desk which rate Oregon K-12 as average or below, when compared to other states in academic success.
The $500 Million per year difference in individual K-12 compensation just between Oregon and Washington represents 7,000 additional teachers, full programs and complete school years. Additional revenue, without restructuring allocation, is a perpetuation of the 20-year evolution toward unsatisfactory K-12 funding. Oregon has done a poor job in managing revenue, as evidenced by our predicament. Our results are less than admirable considering we have spent more per student, than all adjacent states and most states West of the Mississippi for the last 15 years. It is not "lack of revenue that is the problem.
3:12 p.m.
Feb 14, '06
It seems to me that you're wrong on both counts, Bailie. According to the Oregon School Boards association, Oregon is 14th highest in all the states at 105.2% of average. In hard dollars, that equates to $2250 per teacher.
Oregon compensates by overworking the teachers - they are expected to teach much larger class sizes than the national average. The result is that despite the higher than average salaries, Oregon actually spends $346 less than national average per student. Oregonian taxpayers spend $46 for every $1000 of AGI for schools, as opposed to the national average $47 per $1000.
Of course the story doesn't end there. Teachers in Oregon haven't had their benefits slashed as much as has happened nationally, so they seem to be doing well there. But comparing ALL American teachers to their international counterparts, we find that our major competitors whose focus is on the high-education, high-value-added (i.e. high wage) jobs, tend to pay more in salary, benefits, or both. In 2001, Germany, for instance, started new teachers at a salary of $43,100 to the US's $28,808. Japan gave teachers with 15 years of experience $43,069 to the US $41,708. And that doesn't count the free health care.
Again, if we want to follow the Republican model, and try to compete in the world by being cheaper than the Chinese, perhaps this strategy of strangling education funding is a good one. But I for one don't think it's a good way for the U.S. economy, much less our national strength.
Feb 14, '06
Tax revenues increase 3-4%/year and employee compensation costs increase 6-8%/year (4.25% step increase, 2-3% COLA, increased medicals). Employee costs are 80% or more of the school budget. That means the employee cost increase (7% increase in 80% of your budget is an increase of 5.6%) is greater than the total annual revenue increase. Over a number of years, the spread becomes incredibley difficult to manage. And as I've pointed our before, deprives those at risk, chidlren youths and seniors, all persons government services are meant to help.
So There shouldn't be a lot of head scratching going on here as leaders try to "get there heads around" the PROBLEM. Its the SOLUTION, they need to get their heads around.
I think the public may have this right, unfortunately.
While the administrators and Pols look for the short term fix, whether its a temporory tax or the next union contract negotiation that gets them through another two years, the public understands that this is structural and long term and I think is demanding a long term solution. Whether thats a state income tax increase, rescinding the kicker, a value added tax, a business and occupation tax, a reallocation of revenue in Salem, a restructuring of public employee salaries, mandatory arbitration for public employees, or a combination of all of the above.
Perhaps Ben Westlund will have some ideas.
Feb 14, '06
Steven, Thank you for your comments. You say, "Oregon compensates by overworking the teachers - they are expected to teach much larger class sizes than the national average." There is one reason we have large class sizes. That is the high individual K-12 compensation. As was noted, Oregon could afford an additional 7,000 teachers (much smaller classes) if only the compensation were the same as Washington. There are many states with considerably lower compensation per K-12 employee, with superior academic results and smaller classes (K-3).
Again, What has been the advantage for Oregon to have among the highest compensated (salary, health insurance and retirement) K-12 employees in the U.S.? This same "squeeze" is showing in every segment of Oregon's public sector. As Robert pointed out, increasing costs of compensation are dwarfing Oregon's ability to produce equal revenues. Think of what the $500 Million difference with Washington means. Our legislature was quibbling over $25 Million, and what they ended up accepting was about $35 Million above what was initially proposed by Gov. Kulongowski.
Your reference to OSBA was just for salaries. Add in the highest rated benefits package in the U.S. (for K-12 education) and there are only seven states with a higher compensation package. Again, this is for a state ranked 36th in per capita income.
Feb 14, '06
& urban areas will provide the kinds of infrastructure supports that Portland & Co. take for granted? THAT is what the shifting of tax resources downstate/cross-state compensates for. & urban school districts will give back the millions of dollars of federal timber safety net dollars that they take from seriously impoverished rural school districts? I doubt it. -REB
Feb 14, '06
Heya Baleful.
Teachers will take a pay cut when Deadeye Dick stops shooting his old friends in the face with a shotgun.
Feb 14, '06
Plenty of good information up there; I especially like Robert Harris' comments about voters sensing these are structural problems. I think there's something to that with the latest proposals and how they're being received. I've reached the conclusion that starting over is the way to go (LINK).
The thing is, this brings me back to square one. Who do we squeeze to make this re-think, over even the major tinkering, happen? My essential point here is that the city might be the last place to look - unless, that is, they can forward ballot initiatives as a city council (which would immediately doom whatever they forwarded with half the state). The courts may be one way, but I'm highly dubious on the wisdom of that one. The legislature is the ideal, obviously, but we've got anything but the ideal legislature.
Still, folks could start by throwing out the bums who have produced the current, stalled system.
Feb 14, '06
If strong leadership at the state level miraculously descended upon Salem...put together a fair and legal plan to kill PERS, propose a 6% sales tax, while eliminating all state tax on the first $50,000 earned, and reducing the income tax at higher levels....Oregon voters would follow.
Sales taxes have been proposed 9 times before....but never with anything but a token reduction in property or income taxes as a carrot. We need all three legs of the stool if we're ever going to get things on the right track.
Feb 14, '06
Oregon Republicans love the way you frame this, Jeff. As Oregon's spending per pupil plummets and Oregon business' contribution to school funding plummets, you frame this as a failure of Multnomah County for coming to the rescue.
House Republicans give Multnomah County, but particularly Portland, the finger. But it's Portland's fault.
What if individual Oregonians paid a fair share and Oregon businesses paid a fair share. Was the kicker really a good idea this session? Jeff! This is a partisan blog! Can we please get on the same side here?
Feb 14, '06
If strong leadership at the state level miraculously descended upon Salem...put together a fair and legal plan to kill PERS, propose a 6% sales tax, while eliminating all state tax on the first $50,000 earned, and reducing the income tax at higher levels....Oregon voters would follow.
So, Charlie, you are proposing a sales tax. Do you know for a fact that your proposal would be either revenue neutral or bring in more money? What exemptions would you have for the sales tax? Exempt groceries and medicine? A friend of mine who ran a small snack operation inside a larger business (things like hotdogs, soft pretzels, pizza, drinks ) years ago proposed a restaurant tax that would be the equivalent of a nickel on a hot dog and higher rates on fancier restaurants. He said low income people shouldn't eat out--making your own meals is cheaper and more nutritious.
But would your proposal or my friend's proposal stand a chance with the likes of Minnis, Scott and Richardson in charge of the House?
Feb 15, '06
Christopher, Oregon's "spending per pupil" is not the problem. It is how we (Oregon) spends the revenue. Washington is the best and closest example, but there are many many others. Oregon individually compensates K-12 employees close to $500 Million per year, greater than Washington. This would be fine (perhaps) if Oregon were an affluent state and there were correlating superior academic results. Oregon has outspent Washington (and all other adjacent states) for the last 15 years in "per pupil spending". Only in this last year has Washington spent equal to Oregon. We have "boxed" ourselves in to high individual compensation that this state simply cannot afford. How do we raise taxes on Oregon citizens, when we have led the nation in unemployment for the last five year period, and we are ranked a lowly 36th in per capita income? While at the same time, we have among the highest individually compensated K-12 employees in the U.S.
Feb 15, '06
Christopher, I hope you're joking.
I'm making the opposite point you're suggesting: the City Council is coping with a bad situation. Yet I've just witnessed two weeks of reports talking about the Portland City Council somehow betraying voters for looking into a city income tax, or for building the tram, or voter-owned elections, etc.. The reason I mention PERS and Measure 5 is precisely to argue that the Portland City Council isn't where Oregonians need to look for leadership on this question. Apart from raising more money or reshuffling some priorities I don't know what else they can do.
That's the point of the original question - and maybe I phrased it badly. Given all of this, what do people expect from the Portland City Council. More to the point, should they expect anything from the city council, or should they be going after the school districts or the legislature.
Feb 15, '06
The Oregonian reports Pendleton is suing the state for unfair funding.
So, why is Portland dragging its feet?
The Oregonian says any lawyer with "a briefcase and an afternoon" could sue and win a settlement.
BESC is crawling with highly-paid lawyers, so what's the problem?
Why does Pendleton have more vision that Portland?
Feb 15, '06
Sid,
Could you direct me (and other Blue Oregon readers) to online resources on that lawsuit? I read The Oregonian's editorial on the subject today, but it didn't do anything to ease my concerns about this approach. I'm mainly fishing for something that discusses the scope of the suit, specifically how broadly the plaintiffs want the court to define the meaning of the word "adequate" as applies to funding.
Feb 15, '06
Didn't the Portland Public Schools spokeswoman person say it was ridiculous and that there have been zero official conversations on a possible lawsuit? Sarah C. Ames: This is your second lie on BlueOregon in two months. This is NOT winning Portland Public Schools any converts and is really pissing off those of us that have been close friends. Getting hostile in Sellwood.
Feb 15, '06
I know Sarah. I work with Sarah. Sarah does not lie. You must be thinking of Ben "Need Your House Painted Cheap?" Canada who continues to haunt this city like a ghost who will not be exorcised.
As for the lawsuit, Jeff Bull, the crowd at the courthouse is getting larger by the minute.
A powerful parents group in Portland is probably gonna sue first, then another district or two or three or... and then, maybe, the unions will follow suit, no pun intended.
Dr. Phillips says she has been personally involved in two such lawsuits back east. Guess what? No school district has ever lost a dime. The states all settle, fast, because they do not want to pay the $23,000,000,000 a New York state judge has ordered Albany to pay NYC schools.
But, I'm thinking we could get by on $20,000,000,000 or so, right, Ted?
12:39 p.m.
Feb 15, '06
Bailie,
Thank you too, for your comments. You may be conservative, but you are one of the very few who isn't a complete moronic screamer.
You say: There is one reason we have large class sizes. That is the high individual K-12 compensation.
This isn't quite correct. There are TWO reasons we have large class sizes. #1] Oregon's K-12 teacher compensation is closer to that found in the best of our international rivals. And #2] Oregonians don't want to pay the taxes to fully staff at those levels.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing, but the real question is expectations. By comparing Oregon only to the US, you are implicitly suggesting that the US school system compensates adaquately to attract the kind of people we want teaching our kids - college graduates with an additional professional certificate.
But is that really the case? 30% of all people who train to be teachers in the US leave the profession - not just a school job, they choose a different carreer entirely - after 3 years. By 5 years, it's 45%. And it isn't difficult to see why: become an accountant with the equivalent experience, and in the Portland Metro area you'll be paid an average of $60,317, with good benefits.
Again, I find it amazing how many conservatives don't understand basic economics. Like communists in the '60s, most of them believe they can make things cheaper just by voting for it.
But anyone with an ounce of brains knows that isn't true. So the question really is, do we want to have - and pay for - the best schools in the world or not?
Feb 15, '06
Posted by: Sarah Carlin Ames | Jan 26, 2006 10:34:23 PM
You might not realize, but Portland Public Schools is paying $100 less a month per teacher for health care coverage this year than it did two years ago.
Posted by: Sarah Carlin Ames | Feb 10, 2006 7:06:12 PM
Not only have I not heard a whisper of that idea (and I'm in on many of the discussions), but that's pretty darn preposterous.
Feb 15, '06
Steven, I have yet to understand why this subject is categorized as "red/blue". Is it "conservative" to expect better allocation of K-12 revenue?
You said, "Again, I find it amazing how many conservatives don't understand basic economics."
So the question still is, "What has been the advantage for Oregon to have among the highest compensated (salary, health insurance and retirement) K-12 employees in the U.S.?" I have eight studies* on my desk (from sources external to Oregon) which grade Oregon K-12 at average or below average. These aren't "conservative" studies.
You said, "Again, I find it amazing how many conservatives don't understand basic economics. Like communists in the '60s, most of them believe they can make things cheaper just by voting for it. But anyone with an ounce of brains knows that isn't true. So the question really is, do we want to have - and pay for - the best schools in the world or not?"
That is an easy answer, "No". Oregon cannot afford the best schools in the world. We are 36th in per capita income in the U.S. It is ludicrous for Oregon to even consider such a thought. We cannot afford the best schools in the U.S., let alone "the world". We cannot afford to individually compensate our K-12 employees as the 8th highest in the U.S. That is why we are having the funding problems. It is not lack of adequate revenue, or Washington and many other states would be experiencing worse problems than Oregon.
I am interested if you could show an unbiased link (similar to what you suggested), which compares Oregon compensation to the rest of the world.
Research 7) Rand Research 8) Advanced Placement, Report to the nation, Scholastic
Feb 15, '06
Yup, 3,000 PPS teachers now pay $100 or more a month for health care.
Read the papers much, Nopey, or are you a Foxnews gal?
Feb 15, '06
But they didn't until AFTER February 1st, so it was FALSE when she said it. Coming on the heels of Nancy Hamilton's rush of amateur hour BS at City Hall and the PBA meetings, it just makes for bad feelings when we can least afford them. PPSNG
Feb 15, '06
Wrong again, oh clueless one!
PPS teachers have been paying for health care since we signed the last contract.
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance, as if you need any help with it.
Feb 15, '06
This was pointed out on another thread, Straight from the contract, so she was clearly in error to say $100 in January, when it wasn't true until February. No joy here, just serving to plead with them to tighten up their level of discourse.
http://www.patpdx.org/Contract%202004-2006.pdf
Agreement, School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, and Portland Association of Teachers p. 41-42 of the Agreement, and p. 45-46 of the .pdf
Article 14: Insurance Protection A. Health and Welfare Trust 2. Subject to the qualifications stated below, the monthly district contribution to the Trust towards the cost of health insurance benefits, including medical, dental, vision, prescription drug, disability and group term life insurance, and associated administrative costs and Trust reserves for full-time unit members, and their eligible dependents and domestic partners (as defined in a Memorandum of Understanding cited in Appendix G) is as follows:
a. Beginning September 1, 2004, to January 31, 2005, the District shall contribute $874.59 toward the cost of health insurance for full time eligible bargaining unit members, and their eligible dependents and domestic partners. (The District contribution represents ninety-four percent (94%) of the February 1, 2004, to January 31, 2005, PAT composite premium of $930.42.) The bargaining unit member shall pay any remaining amount as a payroll deduction. b. Beginning September 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, PAT will reduce benefits so that the premium for insurance coverage will be reduced by $75. From September 1, 2005, through July 1, 2005, the District shall contribute $855.55 for full-time eligible bargaining unit members, their eligible dependents and domestic partners. (The District contribution represents ninety-four percent (94%) of the February 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, PAT composite premium of $910.16.) The bargaining unit member shall pay any remaining amount as a payroll deduction.
c. Beginning July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, the District shall contribute . From September 1, 2005, through July 1, 2005, the District shall contribute $846.45 for full-time eligible bargaining unit members, their eligible dependents and domestic partners. (The District contribution represents ninety-three percent (93%) of the February 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, PAT composite premium of $910.16.) The bargaining unit member shall pay any remaining amount as a payroll deduction.
d. Beginning February 1, 2006, PAT will reduce benefits so that the premium for insurance coverage will be reduced by another twenty-five dollars ($25). Beginning February 1, 2006, and every February 1 thereafter, the District will contribute for full-time eligible bargaining unit members, their eligible dependents and domestic partners ninety-three percent (93%) of the PAT composite premium. The bargaining unit member shall pay any remaining amount as a payroll deduction.
Feb 15, '06
Hey Sid,
You're not quite going where I'm hoping you would from an edification standpoint. I posted a series of questions I have about the lawsuit here, but can some up some of the major ones here.
As I'm looking up the comment thread here, I'm seeing a lot of talk about teacher pay and benefits. When the time comes to address questions of "adequate" funding, will those issues be part of the formula in establishing "adequacity?" (Yes, I know that's not a word.) What about all the administrators that some folks are wont to grumble about?
In other words, how far will the suit go toward first defining what is or is not adequate? Will it be a percentage of the state budget? How much budgeting detail will be mandated within the ruling?
With questions of this sort currently up in the air, I'm finding it hard to get excited about this lawsuit.
Feb 15, '06
As I have said previously, there are several lawsuits in the works and the major players do not want to tip their hand to the Governor and Sager.
Surprise is so much more fun!
NYC schools got $23,000,000,000.
How much will PPS get?
Not sure, but my lawyer friends say fair funding is in our Constitution twice and there is some sort of "law" on top of that saying the Legislature must fund at that level.
But I'm no lawyer, but I worked on Capitol Hill covering Daddy Bush and know all politicians will FOLD in the face of certain defeat... especially one costing tens of billions of dollars.
Feb 15, '06
A lawsuit will be more about politics, than legal victory and this spells "loser". "Shall appropriate", or write a report (sic). This can only be marginally beneficial (politically) in suburban areas. I can see the pain being kicked up on Portland even further. A lawsuit is a TERRIBLE idea. We don't have constitutional guarantees like other states. Instead, our constitution guarantees "uniform and equitable".
Article VII, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution:
Section 8. Adequate and Equitable Funding. (1) The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of public education meets quality goals established by law, and publish a report that either demonstrates the appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reasons for the insufficiency, its extent, and its impact on the ability of the state’s system of public education to meet those goals.
Feb 15, '06
It will be an interesting discussion/lawsuit if it takes place. It would seem difficult to prove inadequacy of funding, when Oregon has funded K-12 (per student) at a level above our adjacent states for 15 consecutive years.
Feb 15, '06
As for Article VII, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution:
Guess who hasn't allocated the money OR written the report required by Oregon law?
Governor Ted Kulongoski and the entire Legislature, or as newspapers around the world will soon be calling them, the "defendants".
Too bad there won't be a perp walk. That'd be fun.
Feb 15, '06
Oh dear, I should log into the discussion more often to defend my honor.
I didn't say the idea of a lawsuit on adequate funding was preposterous.... that idea has been out in the open for a long time (didn't Bob Van Brocklin publish an OpEd in The Oregonian about it last spring?). But the idea that the School Board would deliberately force a budget crisis and cut funding significantly just to support said lawsuit -- now that is silly.
And PPS Nopey Gal is right on one count. I posted that comment about teacher's health care on January 26, six days before the February 1 premium change took place. I'll try not to get ahead of myself again.
Sarah Carlin Ames www.pps.k12.or.us
Feb 15, '06
Sid:
If I remember you are a teacher at PPS and you talk about working with Saray. Looking at the times you are posting your e-mails on BlueOregon it seems like you either have a lot of breaks or are engaging while kids are suppose to be learning.
A couple of weeks ago my wife saw one of the teachers at our school shopping at Nordstroms in the middle of the afternoon on a Friday. Our kids weren't in school because it was a teacher grading day that teachers say they need so they don't have to grade on the weekend. . .
And PPS and PAT wonder why teachers are not more highly thought of and people are willing to invest more tax money in the district.
Feb 15, '06
Ballie,
We are not discussing the funding levels of the past 15 years. We are talking about this biennium.
Feb 15, '06
horserider, OK, Oregon's funding level (per student) is higher than California, Nevada, Idaho and most of the states West of the Mississippi. We are basically tied with Washington, after spending more than them for the last 15 years. So, where is the funding problem? There are only seven states (in the U.S.) which individually compensate K-12 employees higher than Oregon.
All in all, Oregon funds K-12 education very well, considering we are ranked 36th in affluence (per capita income).
Feb 16, '06
I teach computer science and the blogosphere is part of the curriculum.
I've never posted, just a quick comment here and there supporting my last, great big-city school district.
And knocking down your lies, Baleful.
10:33 a.m.
Feb 16, '06
Yes, please, I don't know Sarah personally but we have mutual acquaintances. Can't we be a bit more welcoming? While someone may disagree with her on policy grounds, calling someone a liar only poisons the well.
Baillie,
As I've posted in response to you previously: you are clearly well-informed and dedicated. I've seen the figures on compensation ad nauseum.
Where you lose me if when you advocate for "starving the beast" in order to force reform. I have three children currently in the schools, and I've posted their class sizes before (not sure which is most egregious: 40 children in my daughter's 7th grade intro Algebra or 25 in each of our school's kindergarten classes).
So while I would seriously consider supporting you or someone with your expertise if you ran for school board on a reformist slate, I can't when you advocate for an immediate slicing of 20% or more of our school budget. You know as well as anyone that new teachers contracts, new retirement agreements, and school closing and consolidation will take 5-10 years.
The funding gap is here, now, right in front of us. And if it is not closed, the money will come straight out of my children's classrooms. So, what is your solution NOW for handling the funding gap. And how would you structure that solution so that in the FUTURE we can address the long term structural problems.
I'm asking you to move away from the role of critic, which you play so well, and take on the role of constructive builder for the future.
As I've asked you before: please provide to me your short term and immediate solution
Feb 16, '06
Paul, You ask very good questions and I'm sure you (and everyone) realize the difficult answers. I completely sympathize with the problem. We went through similar situations when my children were in K-12. I think you understand my conclusions well. What is climaxing for Portland is not dissimilar for Oregon in general. There will be no recognition of the underlying K-12 funding problems until there is a lack of revenue. Most school boards do what they have to do, to get through the next three-year contract without disruption/strike. That means yielding inch by inch, to special interest groups. The "inch by inch" has the compounding effect, similar to compounding interest rates. Eventually, we have the problem now facing Oregon K-12 and PPS. This is acute for Oregon because of our status as a low income state.
So the dilemma is presented. Do we continually make "temporary fixes" to appease the special interest groups/unions, so they can maintain the 8th highest individual K-12 income in the U.S., or does Oregon recognize the underlaying structural problems and deal with the solution. This has been developing over the last 20 year period. No one within education is willing to/can't do structural change. Measures 28 and 30 were telling examples. OEA, COSA, OSBA, OSEA and the host of school boards were on the same side asking for the "temporary fix". The Oregon taxpayers, knowing their situation, produced a very strong reaction against the additional taxation. This is just now being understood by the various education organizations. The plea (if successful) for more revenue, just extends the situation for the next school board (or Supt.). Similar to the expiring PPS/"3 year temporary income tax".
The solution will only come about only when structural changes are made. It is a power play unfolding at this time, similar to many labor situations in the U.S. The public sector situation is more complicated because of lack (or minimal lack) of market competition.
You said, "The funding gap is here, now, right in front of us. And if it is not closed, the money will come straight out of my children's classrooms." I agree completely with your concern. Until parents/taxpayers/school boards understand your concern for necessary structural change, this will go on indefinitely.
You ask, "As I've asked you before: please provide to me your short term and immediate solution"
The personal solution is not simple. If a person feels strongly about their childs welfare, the choice is to 1) move to a better location, 2) put up with ever increasing class sizes, 3) private school, 4) charter schools, 5) home schooling, or 6) continue this situation indefinitely by supporting "another" temporary tax. I personally have decided that this should not go on indefinitely, if we want a strong public school system.
Feb 16, '06
Soutions? Bailie has none. Again. Just talk.
Really wanna solution? Easy.
Obey the law. Obey the state constitution. Fund schools properly, like the law says.
Or, get sued.
It is NOT my job to come up with money. We elected a Governor and a Legislature to do that. Unfortunately most Oregon lawmakers are so busy putting Grandma Millie on their padded payroll, they forgot their job was to work for me and you. So they spilt.
p.s. to Bailie: Teachers roaming the city, shopping, on Professional Development Days or Grading Days is a hoary Urban Myth up there with DeadEye Dick actually taking and passing a hunter safety class -- it never happened. But, for the record, every PPS teacher gets one full hour duty-free during their work day. See you at Marshalls!
Feb 16, '06
Sid,
Your wariness at defining the word "properly" and "adequate" is going to bite you and every teacher in the city on the ass one of these days. What happens when people - and, by this I mean a majority of the voting public - don't share your definition of those words? Say you win your day in court and the powers that be come up with a formula; now say that leaves people as pissed off and bitter as Roe v. Wade. What happens then? Democracy is a tough place when you don't have the votes.
I'd love to see public schools succeed. I'm a public school kid and don't think I got screwed in any significant way. Still, I'm seeing so little interest among school advocates in engaging their critics that I'm doubting they're going to win over the long haul.
4:52 p.m.
Feb 16, '06
So Sid,
You called Baile out and were dissatisfied with the response so-o-o-o-o:
I'm calling you out now. When Baile posts:
Oregon's funding level (per student) is higher than California, Nevada, Idaho and most of the states West of the Mississippi. We are basically tied with Washington, after spending more than them for the last 15 years. So, where is the funding problem? There are only seven states (in the U.S.) which individually compensate K-12 employees higher than Oregon.
All in all, Oregon funds K-12 education very well, considering we are ranked 36th in affluence (per capita income).
Are those figures correct?
If so, how do you define adequate or proper or whatever?
Will there ever be enough money to fund education?
Feb 16, '06
To flesh out my point a bit:
As it now stands, the message not a few voters are getting from Portland Public Schools is that the health and pension benefits of teachers trump classroom size and content as well as extra-curricular activities for their kids. Is that a fair frame? Probably not, but it's also not a hard comparison to make. I'm conscious of the arguments up the thread about paying teachers well so they'll stick around (not to mention compensating them to a level commensurate with the earning of a Master's degree), but this comparison puts teachers against a very, very hard reality. If you ask the random person on the street the purpose of a school, I'm guessing they'll say something about educating kids before they talk about seeing that teachers are "adequately" compensated.
Personally, I believe there's a middle ground in here somewhere. For this, I'd recommend the bejesus out of the article in today's Oregonian that lists some budget numbers (I couldn't find this stuff on Oregonlive but listed some of those numbers on my site). I'll confess that I'm having a hell of a time seeing the wiggle room, but that's likely a result of what I value - e.g. teachers deserve decent pay and benefits. I don't expect everyone to automatically share those values; in other words, I accept that I've got to make a case for them, to explain why we need to throw more money at schools.
Feb 16, '06
Paul
One short to medium term solution. Binding arbitration between teacher unions and districts. Teachers not allowed to strike. If the arbitrator says that total teacher compensation should continue at a rate of 6-8% growth/annum, then the voters either pay them by raising taxes, or lay some teachers off and increase class size, or cut administration, or some combination. If a teacher doesn't like arbitrators decision, then that teacher can quit and look for work in another district. But at least we wouldn't be in the position of having to choose between sacrificing a year of school or putting off the hard choices.
Or...terminate PERS Tier I and Tier II and retirees by capitalizing the current earned benefits and the current obligations and depositing into the 401K type program. Raise the money by bonding that amount over 30 years. The majority of the bond obligations would become a general fund expense of the state and not paid by school districts. School districts past retirement obligations would be reduced as the State would be responsible for the PERS bond, and the incredible mistakes it allowed to happen by money match. This would free up funds to hire more teachers or enhance classes. We'd also put all public employees in the same retirement program which is much more equitable as among the employees.
And before anyone says...can't do that its illegal...maybe it is, I don't know since companies terminate retirement programs all the time, so I beleive there is some way to terminate PERS. But maybe public employees (and I'm not just talking about teachers) willm decide to restructure their benefit package anyway. They could listen to what the vast majority of Oregonians are saying when they refuse to support schools, and other vital services, largely because the benefits being paid to the public employees are way in excess of almost all private companies. The companies and private businesses voters work for. This is not a mirage, or something made up by Lars Larson, or dreamt up by some anti union lobby like AOI. It is real. It harms the children, the seniors, the disabled and the at risk youth.
6:04 p.m.
Feb 16, '06
In case anyone needs it, the estimated numbers for 03-04 and 04-05 can be found here: http://www.nea.org/edstats/images/05rankings.pdf
These are only estimated, though. The most recent "real" numbers report is from 2002-03 and was tabulated by the U.S. Census Bureau. The numbers typically come out around March, so next month we should have the actual numbers for 03-04.
The link to the Census' report is at: http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/school/03f33pub.pdf
You can find the link to this, as well as previous years, at: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/school.html
The NEA report shows that:
The average salary for all Oregon teachers in the 03-04 school year was $49,169. It was $50,790 for the 04-05 year.
The average salary for all Washington teachers in the 03-04 school year was $45,434. It was $45,712 for the 04-05 year.
I seem to remember reading recently that Oregon has a higher percentage of "veteran" teachers than surrounding states.
Also, you have to be sure to read the fine print:
OREGON: Where applicable, "average teacher salary" includes the contract amount plus 6 percent for the employer portion of retirement contributions.
There is no similar note for Washington regarding salaries.
In the "far west," both Alaska and California pay higher salaries than Oregon.
In the U.S. Census' 2002-03 report:
Per student funding (02-03)
California was ranked #20, Washington #28, Oregon #31, Nevada #42, and Idaho #48. States ranked 1-21 were all above the national average.
In relation to spending per student: We rank #31 in total revenue for k-12 schools. We ranked #40 in salary spending and #16 in benefits spending. When put together, we ranked #30. We ranked #40 in general admin spending, but #17 in school admin. Only in benefits and school admin did we top the national average.
School funding per $1,000 of personal income (02-03)
California is ranked #24, Idaho #25, Oregon #39, Washington #47, and Nevada #48. States ranking 1-27 were all above the national average.
Broken down, that's:
<h1>39 in total spending on k-12; #47 on teacher salaries; #12 on benefits; #40 on salaries/benefits combined; #39 on general admin; and #15 on school admin. Once again, only on benefits and school admin did we top the national average.</h1>But as I said above, all of the NEA numbers are still "estimated," and the Census numbers are actual. That's why I typically use the Census numbers as my basis. It'll be interesting next month when the official numbers come out to see how close to the actual numbers the NEA numbers were-- I've seen them off by a good amount before.
Feb 16, '06
Jenni, The NEA Rankings & Estimates data is current. The rankings are for 2004 and the estimates are for 2005. There has been an update from NEA for Fall 2005. They are more current than the U.S. Census.
I think you are still having a problem understanding the difference between total funding for salaries, and individual funding for salaries. Oregon has ranked about 35th in total funding spent on total salaries for K-12 and that is where the problem is. While we are 35th in total compensation for salaries (depending on the year), we are 8th highest in individual compensation. The total amount is divided among a relative few, who command high salaries/benefits. That is why we have large class sizes. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you better.
8:01 p.m.
Feb 16, '06
Bailie--
I was just giving some of the numbers from those reports. I made sure to say if they were per student numbers so that people would know that the numbers were in a different context than yours.
Were I responding to you, I would have directed it right to you. Just didn't want you to think I was contradicting you or saying you were wrong-- just throwing some numbers out there.
The report also shows the number of staff. However, since I'm in the middle of a major furniture move, I didn't have the time to compare those numbers yet to the other states. Give me time, and I will. It'll probably be a few days, depending on when my internet connection is back up to this computer.
I plan on putting together all these numbers on a page over at DFO. So if you have any other reports that also show numbers, please let me know. I'd love to have a look at them as well and include them in the data I put together.
Like I said, we should have the U.S. Census numbers next month, so we'll be able to see what they show. I've found in the past that the NEA numbers are not necessarily correct. I ran into this at least a handful of times when putting together new stories on school funding while working for newspapers in Texas. It'll also give us more ways to look at the info.
Feb 16, '06
Jenni, That is great that you will be taking a good look at the information. When you get situated, I will help if you like. The more and different perspectives, the better. What is DFO?
1:42 a.m.
Feb 17, '06
It's Democracy for Oregon. I've linked it to my name. It's the former Oregon for Dean organization. It's now a 501c4 that does meetups, issue related work, etc. We also have a state PAC.
My office area is now set up, but I won't be on the net all the time until I can buy a new network card. Right now there's a cord streched across my dining room (now the office). With a toddler in the house, that makes for a dangerous situation.
In the next few days I'll print everything out, as it's a lot easier to compare numbers that way. Then I can put together more of the information for everyone to use.
I thought some of the numbers were interesting, such as the fact that we're in the bottom of the country for per-student spending on some items, but were above the average for some of our admin costs.
I can't wait for the new Census numbers to come out-- hopefully they'll come out next month like usual. Too bad they're always so far behind. But I guess it's because they compare so many different things.
Feb 17, '06
I just want to chuck in a quick tip of the hat to both bailie and Jenni Simonis for throwing out the numbers. I kissed Oregonian reporter Scott Learn's butt yesterday for being party to the paper posting some numbers as well. Thanks to both for moving the conversation to firmer ground.
3:11 p.m.
Feb 17, '06
Baillie,
I am also dissatisfied with your response. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but keep the discussion focussed and productive.
If you were on the school board right now, for what would you advocate?
If you were advising Mayor Potter, what would you suggest?
Will we see you running for school board?
For my own part, yes, I'll admit that I have been talking with a Vancouver real estate agent. I love this city and my family has lived here for 25 years (although I've been back in the area only six years). I have no desire to give up on my wonderful neighborhood or give up my 5 minute by-foot commute for a 1/2 hour drive down I-205.
But unfortunately my training as a political scientist helped me see this problem coming a few years ago, and my training tells me there are no solutions on the near horizon. Right now, like many parents, I suspect I am dispirited and disheartened.
For the price of my house in Portland, I can flip over to 1000 more sq ft in Vancouver and excellent public schools.
Feb 18, '06
Ah, Vancouver... walkable neighborhoods, fine dining, gourmet grocery stores, the finest brewpubs.
Oops, I'm talking about my neighborhood, not Vancouver.
But, good schools on a good day.
I guess.
Mar 8, '06
Hey Sid,
It is flippant comments like yours that piss off people like me who will decide whether or not another tax hike or whatever proposed funding proposal will pass muster at the next election.
<h2>I live in Portland and I am willing to give up all of those things that you so cherish so that I can give my children a better education, that is, move to Vancouver. If enough people migrate across the Columbia or to Washington or Clackamas Counties, what kind of tax base is going to be left to support Portland Public Schools?</h2>