Upload
linnea
View
32
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Funding for K-12 Public Education in Oregon: Bold Rhetoric to Effective Action. The Legislature’s Promise. 1991—The Oregon Education Act for the 21 st Century: “the best educated citizens in the nation by the year 2000 . . .” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Funding for K-12 Public Education in Oregon:
Bold Rhetoric to Effective Action
The Legislature’s PromiseThe Legislature’s Promise
1991—The Oregon Education Act 1991—The Oregon Education Act for the 21for the 21stst Century: Century:
““the best educated citizens in the the best educated citizens in the nation by the year 2000 . . .”nation by the year 2000 . . .”
Statutory K-12 quality goals Statutory K-12 quality goals among the most ambitious in the among the most ambitious in the countrycountry
but merely aspirationalbut merely aspirational
The People’s DemandThe People’s Demand
2000—Measure 1 (Or. Const. art. 2000—Measure 1 (Or. Const. art. VIII, sec. 8):VIII, sec. 8):
Legislature “Legislature “shallshall appropriate in appropriate in each biennium a sum of money each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state’s sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of public education meets” system of public education meets” the goals established in 1991the goals established in 1991
Effect: 1991/1995 quality goals no Effect: 1991/1995 quality goals no longer aspirationallonger aspirational
The Legislature’s (In)actionThe Legislature’s (In)action 1992: Oregon ranked 161992: Oregon ranked 16thth nationally in per nationally in per
pupil K-12 fundingpupil K-12 funding 2004: Oregon ranked 28th2004: Oregon ranked 28th
1992: Oregon ranked 111992: Oregon ranked 11thth nationally in per nationally in per pupil funding as a percentage of citizens’ pupil funding as a percentage of citizens’ average incomeaverage income 2003: Oregon ranked 34th2003: Oregon ranked 34th
Are tough economic times to blame?Are tough economic times to blame? No. Drop in real funding (measured in No. Drop in real funding (measured in
1990-91 dollars) from $4,100 per student in 1990-91 dollars) from $4,100 per student in 1990 to $3,300 in 1998, during period of 1990 to $3,300 in 1998, during period of economic prosperityeconomic prosperity
Results of the Legislature’s InactionResults of the Legislature’s Inaction
By 2000, Oregon’s classrooms, with an By 2000, Oregon’s classrooms, with an average of 23.9 students, were the second average of 23.9 students, were the second most crowded in the nation;most crowded in the nation;
As of 2002, our 71% high school graduation As of 2002, our 71% high school graduation rate ranked 32rate ranked 32ndnd;;
2004 Natl. Assessment of Education Progress 2004 Natl. Assessment of Education Progress revealed that only approx. one-third of revealed that only approx. one-third of Oregon’s 4Oregon’s 4thth and 8 and 8thth graders are proficient in graders are proficient in math and reading; andmath and reading; and
Only one-half of Oregon’s 10Only one-half of Oregon’s 10thth graders are graders are “meeting standards” in reading, math and “meeting standards” in reading, math and writing.writing.
Cost to Taxpayers of the Legislature’s Inaction
Cost to Taxpayers of the Legislature’s Inaction
Cost of DropoutsCost of Dropouts
80% of Oregon prison inmates are 80% of Oregon prison inmates are dropouts, at average cost of $23,000 per dropouts, at average cost of $23,000 per inmate per yearinmate per year
Four times more likely to be covered by Four times more likely to be covered by OHPOHP
More than twice as likely to be More than twice as likely to be unemployedunemployed
How Can We Fix It?How Can We Fix It?
Quality Education CommissionQuality Education Commission non-partisannon-partisan
tasked with formulating a plan to achieve tasked with formulating a plan to achieve statutory quality goalsstatutory quality goals
conclusions based on extensive research conclusions based on extensive research from state and national expertsfrom state and national experts
recommended specific qualitative changes recommended specific qualitative changes based on comparison of current Oregon based on comparison of current Oregon practices with “best practices”practices with “best practices”
How Can We Fix It? (contd.)How Can We Fix It? (contd.)
Characteristic Current Service Level Required Service Level Kindergarten School Day Half-Day Full-Day Average class size 24 (K-3)
26 (4-5)
24 (middle school)
25 (high school)
20 (K-3)
25 (4-5)
22 (middle school)
22 (high school)
Classroom Teachers 12.8 FTE per 340 K-5 students
16 FTE per 340 K-5 students
Staffing in Core Subjects 41 FTE per 1,000 high school students
44 FTE per 1,000 high school students
Specialists for art, PE, etc. 2.0 FTE per 340 K-5 students 4.5 FTE per 340 K-5 students Extra teachers in math, English, and science
None 1.5 FTE per 500 middle school students 3.0 FTE per 1000 high school students
Textbooks $36 per K-5 student $43 per middle school student $55 per high school student
$72 per K-5 student $69 per middle school student $96 per high school student
Who Will Fix It?Who Will Fix It?
The Legislature?The Legislature? 15 years since passage of the Education Act 15 years since passage of the Education Act
for the 21for the 21stst Century Century
5 years since voters passed Measure 1 by a 5 years since voters passed Measure 1 by a 2-1 margin2-1 margin
3 QEC Reports with dire warnings3 QEC Reports with dire warnings
3 reports from the Legislature itself 3 reports from the Legislature itself concedingconceding that schools aren’t measuring up that schools aren’t measuring up
But But no actionno action
Who Will Fix It? (contd.)Who Will Fix It? (contd.)
Municipalities?Municipalities? Measures 5, 47, and 50 drastically reduced Measures 5, 47, and 50 drastically reduced
ability to raise revenueability to raise revenue Those measures have flipped the funding Those measures have flipped the funding
burden on its head: State now has burden burden on its head: State now has burden for more than 70% of K-12 fundingfor more than 70% of K-12 funding
In short, municipalities are In short, municipalities are largely largely powerless to fix this problem and in fact, a powerless to fix this problem and in fact, a recent Supreme Court decision found that recent Supreme Court decision found that cities cannot levy funds to support local cities cannot levy funds to support local schools outside of the $5 per $1000 limit schools outside of the $5 per $1000 limit imposed by Measure 5.imposed by Measure 5.
Who Will Fix It? (contd.)Who Will Fix It? (contd.)
The “Political Process”?The “Political Process”?We’ve already tried that—voters We’ve already tried that—voters
passed Measure 1 in 2000 by a margin passed Measure 1 in 2000 by a margin of 2-1of 2-1
directed that the Legislature “shall directed that the Legislature “shall appropriate” funds sufficient to appropriate” funds sufficient to satisfy K-12 quality goalssatisfy K-12 quality goals
The People have spoken, but the The People have spoken, but the Legislature hasn’t listened.Legislature hasn’t listened.
What options remain?What options remain?
Who Will Fix It? (contd.)Who Will Fix It? (contd.)
The CourtsThe Courts
38 funding “adequacy” cases filed to 38 funding “adequacy” cases filed to date in other statesdate in other states
20 plaintiff victories20 plaintiff victories
7 state victories (12 cases still pending)7 state victories (12 cases still pending)
How have things changed in other states?How have things changed in other states?How have things changed in other states?How have things changed in other states?
In Kansas, the legal action resulted in a $755.6 million In Kansas, the legal action resulted in a $755.6 million increase for public schools by 2008-09, a 26% increase increase for public schools by 2008-09, a 26% increase over state funding in 2004-05over state funding in 2004-05
The North Carolina decision resulted in a 9.6% increase in The North Carolina decision resulted in a 9.6% increase in K-12 education spending for 2006-07, and an additional K-12 education spending for 2006-07, and an additional $17.9 million from lottery proceeds will expand their pre-$17.9 million from lottery proceeds will expand their pre-K program.K program.
In New York, the state complied with the court ruling by In New York, the state complied with the court ruling by allocating $11.2 billion for capitol construction to be allocating $11.2 billion for capitol construction to be phased in over the next 5 years. During compliance phased in over the next 5 years. During compliance proceedings, the trial court ordered an additional $5.6 proceedings, the trial court ordered an additional $5.6 billion in operating dollars; subsequently revised by the billion in operating dollars; subsequently revised by the appellate court to a range of $4.7 to $5.6 billion.appellate court to a range of $4.7 to $5.6 billion.
Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon
Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon
PlaintiffsPlaintiffsEighteen school districts and four Eighteen school districts and four
individual families (parents on behalf of individual families (parents on behalf of their school-age children) representing a their school-age children) representing a broad perspective of Oregon’s schools in broad perspective of Oregon’s schools in demographic make-up.demographic make-up.
DefendantDefendantState of Oregon State of Oregon
Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon (contd.)
Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon (contd.)
Two Primary Constitutional Two Primary Constitutional Arguments:Arguments:
1)1) Article VIII, section 3Article VIII, section 3 requires the Legislature to “provide requires the Legislature to “provide
by law for the establishment of a by law for the establishment of a uniform and general system of uniform and general system of Common schools” Common schools”
courts in many other states have courts in many other states have recognized implicit “adequacy” recognized implicit “adequacy” requirement in similar languagerequirement in similar language
Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon (contd.)
Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon (contd.)
2)2) Article VIII, section 8Article VIII, section 8 ““The Legislative Assembly shall The Legislative Assembly shall
appropriate in each biennium a sum of appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state’s money sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of public education meets quality system of public education meets quality
goals established by law, goals established by law, andand publish a publish a report that either demonstrates the report that either demonstrates the appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reasons for the insufficiency . . .”reasons for the insufficiency . . .”
““And” doesn’t mean “or”!And” doesn’t mean “or”!
Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation
Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation
Board of Directors:Board of Directors:
• Paul Kelly, Board Chairman, Attorney and former Global Director of Public Affairs for NIKE, Portland
• Arthur Johnson, Vice-Chair, Attorney, Eugene• Bruce Samson, Secretary, Attorney and former General
Counsel for NW Natural, Lake Oswego• Bill Deatherage, Attorney, Medford• Marva Fabien, Attorney and Multicultural Director at
Willamette University College of Law, Salem• Dennis Karnopp, Attorney, Bend• Betty Roberts, former Oregon Supreme Court Justice,
PortlandStaff• Kathryn Firestone, Executive Director, past President Kathryn Firestone, Executive Director, past President
Oregon PTA and former Commissioner, Quality Oregon PTA and former Commissioner, Quality Education CommissionEducation Commission
Current StatusCurrent StatusCurrent StatusCurrent Status
March 21, 2006 -- Pendleton School District, et al vs. State of March 21, 2006 -- Pendleton School District, et al vs. State of Oregon filed in Multnomah County Circuit CourtOregon filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court
May 19, 2006 -- Plaintiffs prevail on State challenge to May 19, 2006 -- Plaintiffs prevail on State challenge to change venue to Marion County. The case specially change venue to Marion County. The case specially assigned to Judge Christopher Marshall.assigned to Judge Christopher Marshall.
September 15, 2006 -- Hearing on Motions for Summary September 15, 2006 -- Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment. Court finds for the state; Judgment. Court finds for the state; no implied or no implied or explicit funding adequacy standardexplicit funding adequacy standard, of any kind, in , of any kind, in Oregon’s Constitution.Oregon’s Constitution.
Fall 2006 -- case proceeds to Oregon Court of Appeals.Fall 2006 -- case proceeds to Oregon Court of Appeals.
Need more information?Need more information?Need more information?Need more information?
On the net:On the net:www.osfdf.orgwww.osfdf.org
• Pertinent legal documentsPertinent legal documents• Press releasesPress releases• Background informationBackground information
By mail:By mail:121 SW Morrison Street, 11121 SW Morrison Street, 11thth Floor FloorPortland, Oregon 97204-3141Portland, Oregon 97204-3141
By email:By email:[email protected]@osfdf.org
By phone:By phone:Kathryn Firestone (503) 704-0504Kathryn Firestone (503) 704-0504Paul Kelly (503) 553-3230Paul Kelly (503) 553-3230
You can help!
We believe that every Oregonian benefits from a high-We believe that every Oregonian benefits from a high-quality, sufficiently funded public school system. Our quality, sufficiently funded public school system. Our
supporters – groups such as the Oregon Business supporters – groups such as the Oregon Business Association, Oregon PTA, Stand for Children and Association, Oregon PTA, Stand for Children and individuals from across the state – believe it too. individuals from across the state – believe it too.
But we need your help. But we need your help.
OSFDF is an Oregon Non-profit 501(c)(3) Corporation. OSFDF is an Oregon Non-profit 501(c)(3) Corporation. Your tax deductible donation will be used solely in Your tax deductible donation will be used solely in
support of the litigation – our only project. Please make support of the litigation – our only project. Please make your check payable to OSFDF, and send it c/o Paul your check payable to OSFDF, and send it c/o Paul
Kelly, Jr., 121 SW Morrison Street, 11th Floor, Portland, Kelly, Jr., 121 SW Morrison Street, 11th Floor, Portland, Oregon 97204-3141. Oregon 97204-3141.
Please, send a check today. Thank you!Please, send a check today. Thank you!