Eugene weekly., June 08, 2006, Page 13, Image 13

The Oregonian wrote in an editorial before the 2000 vote that
Measure 1 “requires a written excuse from the Legislature,
not stable and adequate money for schools.”
vote that Measure 1 “requires a written excuse from the
Legislature, not stable and adequate money for schools.”
Kathryn Firestone is director of the School Funding
Defense Foundation now and was head of the Oregon
PTA in 2000. She said some people in 2000 may have
thought the measure didn’t require more funding, but she
did after reading the clear text of the measure in the
Voters’ Pamphlet.
If Measure 1 does have unintended consequences, it
wouldn’t be the first time for a voter initiative. Critics
have long said voters never intended for Measure 5 to
drastically cut school spending but rather believed the
rhetoric that the state would make up for any shortfall in
local property tax revenue. Many of the voters who
passed Measure 11’s tough mandatory sentences didn’t
intend to decimate other state spending by sinking hun-
dreds of millions of dollars in new jails. Other critics say
that voters for Measure 37 didn’t intend for developers to
use the property rights measure to create more urban
sprawl.
Firestone acknowledges that it may be possible for the
Legislature to slip out of the Measure 1 knot by passing
bills to lower what it defines as “quality goals established
by law.” But the redefinition of quality would also not
likely apply to the past three biennial budgets, leaving the
Legislature still on the hook for billions in current and
past underfunding.
The Legislature could not arbitrarily change its quali-
ty definition. Measure 1 would require the Legislature to
set up a methodology to justify a lower quality education
and report on what impact reduced spending would have
on school quality and student performance. That could
prove politically embarrassing for politicians, Firestone
said. “That’s a difficult argument to make to the con-
stituency to say, ‘Oh sorry, we didn’t really mean a quali-
ty education model, we meant a mediocre model.’”
The school districts and their supporters also have
another constitutional argument. A section of the Oregon
Constitution requires the Legislature to “provide by law
for the establishment of a uniform and general system of
Common schools.” The schools argue that this section
implies a requirement that school funding be adequate.
The state argues in its brief that the constitutional section
“does not pertain to school funding at all” and cites court
precedents to back up its argument.
Schools in other states have had success arguing that
their constitutions contained an implied requirement that
school funding be adequate. But many of those lawsuits
relied on a constitutional provision requiring a “thorough
and efficient” education or similar language. The wording
in Oregon’s Constitution appears to offer weaker protec-
tion for schools.
Garnishing Child Support
Like a deadbeat dad driving a Porsche while ignoring
his child support payments, the Legislature can afford to
pay more to help kids, plaintiffs argue. While school sup-
port dropped precipitously in the 1990s, Oregon’s econo-
my was booming. In 1992 Oregon ranked 11th in educa-
tion spending measured as a percentage of the average
personal incomes of state residents. By 2002 that ranking
had fallen to 34th.
Over the past decade the Legislature has prioritized
spending on prisons and corporate tax breaks over educa-
tion. Oregon now ranks sixth nationally in per capita
spending on building prisons and has the lowest corporate
taxes in the nation, with many big companies paying only
$10 a year in corporate income taxes.
But spending on education could help reduce crime,
create jobs and boost revenues, the schools argue. Their
brief points to a state study showing that 80 percent of
prison inmates are high school dropouts, costing the state
an average of $23,000 per inmate per year. High school
drop outs are twice as likely to be unemployed, and when
they do have a job, earn about 30 percent less than gradu-
ates. Overall, dropouts are a net drain on state revenues of
an average of $8,460 each, demanding far more in social,
health care and correctional services than they contribute
to the state. By comparison, educated college graduates
contribute a net $8,250 to the state.
Studies also show that better schools boost the econo-
my by increasing property values and attract quality
workers and employers in addition to directly providing
good local jobs.
The Oregon Legislature could increase low taxes on
wealthy corporations and individuals to fund its obliga-
tion to its kids’ education — just suspending the kicker
tax break refund for big corporations and the wealthiest
20 percent would generate about $800 million this year.
But the Legislature could also balk at raising taxes and
instead cut higher education, health plans or other social
spending that education supporters also support. Right
now K-12 already consumes about 43 percent of the state
budget pie.
Firestone admits that people “have concerns”
that the Legislature may react by cutting “vital services,”
but she says that with education so important, “we’re at
risk doing nothing.” Giving a child a quality education is
“That’s a difficult argument to make to the constituency to say,
‘Oh sorry, we didn’t really mean a quality education model,
we meant a mediocre model.’”
—Kathryn Firestone, Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation
A Neighborhood Market
With World-Class Variety!
“Locally Grown, Locally Owned.”
PERMANENT
HAIR COLORANT
With Active Vegetable Ingredients
$9.99
• Ammonia Free
• Resorcinal Free
• 100% Grey Cover
• Conditioning
17 COLORS AVAILABLE
• Long Lasting
(PRICE GOOD THROUGH 6/30)
5.6 oz.
25th & WILLAMETTE • EUGENE • OPEN DAILY 8AM-10PM
(541) 345-1014 • www.capellamarket.com
Dining Set Close-Out - Normally $2,899, NOW $899!
Fountain- $299 • Just-Arrived Memory Foam Mattress - $599
FURNITURE • ACCESSORIES • SILK FLOWERS • GIFTS & MORE
475 W. 5th Ave., Eugene • 541-683-5614
JUNE 8, 2006 13