Funding for K-12 Public Education in Oregon: Bold Rhetoric to Effective Action

1. Funding for K-12 Public Education in Oregon:Bold Rhetoric to Effective Action

2. The Legislature’s Promise • 1991—The Oregon Education Act for the 21st Century: • “the best educated citizens in the nation by the year 2000 . . .” • Statutory K-12 quality goals among the most ambitious in the country • but merely aspirational

3. The People’s Demand • 2000—Measure 1 (Or. Const. art. VIII, sec. 8): • Legislature “shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of public education meets” the goals established in 1991 • Effect: 1991/1995 quality goals no longer aspirational

4. The Legislature’s (In)action • 1992: Oregon ranked 16th nationally in per pupil K-12 funding • 2004: Oregon ranked 28th • 1992: Oregon ranked 11th nationally in per pupil funding as a percentage of citizens’ average income • 2003: Oregon ranked 34th • Are tough economic times to blame? • No. Drop in real funding (measured in 1990-91 dollars) from $4,100 per student in 1990 to $3,300 in 1998, during period of economic prosperity

5. Results of the Legislature’s Inaction • By 2000, Oregon’s classrooms, with an average of 23.9 students, were the second most crowded in the nation; • As of 2002, our 71% high school graduation rate ranked 32nd; • 2004 Natl. Assessment of Education Progress revealed that only approx. one-third of Oregon’s 4th and 8th graders are proficient in math and reading; and • Only one-half of Oregon’s 10th graders are “meeting standards” in reading, math and writing.

6. Cost to Taxpayers of the Legislature’s Inaction • Cost of Dropouts • 80% of Oregon prison inmates are dropouts, at average cost of $23,000 per inmate per year • Four times more likely to be covered by OHP • More than twice as likely to be unemployed

9. How Can We Fix It? • Quality Education Commission • non-partisan • tasked with formulating a plan to achieve statutory quality goals • conclusions based on extensive research from state and national experts • recommended specific qualitative changes based on comparison of current Oregon practices with “best practices”

11. How Can We Fix It? (contd.)

14. Who Will Fix It? • The Legislature? • 15 years since passage of the Education Act for the 21st Century • 5 years since voters passed Measure 1 by a 2-1 margin • 3 QEC Reports with dire warnings • 3 reports from the Legislature itself conceding that schools aren’t measuring up • But no action

15. Who Will Fix It? (contd.) • Municipalities? • Measures 5, 47, and 50 drastically reduced ability to raise revenue • Those measures have flipped the funding burden on its head: State now has burden for more than 70% of K-12 funding • In short, municipalities are largely powerless to fix this problem and in fact, a recent Supreme Court decision found that cities cannot levy funds to support local schools outside of the $5 per $1000 limit imposed by Measure 5.

16. Who Will Fix It? (contd.) • The “Political Process”? • We’ve already tried that—voters passed Measure 1 in 2000 by a margin of 2-1 • directed that the Legislature “shall appropriate” funds sufficient to satisfy K-12 quality goals • The People have spoken, but the Legislature hasn’t listened. • What options remain?

17. Who Will Fix It? (contd.) • The Courts • 38 funding “adequacy” cases filed to date in other states • 20 plaintiff victories • 7 state victories (12 cases still pending)

18. How have things changed in other states? • In Kansas, the legal action resulted in a $755.6 million increase for public schools by 2008-09, a 26% increase over state funding in 2004-05 • The North Carolina decision resulted in a 9.6% increase in K-12 education spending for 2006-07, and an additional $17.9 million from lottery proceeds will expand their pre-K program. • In New York, the state complied with the court ruling by allocating $11.2 billion for capitol construction to be phased in over the next 5 years. During compliance proceedings, the trial court ordered an additional $5.6 billion in operating dollars; subsequently revised by the appellate court to a range of $4.7 to $5.6 billion.

19. Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon • Plaintiffs • Eighteen school districts and four individual families (parents on behalf of their school-age children) representing a broad perspective of Oregon’s schools in demographic make-up. • Defendant • State of Oregon

20. Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon (contd.) • Two Primary Constitutional Arguments: • Article VIII, section 3 • requires the Legislature to “provide by law for the establishment of a uniform and general system of Common schools” • courts in many other states have recognized implicit “adequacy” requirement in similar language

21. Fundamentals of an Adequacy Challenge in Oregon (contd.) • Article VIII, section 8 • “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 . . .” • “And” doesn’t mean “or”!

22. Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation 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, Portland Staff • Kathryn Firestone, Executive Director, past President Oregon PTA and former Commissioner, Quality Education Commission

23. Current Status March 21, 2006 -- Pendleton School District, et al vs. State of Oregon filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court May 19, 2006 -- Plaintiffs prevail on State challenge to change venue to Marion County. The case specially assigned to Judge Christopher Marshall. September 15, 2006 -- Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment. Court finds for the state; no implied or explicit funding adequacy standard, of any kind, in Oregon’s Constitution. Fall 2006 -- case proceeds to Oregon Court of Appeals.

24. Need more information? On the net: www.osfdf.org • Pertinent legal documents • Press releases • Background information By mail: 121 SW Morrison Street, 11th Floor Portland, Oregon 97204-3141 By email: info@osfdf.org By phone: Kathryn Firestone (503) 704-0504 Paul Kelly (503) 553-3230

25. You can help!   We believe that every Oregonian benefits from a high-quality, sufficiently funded public school system. Our supporters – groups such as the Oregon Business Association, Oregon PTA, Stand for Children and individuals from across the state – believe it too. But we need your help.  OSFDF is an Oregon Non-profit 501(c)(3) Corporation.  Your tax deductible donation will be used solely in support of the litigation – our only project. Please make your check payable to OSFDF, and send it c/o Paul Kelly, Jr., 121 SW Morrison Street, 11th Floor, Portland, Oregon 97204-3141.  Please, send a check today.  Thank you!