For years, Oregon’s funding of K-12 public education has caused our school systems to lag behind other educational institutions in the United States. By the 2002-03 school years – a particularly disastrous time for public schools when the Hillsboro School District lopped 17 days off the academic year to save money – Oregon ranked 31st in the nation for financing per pupil, according to 2002-03 Census data.
The reasons for the current funding situation are lengthy. In 1996, voters passed Measure 47, limiting property taxes and resulting in the loss of more than $400 million for school districts. When voters rejected Measure 28 in 2003, public schools across the state were unable to address an approximately $100 million deficit. In 2004, voters defeated Measure 30, which would have compensated for a major shortfall in the Oregon budget; a $285 million cut in K-12 public school funding ensued.
The good news, however, is that the Oregon Department of Education recently sent $22.7 million from the Common School Fund to public school districts across the state. Made up of profits from state lands, such as unclaimed estates and agricultural areas, the Common School Fund is one way in which Oregon has made good on its goal of supporting K-12 education.
In the future, Oregon lawmakers ought to search for other such creative ways to put state resources back into the hands of the citizens and school districts most in need of financial help. One idea is the 65 percent solution, a proposal that would mandate schools spend at least 65 percent of their funding on classroom expenses, rather than, for instance, administrative costs. A system imagined by Patrick Byrne, president of Overstock.com, the 65 percent solution would mean that students could experience the direct benefits of education funding: better textbooks, higher teacher salaries, and more comprehensive arts programs.
Such an arbitrary number will not realistically fit every school district, and some overhead costs are necessary. But the 65 percent solutions, which voters may see on ballots in the next election, represents one attempt to address the funding problem by prioritizing spending. With little, if any, additional federal or state money in sight, prioritization is vital.
Moreover, when state officials once again engage in the push and pull of school funding, Oregon politicians ought to remember that our ability to draw new residents to the state, as well as to foster the quality of life for current residents, depends largely on the state of our schools. Until teachers are satisfied, class sizes decrease and school districts are adequately funded, Oregon cannot hope to achieve positive recognition for our state education system.