Why the Quality Education Model should be fully funded

God only knows what Jeff Bull is going on about in his Angry Daydream post "How Public Schools Made Me a Libertarian". 

Rob Kremer, on the other hand, is typically cocksure about what the problem is:

"After more than a decade not getting what they want out of the legislature, and after the voters have continually said no to their demands for tax increases, they plan to do what liberals always do – find a sympathetic judge.

Both the wannabe Bull and the commited libertarian Kremer are ranting about the pending lawsuit demanding that the state of Oregon "adequately" fund schools as mandated by  the Quality Education Model.

What's the QEM?  It's the researched-based system for "helping lawmakers establish the costs of providing the education programs necessary for Oregon's children to meet the goals of the Education Act of the 21st Century."  That legislation, passed in 1991, gave us the original CIM and CAM, subsequently emasculated by the legislature in the aftermath of Measure 5, the property tax limitation that, according to its vehemently anti-tax sponsor Don McIntire, would "hold education harmless".  It didn't. 

So we have the lawsuit.  The QEM says the state is $2 billion short in its statutory and Constitutional obligation to fund good schools.  Kremer and other libertarians, who don't believe in public schools anyway, say that the QEM figure of $7.2 billion is pure hokum.  I disagree.

The QEM funds relatively small schools with relatively small class sizes.  It provides for a full and varied curriculum, with the materials to support it.  It calls for full day kindergarten in every school, tutors and extra help for struggling students, including  summer school and after school programs.  Public opinion supports these reasonable educational goals, but our partisan legislature doesn't.  Thus, the lawsuit.

Why Portland Public Schools hasn't signed on to the suit is puzzling.  But then again, maybe not.  The district leadership has tacked rightward of late in trying to convince the public that it can do more with less, that it can economize, that it can live within its means, that it can prove to its "business" constituency that perhaps a modest local option tax increase -$33 million- "may" be justified.  Of course that still leaves the district with $24 million in permanent cuts, including fewer teachers and closed schools.

Here's what I think:  You get what you pay for!

 

Comments

[mthomason]

When I asked school board members this question "Don't you think it's time we sued the state for adequate funding?" the answer I got was that other districts were planning to sue (this was the Thursday before the lawsuit came out) and that it would be better if Portland did not get on board at the moment because then it would be "All about Portland" again. Big, whiny district or something to that effect. This was Dan Ryan and Bobbie Regan

[ron ledbury]

Portland is a party. The "factual" issues that could be resolved against the state as "a" party would limit re-litigation of those fact issues if Portland later sought to claim a benefit of a favorable ruling from the litigation.

[Bailie]

Terry,
You say, "You get what you pay for!(in education)"

It all depends on how the revenue is allocated. Oregon has allocated revenue very poorly. It is why we have the 4th highest student/teacher ratio, curtailed programs and pressure on full school years.

Total revenue is not the problem. Oregon has outspent Washington ("per student")in every year except one, for the last 16 years, since Measure 5. This, despite that Washington is ranked 11th in "per capita income, while Oregon is ranked 36th. And Washington has produced better academic results than Oregon.

[gus]

"Here's what I (Terry) think: You get what you pay for!"

Reality: We pay for what we get from unsustainable budgets, severance packages, executive searches, legal settlements, spokespeople, bad decisions, costly and inflexible collective bargaining provisions, unfunded mandates etc.

[Rob Kremer]

The premise that underlies the QEM is that if the system were funded such that every school looked like the model's optimal school, that 90% of students would meet standard.

Have you ever seen a shred of evidence to support this premise? Has the Quality Education Commission ever even tried to prove it?

No.

Lynn Lundquist even says as much in the article you quote. Just send money. No, we have no evidence it will do what we say, and we certainly aren't going to give any guarantees. Just send money. It will work this time.

Honest. Trust us.