It comes as no surprise to me that the biggest backer of Vicki Phillip's school reconfiguration plan is the Portland business community.
Accompanying her scheme to shrink the district's "footprint" by closing buildings is the diminishing role of the government in funding, and regulating, public education. That's the appeal to the business community which Phillips has embraced as a full partner in managing the affairs of Portland Public Schools. Efficiency, accountability, higher standards, and performance drive her agenda, all soothing and familiar concepts to those who in pursuit of the almighty dollar run Portland's "lean and mean" business enterprises. Why, after all, shouldn't schools be "lean and mean", and run like businesses? Why not adopt the "business model" of school governance?
Phillips has been praised as a bold and decisive leader. I call her a committed "neoliberal", one who truly believes that the best way to get to where we want to go educationally is to free up the "educational market place":
"This neoliberalism—the belief that today’s problems are best addressed by the market, and that government regulation and the public sector should both be as minimal as possible—is not unique to debates over education: it dominates economics, politics and ideology in the U.S. and most of the world."
As my colleague at the Neighborhood Schools Alliance, Ann Trudeau, put it, business has bought its partnership with the Portland School District for "relative chump change compared with the corporate kicker and corporate tax breaks." Ann got it partly right. She failed to mention that the the district and the board have no apparent intention of lobbying the legislature for tax reform, for higher corporate taxes, or even a modest hike in the minimum corporate tax, which now stands at $10, the amount paid by three-quarters of Oregon's corporations last year.
That's neoliberalism at work. Or, as Portland Association of Teachers President Ann Nice said, maybe just simple politics:
" 'But they seem to be very concerned about how this plays with the (business alliance) and political leaders, and somewhat less concerned with how their decisions are playing with parents, students and the teachers who implement them,' Nice said. 'Part of me wants to say the decisions are more political than practical.' "
You say, "a modest hike in the minimum corporate tax, which now stands at $10, the amount paid by three-quarters of Oregon's corporations last year."
Why should these thousands of corporations which have no income, pay a tax? I could understand a rewording of the tax law for multi-state or multi-national corporations. But, the majority of these corporations paying the $10 minimum tax, are local corporations with no income. Why should they pay tax on no income?
Posted by: Bailie | May 02, 2006 at 02:40 PM
I believe that the last estimate, and it is only an estimate, since laws as written now do not require disclosure, is that Oregon businesses get about $25 billion a year in tax credits. I guess that means they have SOME income.???
Posted by: meagan | May 03, 2006 at 05:58 PM