BLOG: Local household budgets are exhausted...Mayor Tom Potter is right to call an Education Summit
Sam Adams
Portland’s median family income has taken a beating in recent years, while our cost of living has gone up, up and up.
In the 11 years and three local school funding measures that I've worked on, I always wondered how low average incomes would have to decline before voters would get fiscally tired and say, “No more.”
Frankly, I thought we had reached that tipping point three years ago. I was grateful to be proven wrong.
I was impressed that voters said, “Yes,” during the recession to a new income tax for local schools and social services, and said, “No” to its repeal a year later.
But the results of the public opinion poll results released today demonstrate that maybe, finally, local household budgets might be exhausted:
- that as much as Portlanders support quality local public education, they need a break.
- that the state legislature needs to give us some credit for helping them achieve statewide school funding equity on-the-cheap by sending Portland tax dollars to outside schools while we are left digging deeper into our pockets to hold things together at home.
Portland has a bigger, more robust middle class than many large U.S. cities. It is one of those unseen things that I believe makes Portland special.
Without some supplemental local school funding next year, larger class sizes, fewer class choices and a shorter school year will speed the exodus of these middle-class families with children to the suburbs; leaving Portland a bipolar city, affordable mostly to the wealthy or the subsidized poor.
We must do better.
Mayor Tom Potter is right to call an Education Summit of local leaders to deal with this issue. He'll have my help.
Students, parents and teachers need hope. The City and County will need to step forward with more contributions for the schools than initially planned. I hope the previous pledges of the business community still stick. Help from the state would be a wonderful miracle.
And while we make another local financial band-aid for schools, and as we sharpen our appeals to the state for help, we need also to address the underlying issues of declining family incomes and the affordability of this place we call home.
It will take all of us working together.
It is worth it.
Posted by Sam Adams on February 9, 2006
(78) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Education, Front Page
Comments by site visitors
Shift the taxation process from property tax assessments, which are inequitable, to income tax assessments, which are equitable.
Posted by: Paulette Peynet | Feb 10, 2006 12:18:48 PM
I wholeheartedly endorse the Mayor's original proposal for schools. First, no district school should be excluded from receiving help - that would be analogous to choosing which kids to save from drowning by their eye color or pet ownership. ALL kids/schools need this support, not just some. Second, those who make the specious argument that they were "promised" that the one-time tax three years ago was just that, have never been parents, or citizens on planet earth for that matter - we are unfortunately often forced to go back on our best-intentioned promises all the time. Circumstances change. It's a drag, but they do. We expected and hoped that the state legislators would do their actual jobs and legislate. they didn't. the "adult" thing to do in this case is solve the problem, not argiue about broken promises. I don't like to have to take back a promise to my children, but veryy occasionally a situation changes: a call stating that a relative is ill, just as one is heading out to the promised trip to the zoo, etc. Emergencies happen.. it's our job as responsible citizens to step up to the plate, and bravo to the mayor for doing so. How about we help him?
Posted by: Kate Sokoloff | Feb 10, 2006 12:19:41 PM
Whta is being proposed is a net tax reduction for citizens and all efforts to get the necessary money for schools should be made. Political leadership needs to step up, this is the very occasion when that is necessary -- when the public is burned-out by the issue and can't seem to sustain interest. Polls are simply a reflection of a moment in time -- a snap-shot that can change in 24 hours.
Portland needs to stand alone if necessary to protect its school system. Persuation is exactly why campaigns are waged -- not simply to reinforce existing positions.
Posted by: Harrison Pettit | Feb 10, 2006 12:19:50 PM
Why not cut the pay of the government to fund schooling. These guys make the laws for the large corporations and rich people and leave us lower - middle class people scrapping the cutters just to survive. It is ridiculous that we should have to do this. This is supposed to be a country of opportunity. All this country is now the land of "If your not rich then you are going to be drained of anything and everything you own"
Posted by: Joe Dohn | Feb 10, 2006 12:25:15 PM
Why the bleep are Portland tax dollars continuously being sent to outside schools? Portland schools need to be withdrawn from the control of the State Legislature through whatever means available. If that means by voter initiative than City Leaders need to lead that effort. We cannot stand idly by while the State defunds Portland schools. Asking Portland tax payers to make up the difference is not good leadership. Divorce the school district from the State of Oregon.
Posted by: John | Feb 10, 2006 12:26:11 PM
Portlanders need to be made aware that we are paying to help schools accross the state at the expense of PPS. This inequity has to stop. State legislators who vote for low statewide school funding but are getting free money from Portland need to be identified and need to explain why they are robbing us to pay for their cheapness.
Posted by: Cathy Wyrick | Feb 10, 2006 12:28:30 PM
Sam,
I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this topic.
When asked to pay taxes for education, I typically vote 'Yes'. I have no children myself, but when it comes to a matter of investing in society, I would rather invest money in education than in prisons.
That said, since Multnomah County and Portland in particular can seem to keep neither the schools nor the prisons operating and open, I will not be voting for any additional investment of my income in these areas. The problem is clearly not money. The management of the money is. The same applies to State income taxes, but that's another post for another time.
Further compounding this issue for me, on a personal note, is the inaccessibility of affordable housing for the middle class. I work for the city that I cannot afford invest in -- and homeownership is an investment not merely personally but civically -- so I must admit that my willingness to pay more taxes -- whether it is city, county or state -- is significantly reduced.
Do I think schools should be properly funded? Of course I do. Do I think the Portland School District is doing all it can? I'm not sure. But as they continually run out of funds, one has to wonder where the leak is. I do not think another monetary band-aid solves it.
Posted by: Rowan Flowers | Feb 10, 2006 12:33:20 PM
Sam,
I am relative newcomer to the city (2 years) but due to my profession (hotel manager) I have had the benefit of living in many locations across the country. Oregonians like many citizens across the country want all of the services but refuse to pay for them with any type of tax increases. I would suggest the state implement a sales tax like most other states. I realize this is hererssy in Oregon but polititians need to have the courage to stand up and suggest this to their constituants. Sales tax or a VAT tax would be the most fair way to increase the funds for the necessary services. Once in place, the state would have a more reliable income stream to properly fund the school system.
Posted by: Tracy Marks | Feb 10, 2006 12:33:23 PM
Many of my friends and neighbors on the east side are making significant cuts in family budgets, foregoing many needed repairs and improvements in homes, cars and teeth. Many have not seen cost-of-living adjustments since 2001; and many have had hours cut. Education is very important ... but many families have nothing to give.
Posted by: Allen | Feb 10, 2006 12:33:30 PM
I think that the state is expecting Portland to cover its own shortfall while building up the rest of the state.... and people seem fed up.
income tax as a stop gap was ok but not a permanent fix. Household incomes wont tolerate more property taxes either. Its time Portland raised some hell with the state.
Posted by: JTJ | Feb 10, 2006 12:33:49 PM
It is extremely hard to know what Portlanders who care about education should do in the absence of any leadership from the state other that promoting secession. In the absence of secession, it seems reasonable to try to do something financially since portlanders seem to care more about education than the state as a whole. The hardest part is picking the exact dollar amount and the mechanism. The next poll should more specifically try to address an amount people are willing to be taxed (in some way), trying to also evaluate their income or, if home owner, value of home. Comments from business leaders, including private and public (e.g., OHSU), about the difficulty recruiting people nationally when the public educational system is going down the tubes would be helpful.
Posted by: Barry Oken | Feb 10, 2006 12:34:41 PM
I would like to see a better accounting of the Oregon Lottery Dollars. Why are we not funneling more of those dollars into education? Also, what about State tax dollars? If we don't put education forward a as top priority, we will lose the abiltiy to hold on to our citizens for the long run, and what we now know and love about Portland, Oregon, USA, will dissapear as our citizens flee to locations that are more family friendly!
Posted by: Ed | Feb 10, 2006 12:36:49 PM
Katz and Kitzhaber did the state a historic INJUSTICE when in the early 1990's they led the shift of funding responsibiltiy from the local community to the state. This trend needs to be reveresed and allow the community take back ownership of education allowing parents to determine the course of education and funding level/prioirities. Local control, local ownership, local responsibiltiy -- that's what is needed. Not more big brother influence.
Posted by: d | Feb 10, 2006 12:38:14 PM
I think that we should add another lottery to the equasion, either scratch offs or lottery machine, where all of the funds go only to schools. Secondly, the top 1% of income makers should go back to paying the previous levels before the tax cuts. While this is Federal in nature, it is the biggest reason we have this problem to begin with. We have all be Bush Whacked.
Posted by: Rick Caldwell | Feb 10, 2006 12:41:10 PM
I don't necessarily oppose this tax as a funding source. What I oppose is the fact that it's another stopgap solution that covers (barely) only Portland's backside. When we voted in the last "temporary" tax, I was VERY VOCAL about my skepticism that we would not be going thorugh this same process three years down the line, which of course we are.
My problem is this: Some day, I say hopefully, the legislature is going to craft a STATEWIDE solution for funding schools, which will have to include some form of taxation. most of that money's going to come from Portland, and Washington County and we're VERY likely to end up double-taxed.
Of course, this assumes that the legislature will actually DO something about school funding, which is about as likely as the notorious tram budget going back down to 15 mil.
I oppose these temporary stop-gap non-fixes. I am willing to support the schools, but I want a sustainable solution.
Elected officials: This is YOUR JOB . Do it.
Posted by: Mark Myers | Feb 10, 2006 12:42:17 PM
Four years ago I voted for the "temporary" income tax. . .I foolishly thought the Legislature would allocate adequate school funding. They haven't, and I won't support another round of temporary taxes!
The metro area needs to somehow connect better with our neighbors in the rest of the state. Some districts in E.O. have already gone to 4-day school week, and even though Portland schools only get back 95% of the income tax dollars we send to Salem for schools, one adult voter (& parent) in one of those 4-day districts told me that was just fine that Portland subsidizes the rest of the state -- we need to suffer just like they do!
Unfortunately, it's the kids (and our nations's future) that will have to suffer, until the Oregon Legislature, Governor, and majority of citizens see how short-sighted it is to short-change education.
M.A.
(30-year Portland resident / former parent volunteer in PPS / still strong supporter of excellence in public education!)
Posted by: M P | Feb 10, 2006 12:46:52 PM
Sam,
Thanks for asking for our comments.
As a former teacher in both the public and the private sectors, I do support the fine work of educators in Portland. The vast majority of them are saints and are working in an ever-increasingly "up-hill" environment.
However, it is also very important to recognize that Oregon's system of school funding is based in STATE law---NOT in stop-gap funding pasted together by city politicians (albeit with good intentions).
It is NOT the task of city and county governance to step-in with its own bandaid plans.
Please, please honor the process and FIX the process. Don't simply impose yet another process.
Furthermore, if state politicians see Portland city government coming to the rescue, providing supplemental support, there little incentive for the state pols to do THEIR work.
Whew!
¡Feliz fin de Semana!
-ob
Posted by: Oregbear | Feb 10, 2006 12:47:13 PM
There is no reason to keep taxes as a dark age era system. Taxes can be a dynamic and powerful force in growing a sustainable economy, if we stop thinking of them in old economy terms.
One innovation I've thought of is a Variable Rate Tax that builds an investment fund for schools, public projects, economic development, and environmental preservation. The fund would be managed like a pension fund and the tax rate would decrease (and potentially disappear) as returns from the fund increased.
Another forward thinking change would be mandating the implementation of Accounting Office Audit suggestions that result in savings over a 10 year period. Any savings from efficieny changes could be reinvested within the agency in question, providing motivation for the change.
If we stop blocking our ability to innovate there are solutions that my energize the support of the general public.
Posted by: Reuben Nisenfeld | Feb 10, 2006 12:52:37 PM
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Mayor Tom is on the right path especially because he wants to identify and address the problem before creating a quick fix. It hasn't worked through previous efforts. It is imperative though that local efforts include a substantive effort by the legislature to uphold their mandated responsibility to Oregonians and to students.
Good education will make Oregon a better place and save us a lot in having to pay much less for services for those underserved by the education system in their formative years.
Posted by: Michael Roth | Feb 10, 2006 12:55:36 PM
I voted last time for the tax. And what happened? Portland Public Schools' Wilson High School cut programs and special education services. I was horrified at what awaited our son at Wilson, and how we were treated there. Luckily our son was accepted into Thomas Edison High School, a private school for smart kids with learning differences. So, yes, we fled. And now we struggle to pay that tuition. But the education is worth it.
The state needs to address a permanent funding source and adequate funding for all the state's schools. And fix special education. It is abysmal at the high school level. They are basically thowing these capable kids away. Christine Decker
Posted by: Christine Decker | Feb 10, 2006 12:58:13 PM
Solving the Police/Firemens Disability and Public Employees Retirement Funds are just as important an issue as schools. Don't use the Schools & Kids as an pawn for a new tax, solve some glaring budget decisions, you must deal with now, not later.
Also, studded tires are casuing hunderds of millions of dollars damage to our roads. We've had 1 ice day this year, studdless snow tires work just as well as studded tires, with no damage. ODOT recomends that studded tires be banned, it's time to propose a ballot inititive to ban studded tires and use the money saved on road maintenance, be used for schools. We all have to make choices. A minority use studded tires, but cause a majority of road wear & tear.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 10, 2006 1:13:51 PM
I supported what was supposed to be a one-time, temporary tax initiative to help our schools a few years ago. But I will not support this initiative again. In addition to the other reasons cited among the other blogs in this site, I feel that if the PPS could afford to dispense $165,000 in bonuses to 18 top administrators for the 2003-04 school year (as reported by The Oregonian) then they don't deserve my support a second time around. I felt deceived.
Posted by: Randy Petty | Feb 10, 2006 1:14:04 PM
I support and increase in taxes to cover the pressing needs of our school districts. It's time to stop saying we support our schools and actually do it.
Thank you.
Posted by: Sam Mowry | Feb 10, 2006 1:15:53 PM
Progressives support redistribution of wealth and "progressive" income tax brackets. Right? Fair is fair, level the playing field, best judge a society by how they treat their most vulnerable populations....Blah, blah, blah. If you support "fair" tax policies, you ought to support "fair" spending policies. Is a little intellectual consistency too much to ask for?
Take, for example, the equitable distribution of General Fund tax revenues across all Oregon public schools. The "rich" school districts (like Portland) were robbed to pay the poor school districts more. This provides for equitable funding of all the children in Oregon, no matter where they live. It's simply progressive redistribution of wealth: just like you wanted.
But nooooooo! Those selfish Portland Mommies and Daddies can't sit idly by and accept the averaging of statewide education spending. Their little darlings REQUIRE MORE RESOURCES than all those "other" kids. It's like all the little urban kiddies are driving Hummers to school: they are the education resource hogs.
Is it fair for Portland Public Schools to sink the SS Equitable Education Budget.
Posted by: Alice | Feb 10, 2006 1:29:42 PM
Before we raise taxes for schools, we need to focus on improving school quality. There is much deadwood in the school system, but bad teachers cannot be fired, good teachers are not adequaltely rewarded, and a good principal is hard to find. Quality is of course related to funding, but it is more related to attitude, enthusiasm, competition, and ridding oneself of toxic employees. Structural changes to improve quality need to be made before I throw more dime into the educational sinkhole.
One more thing, if Potter's first priority is children, shouldn't he budget school funding first, and then offer a tax to fund pothole repairs, sewer upgrades, and bike programs? Why did he keep the budget status quo and put children on the chopping block? Sounds like empty rhetoric to me.
Posted by: John Perkins | Feb 10, 2006 1:40:02 PM
Support our schools with funding. Do it creatively and put together the pieces of funding from numerous sources, including private sources--contributions to this blog have many excellent ideas. It's extra work and time consuming, but its the way it's being done in better-managed government agencies across the nation, and I've contributed to some of these. Their mission is about sticking with the "c" words: Creativity, collaboration, cooperation, coordination. This isn't meant to be simplistic here, just brief. Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Margaret Puckette | Feb 10, 2006 1:53:20 PM
I feel the PPS has more than enough money at this point.
Tapped out? Without a doubt we taxpayers are tapped out.
Also, why in the world sould taxpayers east of 205 be required to pay taxes so an unfair split tilted toward PPS is the result? This is the same thing that happened when Vera took Portland tax money and gave the bulk to PPS (per capita). The poor step-sisters in east Portland were, once again, left to pay and receive no return.
As an afterthought, do you really think it is a good idea to give the extreme left leaning city council the right to levy taxes on a whim as Potter's tax scheme would allow? Puleese.
Maybe it is time to have the parents that are making all of the demands to pony up a little more to support their own children. How about all of the state tax deductions that parents enjoy be rescinded and directed to the school districts that they live in?
No one seems to have a problem with so-called sin taxes such as tobbacco and alchohol taxes. The argument goes that people that use these legal substances cost society tax dollars so therefore they should be taxed heavily for the right to use these legal substances. I can't think of anything that costs citizens more in tax dollars than children.
I have no idea what this would raise for schools but it sure couldn't hurt and at the same time maybe teach the school age parents that their kids' "free" education is not free.
Posted by: Pete | Feb 10, 2006 2:01:43 PM
Oregon Legislators - it's time for you to step-up, do your job and address this issue. You were given a generous opportunity to address and correct the issue of school funding for our great state. Heck, simply addressing it probably would have garnered a decent level of support. And I'm not simply "tax weary," but I see another "temporary" tax giving the legislature - the very people we elected to deal with these tough issues - incentive to do absolutely nothing. I'm venturing a guess that the legislature has had a pretty good laugh on us.
Funding schools is a complicated issue, and I certainly don't pretend to have the answers. I tip my hat to the Mayor for his attempts to address school funding. I think the Mayor's goal of creating an Education Summit is a fine idea, and believe that it will generate interest and hopefully some understanding. However, if the Governor and our legislators do not participate, then the joke will again be on us.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." - GDubyah
Posted by: Sheila | Feb 10, 2006 2:03:17 PM
City Politicans have inserted themselves into school funding for the purpose of hiding behind children while they avoid the number one financial issue facing the City - the Police and Fire Pension Program - currently more than 1.2 Billion underfunded. Increased future annual underfunding estimates range up to 100 million per year. This dirty little secret needs to be dealt with even in the face of opposition from the police and fire persons e.g.the current mayor whose retirement incomes are exempt from state and local income taxes. Tom
Posted by: Thomas Landye | Feb 10, 2006 2:08:02 PM
The apathy toward school funding in this city and state is systemic. Everyone talks about the importance of education, yet no one supports it. Have the anti-tax forces brain-washed everyone? The local income tax wasn’t sending money to faceless bureaucrats in some remote location; it was going to our kids, here in our city. It was an investment in our future.
There is no solution local or statewide that doesn't require more revenue, in some form of tax. At least the proposed solution sent local dollars into our local classrooms, instead of going to the state, where we get less in return than we pay in.
Audits clearly showed the county income tax was being spent responsibly. For those people who talk about waste in the current system I'd like to see some concrete examples, because from my personal experience there is a tireless team of teachers in our schools, led by a brilliant and dedicated superintendent. There isn’t any real fat left to trim from the school budget. We don’t have sports teams, we don’t have art or music, parents buy supplies, fund raise and volunteer to their limit to backfill the system now.
How can we look at a $90 million reduction in funding for our schools next year and shrug our shoulders? Does it take a cartoon to make us realize we have a crisis? Taxpayers in Portland are seeing lower property taxes and the elimination of the county income tax. Most of that money is coming out of the school budget. Even with the proposed income tax we would still see a reduction in our tax bills.
We worry about the loss of families from Portland but don’t support the thing they value most. Higher taxes won’t drive me away from Portland or Oregon, but a school system in shambles definitely will.
Posted by: Michael Tingley | Feb 10, 2006 2:09:11 PM
After the county tax expires and as a temporary measure, I support more $$ for schools
However,
TAX PROVIDED public employee benefits ARE TOO HIGH!
They need be reduced.
If the low employee contribution were raised and retirement age increased to 65
and
if the police and fire disability were brought under PERS or SAIF,
I would support new permanent funding for schools.
john wish
southeast portland
Posted by: John R. Wish | Feb 10, 2006 2:23:24 PM
Sam:
Thanks for the forum, and I hope you or at least your staff are reading, though I'm pretty sure you are.
I have three thoughts on the schools mess. First, the city doesn't have a responsibility to fund schools. That may be heresy, but it's true. If the mayor wants to support local-option property taxes and stump for the various local school boards, so be it. But the city has its own responsibilities that it is currently struggling to do well.
Second, there is little discussion of how to deliver world-class education cost effectively. I invite you and all the readers of this post to look at Europe's public education model. They are KILLING our kids right now for much less money per student because they have competitive, choice-based systems. Choice works. Competition works. Industrial-era, one-size-fits-all education models do not. There are very few truly successful public school systems in this country that are using our model. It's just as outdated as car-only transit plans. They just don't work. John Stossel had an amazing special a few weeks back on the subject. Check out his site on "Stupid in America."
Finally is the unseen and ignored effect of tax-increment financing by the PDC on our general fund dollars. That drains valuable service dollars from the city in favor of allowing the PDC to speculate on land development in several high-profile, high-dollar failures. If we ARE going to meddle in district affairs, we certainly have the money to do it if we rein in agencies like the PDC who are choking our budget.
Thanks.
Posted by: Don Smith | Feb 10, 2006 2:31:00 PM
Hi Sam,
Lots of comments here. First, I think education should be well funded. There are two questions: what is needed, and where sould it come from. It seems there's some agreement that schools need to be adequately funded and that they're not. The second question, however, has not been well enough thought through. It seems that where the money comes from, The Mult. Co. income tax surcharge, decided because that was the easiest way to get the money, not where it SHOULD come from. Where should the money come from? Those who can afford it. Those who have benefited the most from the federal tax cuts. Those who aren't paying as much through the other taxes we pay in Oregon. The MultCo tax was on employee income tax, and a really poorly designed tax. That pretty much excluded a lot of us who aren't employees. Those who, for example, speculate on housing and make a LOT of taxfree income by contributing to gentrification and pricing out the families that we all talk about -- they/we didn't pay the MultCo tax. So I would propose that the question we should be asking is not "Who is it easiest to collect taxes from for this?" But rather, "Who OUGHT to be kicking in more money for this?" For example, corporations getting the corporate kicker. People making a lot of income in ways that aren't otherwise taxed, those who's taxes (state and fed) have decreased as a result of federal tax cutting, etc. How about we tax pacs -- we could contribute to campaign finance reform and schools at the seme time. That's a bit toung in cheek, but we gotta start thinking outside the box as well as inside. Schools are a service that society, all of it, should support.
Posted by: Carl | Feb 10, 2006 2:48:48 PM
I do not believe we have a problem with school funding, I believe we have a problem with schools. When an employer has to make a candidate fill out their own employment application in their presence because a Oregon high school diploma is not evidence that the candidate can read, it says something about our schools. There has been very little change in our schools since the civil war and what there has been is not necessarily on the side of education. Here, in Portland, we live in four school districts; local district, intermediate education district, community college district and of course the state department of education. We should be in one district. Local school boards have some people who are actually interested in education, some who are competent and many who just want to test the political water to see if they can be elected. How many of you readers can tell us whom you voted for intermediate education district. The single district savings could be as much as 30% with no reduction in service and substantial benefit
Posted by: Jim Michels | Feb 10, 2006 2:55:47 PM
I am all about solving problems once and for all, not for enacting a "temporary tax" every few years to barely get us through. And then the ugly monster rears its ugly ahead again. What we're doing here is not working...plain and simple. We're just stomping out fires left and right. Education is essential. Funding education is essential. Don't get me wrong. I believe in funding it properly. But we're not doing that here. Those without children pay huge amounts. That's not fair. Property owners pay for those children whose parents don't own property. That's not fair. It's just very lopsided, not working, and about to fail.....big time. We need a vested, heartfelt, and pocketbook-felt, interest by those who actually have children in public schools. Maybe "public education" shouldn't be completely free? Maybe there should be a flat dollar amount to enroll children each year. Maybe the tax on those with children should be higher than on those who have no children. I'm just thinking outside the box here.....don't kill me, please! Maybe Oregon's tax kicker money should be put back into education. There are so many problems, so little money, so little time. We definitely need to think outside the four walls......NOW.
Posted by: Arnie | Feb 10, 2006 3:06:51 PM
Sam -This is not the time to look at the polls and throw up our hands - not on the critical question of turning around Portland's Schools.
Yes,we have watched creeping mediocrity and poor leadership erode the schools for 25 years. I say this as a parent who was involved in a volunteer leadership positions for many years. Unfortunaately there has been little acountability at the administrative level- rather a closed fiefdom lacking vision and operated for the benefit of the adminstration at the expense of schools.
Yes, it will take years to repair the damage, but there appears to be capable leadership at the top right now. On the subject of available funds: The voters have seen their overall tax bill decline in real dollars during the past several years- not tapped out. If we want to see our city as a healthy city, we must work to turn around the schools. If there is unity in the political leadership,coupled with a sense of mission, goals, and accountability from PPS --there is every reason to move the tax forward.
The option is to watch the families who care about their children's education reluctantly leave the city to the childless. The state has demonstrated an inability to adequately fund schools. Portland and the other ditricts surrounding the city must work to insure that all our schools are adequately funded through fair taxes.
Posted by: Rod Merrick | Feb 10, 2006 3:08:54 PM
We need every side to pitch in:
PAT needs to reduce teacher health care benefits and make it easier to fire bad teachers.
School Board needs to close and sell buildings, then redistrict. They need to rein in the School District Health and Welfare Trust (ever heard of that? try getting their financial info).
State Legislature at a minimum needs to fix the disparity between assessed home value/market value. Property taxes are uneven and unfair.
Dept of Ed needs to reduce their bite out of the State allocation. We cannot afford CIM/CAM or to explore for its replacement - please don't try.
No more short term fixes - isn't that the definition of insanity - trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results?
1% state wide sales tax for schools would suit me fine.
Thanks for the forum.
Posted by: gretchen | Feb 10, 2006 4:02:42 PM
I do belive that schools must be #1 in the budget However.
In the last five years my income has dropped to less than half of what it was. Why do the goverments="public employes" think they should keep getting raises, cost of living adjustments,etc when the rest of us are tightining or belts and getting less and less. Its crazy to think that well Public Employes want more so we will just take a bigger bit out of the smaller pie. Its got to stop. We can't keep giving more. Taxes are tied to income. When we take a drop in income so must everyone else.
Posted by: Tony Wagner | Feb 10, 2006 4:28:36 PM
I have been reading these comments and feel saddened when I think of the children next year whose education will be affected by the cuts to be made. Yes, the funding situation is intolerable and we did say that the last fix was temporary. However, if you are a highschooler in the PPS and your pre-calculus class has 45 students and your teachers mess up on your grades because they have too many kids to keep track of and the interesting electives that you wanted to take are cut and you can't afford to play sports because the sports fee is too high and there aren't enough teachers to teach the high level classes you need to take to get into a decent college- what message do you take from this and where do you find the inspiration to keep trying.
It doesn't matter that the politicians have messed up and it is the republicans or democrats fault or that the system should be changed. What does matter is that school still needs to happen and in the best way it can, for the kids who go to school. If we can't give them something to work and hope for than what are we doing?
Let's remove the politics and work to save the kids for everyone's sake. I support any tax necessary -especially a sales tax- to plug the gap. Please don't make our schools so bad that we can't send our kids there.
Posted by: Bonnie Hastings | Feb 10, 2006 4:38:38 PM
Sam,
It is apparent that Portland Public Schools does need funding help from the city. A reasonably painless way to get at least some funding that could go to schools would be to implement a cell phone use tax. As more and more people move away from land lines and make cell phones their sole phone service, the city needs to expand the service tax to include wireless phones.
Posted by: Stan Seleen | Feb 10, 2006 5:50:44 PM
I do not agree with the new tax proposal and will NOT support it.
How many times will we be told "just one more and that will fix the problem" and then get asked again.
Income tax versus property tax.
Neither are "equitable". You have kids in schools outside of the district or not in public schools at all and vice versa. Let's not forget all those families with no kids at all. How about renter's with kids (no property tax bill), or renter's without kids.....
Parents should (and usually do) take on the burden for their children. Let's get the State and Federal governments to own up to their funding responsibilities.
I have been told by teachers that it's not more $$ needed, but more accountability and better distribution of existing funds. I don't know this first hand, but it's a curious statement heard more than once. Hmmmmm....
Let's also not forget to consider more of the Lottery dollars could go toward schools, too, like in other states. This leads me to believe maybe there are other funding sources we hadn't considered???????
NO NEW SCHOOL TAX MEASURES
Those are my random thoughts for the day
Posted by: D | Feb 10, 2006 6:02:30 PM
Commissioner Adams,
I am tapped out and I do not have children in the schools, but I gladly support a local option tax dedicated to the schools if state funding is not reduced proportionally.
Some specific suggestions to consider: whatever is done needs to be done with the support of all the city commissioners. Second, we must redouble our efforts to improve Portland's reputation across the state, with the citizens, and with the legislators. I know this is difficult with the negativity in politics at all levels, but it is necessary. Consider a statewide television campaign featuring Portland parents talking in their own words, timed to impact the next legislative session. Third, the schools need to publicize their efficiencies and successes, which are many. Consider the model proposed by William Ouchi in his book "Making Schools Work". Fourth, the quality of the schools is affected by parental involvement, and parental preschool preparation, more so than any other factor. Therefore all of Mayor Potter's childrens' initiative programs should include a component for improving parental involvement in the schools and creating the best environment in the 0-5 years so critical for being ready for school.
Finally, I have lived in cities whose parents have fled the public schools or fled the city district for suburbs with smaller districts. Portland, do not let this happen. Once it starts, it is difficult to reverse, if not impossible. In our campaign for funding, let's not become so alarmist, as has been the case in the last few years, so as to drive more parents away.
The schools know the amount budget will be short. Plan the cuts now in days, staff, class size and school closings. Publicize the local school impact to each parent with a child in the schools. They can communicate that to their relatives and neighbors.
There is a lot of misinformation as to what is possible under current law and confusion over using money dedicated to one use for another. The campaign needs to communicate to all Oregonians to clear that up. Once we get this solved, there is always health care to deal with!
Posted by: Rob W | Feb 10, 2006 6:15:58 PM
I believe 2% for Public Art funds should include a community service matching requirement.
Every "2% Artist" should provide an "in-kind" contribution of community arts education in the public schools.
Simply take the value of their public grant and divide it by $50/hour to determine the number of hours the artist would be required to volunteer.
For example: an artist receives a $5,000.00 "2% for Art" grant. They deliver the work product, and they are obligated to complete ($5,000 divided by $50) = 100 hours of community service. If the Artiste can't pass the background check, they could send an artist's assistant in their place.
There are some outside the arts community that may find $50/hour to be a lofty rate in these austere budget times. Be not afraid, oh ye public artists, for we informed the "2% for Art Grant" includes money for labor & materials.
On this basis, we should use a larger divisor on the $50,000 grants (and above). It may be more appropriate to use a $1,000/hour divisor for these 2% grants, or even $5,000/hour for our most gifted artists in their most splendiferous installations.
We must avoid any scenario whereby Public Artists are stuck volunteering in the classroom for days or weeks on end instead of attending to their craft.
Remember, it's FOR THE CHILDREN!
Posted by: Modest | Feb 10, 2006 6:28:17 PM
We need quality schools, but we need lots of other things too.
It will not be fixed by just another temporary tax on the people of Portland. The solutions must come from higher up to responsibility pyramid like the federal gov't(defense budget), the state gov't, and the corporations.
It is also a sham that the school district can't save more money. To do so would take a radical change in how they do business, but more of this should be done. The current school model has not kept pace with modern innovations.
GET THE OREGON STATE LEGISLATURE TO REFORM TAXES AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM. IF IT TAKES A NATIONAL CRISIS THEN MAYBE IT WILL BE FIXED. And maybe people will stop coming here.
Another solution would be to take back control of the schools from the state.
Also the schools would benefit from more direct control by parents. By this I mean break up Sch. Dist. #1. And/or merge the City, the County, and the School Dist. together and the break it up into manageable sized cities.
Posted by: Don MacGillivray | Feb 10, 2006 6:28:46 PM
I would vote for a property tax to support schools. This is spread across ALL stakeholders and has the taxing infrastructure already in place. I will not vote for an income tax that EXEMPTS some citizens from their responsibility, as the ITAX did, and which would require a costly new infrastructure.
Posted by: gensky | Feb 10, 2006 7:06:57 PM
Schools. Not a fan.
mildly dyslexic and resent most of my public school expierance.
Could there be a more humane approch to education - inspiring students to learn without flogging their aspirations?
...and as far as the funding goes:
income tax? why garnish legit income?
property tax? well, maybe owning property should be discouraged... fail to see the connection though.
as nice as it is to pay for items at the price advertized, a sales tax makes more sense... infrastructure yes - yet a reliable sorce of funds...
Posted by: corbett | Feb 10, 2006 9:05:28 PM
RE school funding, PPS needs to show the fiscal responsibility that households have to manage to with our higher energy costs, lower wages, and now a possible tax increase. It's not that people don't support good schools, it just feels like if we feed the beast more money, it will be wasted.
Sam, please post the wage scale and some sample wages for various teacher and administrators' pay. AND how about how much PPS paid off Goldschmidt!!! THAT'S WHY we don't want to feed the beast more money.
$600k for WHAT?
About 30 years ago PPS built the new HQ building. It met the needs for the administration of a 80,000 student population. Now enrollment is under 50,000 but the Admin building is still stuffed full. That's why we don't want to feed the beast more money. What gives w/ that waste of money?
PPS needs to show we're getting value now before they come asking us for more money. they need to show we can trust them with our money.
I have kids in PPS schools. I see the crazy waste of money.
I will take issue with some earlier comments about principals, teachers, etc. I find that East/West Sylvan, where my kids are, has GREAT teachers and GREAT Principals/staff. GREAT. But I can't believe HQ is being run effeciently.
Posted by: Scott Allen | Feb 10, 2006 9:49:52 PM
Sam..thanks for asking.
raise property taxes.
Coffee tax..10cents per luxury drink (latte etc)
windfall profits tax from big oil and NW Natural
Posted by: Sar | Feb 10, 2006 10:03:26 PM
We should do everything we can to educate children, or else we will risk having another ignorant president, uninterested in science, literature and history.
Posted by: Enid | Feb 11, 2006 7:41:36 AM
Lots of great comments by folks who understand that keeping the School District solvent and competitive with private schools is not only good for children and society, but also good economics. Good public schools attract business, hold on to others, and increase my property values which is good for me.
The problem is how to get the District the money it needs? This trainwreck has been building for years. The reality is that the District has the money it needs, but it isn't allowed to keep it. Several people including Sam get it. We send our local tax dollars south to Salem and when they come back they are 34% light. You try running your budget with a 34% hole in your pocket.
Measure 5 caused a lot of money problems for School Districts all over the state, the hardest hit were in Eastern Oregon. The fix was to spin a the decision of the US Supreme Court, that arrived at about the same time, in such a way that it could be reasonabley said that the whole state was one giant school district. The rural areas kicked in their timber revenues and the Portland Metro area threw in their tax base. Voila! Immediate problem deferred to some distant time in the future. Well, now is that time.
So what to do now? There has to be some way for the Metro area to get out. I don't know how to fix the rural schools shortfalls but that has to be someone elses problem. How do we fix our District.
It seems to me that many years ago Chicago was faced with the same problem. Their taxes were paying for the schools all across rural Illinois. They merged their school district with the City and somehow hung on to more of their own money.
How about Portland? There has to be a way to opt out of the State system. The other alternative is to assist the people out in Eastern Oregon who always want to leave this state for Idaho. We should help them go.
Is there any way to dissolve the School District and its tax base, forfeit their real property to City Parks and Recreation, establish a new smaller tax base for a PandR Education Div., and then have Parks and Rec establish an education program that would setup and run under Federal guidelines and private accreditation,and with Federal monies(Title 1 etc.), with Head Start running pre-K and K programs, and the new Education Division in PandR running Grades 1 to 12.
What do you think? I was told by a former school board member almost ten years ago that it might be possible, but "of coarse it would be political suicide for any politician with statewide asspirations."
I don't know, these are desperate times. And desperate times call for desperate measures.
Posted by: Fenian | Feb 11, 2006 1:06:00 PM
Portland has already become a bi-polar city "affordable mostly to the wealthy or the subsidized poor".
Take a walk on the bus mall between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and tell me otherwise? Pioneer Place draws a large lunch crowd, but the middle class isn't eating or shopping there. If you're feeling brave, try walking through the Park Blocks at 10:00 p.m. carrying a pizza.
The well heeled are quick to transfer from their transit to the museum, show, restaurant, or hotel. The poor are busy trying to stay warm, or beg some spare change, or get high (sometimes pursuing all three simultaneously). On weekends, you'll find some middle class twenty-somethings clubbing downtown, but that's about it.
If you're looking for the middle aged and middle class, try Washington Square or Bridgeport Village or the new downtown shops in Lake Oswego. No homeless kids, no drunks, no bums sifting through the garbage.
Posted by: Alice | Feb 11, 2006 4:33:33 PM
Portland Public has been assertively dumbing down to the state's baseline tests. We've seen a principal brag about the high percentage of her kids who met that standard in a meeting that was called on behalf of TAG kids. This has left bright kids quite bored to the point of dropping out of school out of frustration with the busy work and boredom. We cannot afford the time, and certainly not the cost of private school, but our kids are too important to subject them to more of such abuse: they have each made the choice to home-school.
Most neighborhood schools make quite sure that bright kids do not assemble into a critical mass, on the mistaken assumption that it is the job of the bright kids to pull up the rest of the classes. It would cost no extra money at all to let kids group and re-group so that they would often be working with kids of similar interests and abilities.
It would cost no extra money to allow eager-learning kids to attend classes without regard to age. This should also help all kids: it is more than a little frustrating to be one of the kids whom the others regularly wait for.
Meanwhile, PPS puts energy into frustrating families who put heroic energy into trying to get their kids into some school they hope will be suitable. (Ref: Oregonian article about tracking down people who rent apartments to qualify kids for desirable school). If someone feels that strongly about one school over another, work WITH them. This is one of many ways that the schools do not cooperate with parents who do care about their kids.
Posted by: Hardin Dareka | Feb 11, 2006 6:07:02 PM
Why is the cost of educating our children so expensive? We've been programmed to believe that we can do nothing more to control costs and the only ooption is to pour more money into an inefficient system. Everybody is looking out for number one, particularly our educators.
We need to take a closer look at where the taxes we pay are spent, with all costs left on the table. The problem with that approach is those people we entrust to make these descisions are too concerned with their own self interests to be effective in developing a meaningful solution.
Posted by: Clyde | Feb 11, 2006 6:21:31 PM
Let's stop for a moment in this tax debate and look at some facts. First, there's the issue of poor fiscal management: the Steve Goldschmidt firing and related $600,000+ costs; $16M in back wages due janitors; egregious employment contracts for the school administrators in general; deferred compensation for past superintendents; and the list goes on. Then there are the bloated PERS payments, and a system that includes so many social programs, "living wage" jobs, and who knows what else in the mix, all in the name of education. If education were a top priority why does Oregon (really, the teacher's union) not allow professionals in various fields easy, and appropriately compensated access to teaching careers as many other states do? Given these observations it is hard not to say our system of public education is badly broken. It's a tragedy that our children are the hostages in this mess, but maybe it's time to stop propping up a system that's obviously broken and let outrage lead to systemic change for the better.
Posted by: GB | Feb 12, 2006 11:38:30 AM
Why not a pollution tax? Or a tax on individual non-business miles driven in personal autos and trucks? Or a sales tax on new cars? (There IS public transit, you know. Plenty of us do not drive.) Or a real estate transfer tax on houses with more than 10 bathrooms (ha!)
Ahhhhh....stepping on too many toes?
Posted by: Marian | Feb 12, 2006 11:41:46 AM
Thanks for asking for our opinion. I'm a long-time Democrat who normally would say yes to any tax - for schools, for parks, for police - but I need to pause and really think about this education tax. How many of the taxpayers have needed to work with the schools lately in Portland? Are we getting the best education possible or do we need to really look at more of a free market system? Choice is the American way, and it should be for our schools too. Survival of the fittest...all kids should have the same shot at a quality education no matter what their socio-economic status. Choice can mean within school districts, within the area (so transfers from say Portland Public Schools to Reynolds) or to private schools. We need to think outside the box...and money isn't always the answer.
Posted by: m. White | Feb 12, 2006 2:00:36 PM
First, I believe that public schools are essential for a democratic society. Unfortunately, Measure 50 destroyed the basis for that in Oregon by capping property taxes. I believe this cap was imposed for reasons that were as much about racism, anti-intellectualism, and anti-urbanism as "over taxation."
I grew up in logging and farming towns rural areas of Oregon. These attitudes were dominate then and I doubt much has changed. In fact, the rising fortunes of Portland vis a vis small Oregon towns can only add fuel to these fires. Accordingly, part of the Legislatures chronic failure to address the school funding issue has to recognize that logic will not previal over prejudice. Rather than hope eternally that it will, and that rural and Republican legislators will come to their senses, Portland needs to find new ways to fend for itself and do so in a way that addresses the geographic disparity in educational needs and resources head on.
If the Legislature won't redistribute taxes in a manner that provides equitable education for Portland students, Portland needs to create new revenues streams based on this imbalance. Given that the legislators who continue to frustrate adequate school funding are from areas that are dependent on services Portland area firms and infrastructure provides, the City should create new taxes to levy on these exchanges. These could include port fees for shipping goods up and down the river to rural Oregon, road tolls that apply to intra-state trucking (and perhaps personal vehicle travel), fees on air plane tickets on Oregon residents outside the tri-county area, and so on. Non-Oregon residents and shipments would be exempted, just as Oregon residents are from Washington sales taxes. Local residents could be exempted using a similar mechansims (showing local ID) or through a credit on property or other tax.
I think it is time to get tough, or at least threaten to get tough, on the rural "free lunch" crowd.
If these seems unrealistic, then we should pursue "school choice" without respect to geography. The school district or school foundation should establish some "boarding homes" for Portland students in rural areas so they can attend those schools. I expect the prospect of inner-city children attending white, rural schools would embolden rural and Republican legislators to come up with adequate school funding in a hurry.
I know this sounds very mean spirited and uncharitable towards these legislators, but their bahavior in this and other matters (gay rights, Willamette discharges, etc.) has been petty, vindictive, and wholly reprehensible. Turning the other cheek in the face of these facts is just plain stupid. Portland and Portlanders need to call them out for their behavior and respond appropriately (to that behavior, not with our usual civility).
Posted by: Mike Warwick | Feb 12, 2006 6:01:28 PM
Sam, you asked for it, so here it is!
Before the City Council can expect Portland taxpayers to step up and pay more for schools, the City Council it self must put its own house in order. This would require more than just lip service and an actual shift in the City’s top priority from promoting big time development to schools. Starting this process would include eliminating and repealing all property tax abatements (except for low income people), reducing the amount of land in urban renewal districts and lowering if not eliminating urban renewal charges on residential property tax bills. Tax abatements have become a subsidy to the wealthy. Both tax abatements and urban renewal significantly lower funding to schools.
The City Council must also fix the police and fire fighter retirement fund so it is something other than a pay as you go expenditure funded by property taxes, find a way to reduce sewer charges to homeowners and show restraint for funding pet projects like art, bicycle babble, trams, street cars and/or the next big thing to come along.
The continual tax increases and cost of living within the City of Portland is one of the many reasons families are moving out. With District One enrollment declining and school buildings being closed, Portland Public Schools has no business considering building any new schools at this time, New Columbia or any where else. There is no disagreement that Ball School should be closed, however those students can and should utilize one of the other already closed buildings as a less costly alternative. Furthermore, PPS must keep its promise to further reign in educator health costs.
As for the State Legislature, the so-called state education model may have been accepted by politicians, educators and advocate parents, but not by the people who this group expects to pay the bills. The general public is rarely invited to the table for such discussions or the subject debated in the public arena. As a kid growing up in Portland and attending public school, all my classes except one had 30 to 40 students in them. Recommending luxury class sizes of 20 something or less is nothing more than a utopia proposition that should also include doubling or even tripling the minimum wage if the people are expected to pay for it.
The State Legislature must also reign in proposed new taxes and fees charged individuals and reign in their own costly pet projects too, then significantly increase the minimum tax large corporations pay as a start to finding a more equitably balanced division of taxes collected between individuals and business.
Finally as a course of action in the long term, the City Council must effectively find ways to increase average incomes with in the City at the same time keeping expenses down. In the short term, city leaders should and must go back to those business leaders that earmarked education as Oregon’s top priority at a Convention Center summit a few of months back and include the requirement their own business community dollars and/or corporate sponsorships fund education if they expect the words they spoke to become a reality.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Feb 12, 2006 6:17:16 PM
Sam,
Where do I start? I moved here five years ago with great expectations of starting in a new and family friendly city where my extended family has lived for a quarter century, and it has been a deeply disheartening experience.
I think you are badly mistaken if you attribute this just to household budgets. Citizens would support new revenues if they felt they would be well spent. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that Portland is facing a deep distrust in its public officials, from the Public Schools, City, and County.
When every day bring constant sniping among the County Commissioners; when we face a meth crisis and shuttered jails; and when we read of a transportation project with 400% cost overruns; is it any doubt that the public is unwilling to pour more into the coffers?
As a parent of four children (three in the public schools), I have not felt that city leaders have paid much attention to the needs of the middle and working class in Portland.
I was not at all surprised that the poll came out the way it did. Since I've been here, the development model of Portland seems to be to attract the "creative class" into downtown Portland and provide expensive amenities for them. When you have 80% of a city without school age children, are you really surprised that support for the schools is collapsing?
Sam, as I said, my family has lived in Portland for 25 years. But I have been looking at the real estate pages in Vancouver awfully closely. The same 350k that puts my family of 6 into a small 1500 sqft house will buy me 5 bedrooms, a large yard, and most importantly, wonderfully well run and funded public schools.
I don't want to move and I sure don't want to commute. But what choice do I have? I can't wait for this to be worked out in the next few years.
Posted by: paul gronke | Feb 12, 2006 8:50:51 PM
Hey Sam!!!! It's not the job of the city to fund or run the schools!!!!! You want to have some money to run the city then do what needs to be done.
Stop funding of the tram! Stop tearing down places where people can work for places where you shoe horn them in to live. Stop the subsidizing of those projects! Make folks pay for riding the toy train and toy trolley! Don't waste taxpayer money on funding political campaigns (let's see, we pay you to run for the office then we pay if you get elected - a waste of taxpayer money). Quit trying to get the city into the power business.
Let the school board do what it needs to - deal with the schools and teachers; has NOTHING to do with the city. The school board needs to step up and tell the union that they want non-union teachers and cut back on the administrators and any other non-teaching position.
My child goes to a private, Christian high school that is NOT affliated with any church or religion. We pay less per year than what the state of Oregon spends and that's for everything - buildings and maintenance included (what public schools don't tell you is the true cost of the "all funds budget" which includes building, heating, maint, etc costs - it's twice the number you constantly read). She spent one year in a PPS high school, it was a snake pit (she went to a private grade school) - she didn't learn in the high school, she almost went backwards. Now she is learning, they spend time teaching NOT social engineering.
Go ahead and tax yourselves into oblivian - I moved out a while back and it would take a miracle for me to move back into Portland.
Get city government back to the job of running the city, NOT all the nonsense that the lot of you have decided to make your business.
Posted by: MMMarvel | Feb 13, 2006 8:03:54 AM
As a local School Board member (RSD for 7 years)and a life long educator, I believe it is time to bite the bullet and let the state legislature take responcibility for NOT taking responcibility for decades!
Let our schools take the hit.... no more short-term band aids. Don't blame local voters or city/county officials... use the media everyday to expose the legislature's lake of courage and leadership. Place blame squarely on them... keep the oven red hot untill they do something about it.... NOI LOCAL BAIL OUTS.... ESPECIALLY IN PDX.... Clearly it will take a radical reform of the state's approach to school funding...but, after all, they wanted control of school funding under the banner of equity..... I say we hold them to it.....
The 500 pound elephant in the room is PPS.... In addition to being in a completely different situation than the rest of the metro school districts, they have a long-standing reputation for not playing well with others.... My district is not is the same boat as PPS (we have too many students and not enough schools) and doesn't requiere the same kind of solution... We need to pass a bond (the likelihood of which may be diminished by another TAX on the ballot for our low-income voters)
My two cents worth....
Time to tough love the situation....
Posted by: John | Feb 13, 2006 10:01:27 AM
As for consolidating suburban districts with PPS... NO WAY.... PPS, like ALL mega school districts is too big to provide localally responsive services allready... I would be shocked if the voters in Reynolds, David Douglas, Centenial,etc... would ever go for it..... We will not bail out PPS.... Many of us moved out here to get away from Portland Public School! (please excuse typos)
Posted by: John | Feb 13, 2006 10:05:15 AM
John,
Your "tough love" means my children suffer through years of oversized classrooms.
With all due respect, no thanks. Tough love your own kids,not mine.
Posted by: paul | Feb 13, 2006 5:31:55 PM
The Mayor's ide of temporary taxes is bad for several reasons.
1. It makes Portland more expensive to live in compared to the suburbs.
2. It gives the state legislature a free ride. Why should they step up to the plate when Portland is already taxing the people?
3. It doesn't provide a permanent solution to the funding problem.
4. Establishing an income tax makes it too tempting to tax for other purposes.
The schools should come up with a permanent solution, not another band-aid fix. It's time for some out-of-the-box thinking. Let's see if the politicians and bureaucrats are up to the challenge.
Posted by: Tom Wikle | Feb 13, 2006 6:46:52 PM
I don't know much about where our taxes all go but yes the cost of living has gone up and yes schools do need more money. As a student I think I would understand this need more than other who aren't students in the Portland public school system. I think that it isn't a very smart move at all, all this money getting taken away from schools to fund a war and reconstruction in a far away place is ridiculous! The children of American are the future and getting our classes taken away and having bigger class sizes is making the future of American look grim and not as educated as we need to be. With fewer classes and more children being born every year which means more and more coming into schools means bigger class sizes. Thus that means less help from teachers when kids need it and less being assigned as homework because teachers can’t handle so many students! In one of my classes we sit on BUCKETS because there aren't enough seats for everyone in the class and district doesn't have any to send us! We need more funding in public schools or our standards of knowledge will have to go down due to these cutbacks. We are continuing to make it to where the wealthy, who can afford to send their kids to expensive private schools, have even more ways to stay the most educated, leading to usually keeping the cycle of staying an upper class citizen and being the only ones to be able to get into high positions in America. And still making it a lot easier for the rich and harder for the middle class and lower class to get ahead in America. Once again doing what America seems so famous for is keeping people in their “places”! The people in middle and lower class situations who have children in public schools means less education, like I stated before, thus meaning that either they will be almost forced to stay in even lower class situation than they already are or have to struggle ten times harder to get ahead in life than ever before.
All of what I said is leading to people not wanting higher taxes which means the funding that schools needs will not come. Once again this is an action to keep people in their places! With higher taxes, that means people bring home less money to support their children. That leads to even fewer opportunities in school such as joining sports, having an art class, a photography class, and more because almost all fun and extra circular activities cost money that the parents won’t have because of higher taxes taking more money from their pay checks. With higher taxes means more kids will have to get jobs to help support their families and that means less time to study for tests and finals, and do homework. Higher taxes will also lead to families having to separate because their parents can no longer afford to have all of their children or even any at all. SO that leads to foster home and all which means more tax payer money to support those. I mean American is just digging itself farther and farther into a hole which hurts only the lower and middle class money wise! When will this cycle stop? I mean many think that there is government funding such as welfare and more but once again more people getting on to welfare and all means once again higher taxes. Plus welfare never really helps people who need it. My mom was a single parent who has 4 children and worked a job making $8.50 an hour plus tips and she tried to get state help on health insurance so we could go to the doctor and they told her she made too much to get help! How ridiculous! Then she got melanoma cancer and she once again tried to get help and the state answered the same way! Now money is getting taken from her check because she was never able to pay the hospital back for her cancer surgery, leading to her having to stay in a very abusive situation with her husband so we can get by!
So making taxes higher for schools hurts the lower and middle class along with their children, meaning like I said less education, but not making taxes higher hurts the lower and middle class in pretty much the same ways! This cycle helping to rich stay rich and the poor and middle class become poorer and stay in a low class situation has been even worse since the war with Iraq and I truly think the only way to help this is to stop sending tax payers money to every where else but where it’s really needed, which is IN AMERICA! That is truly the only way out along with making the life better for the lower and middle class easier and the upper class more equal with the lower and middle class.
( I didn’t proof read so I apologize for my mistakes)
Posted by: Sasha M. Villarreal | Feb 13, 2006 10:58:30 PM
Sasha -
While I can't say that I agree with much of what you wrote, I certainly can appreciate your concerns.
But I'm writing for one particular reason - in which class/school are you forced to sit on buckets for lack of chairs? That's something we can fix. Have an administrator or teacher email me at Lkotan@yahoo.com.
Posted by: Larry | Feb 14, 2006 12:28:03 PM
The truth is that Portland Public Schools has a declining enrolment. So why do you need more money? A lot of the money for admin costs goes to PERS. We now know that the PERS system is broke and does not work. Put all the pers money in the hands of the workers. Let them do their own investing with a 401K type plan. We don't need to pay someone to do the investing for them. My wife is a city enployee. SIM and CAM need to go. My daughter is in a charter school where they use direct learning. This was recently studied and found to be 1 of the top 2 learning programs in the United states. It was developed here in Oregon. Some of the school use a part of it in their schools. Why not buy the whole program? All it does is teach at a little faster pace. It builds 1 princilpe upon another. Just like building a brick wall. It builds confidence in the childs ability to learn. The next thing we need to dump is ESL. What a waste of money. It has been proven that full imersion is the best. California did it why can't we? hy do we need teachers to develop tests for our public schools? There are so many off the shelf tests out there that way cheaper that us paying some of the teachers to develop tests. Why do we need so many vice princapals in the high schools. Each one of them have a assistant. Why? We need to find ways to lean up theese things. I applude the fact that they farmed out the jantorial services. Bravo theres 1 way they saved us money. I am sure there others. The fact is the public schools have enough money they just need to use it better. Why is it anytime we have a budget schools ond saftey are the first to get cut? I know that there are many other pet projects that can go. Let the city become a lean mean fighting machene. When we become lean then you can cut the budgets for school and saftey. Just remember the legeslature did increase funding in the last session. They just did not increase it as much as the schools wanted.
Posted by: Bob | Feb 15, 2006 6:39:05 AM
Would it be possible for the City to implement a sales tax sans State? Based on census data, a 0.5% sales tax could raise from $30-$50 million. Could even cap the amount for large purchases, like cars. Such a small amount would be unlikely to drive people to shop elsewhere, and it captures dollars from others rather than relying on Portland residents.
Posted by: randy | Feb 15, 2006 12:16:44 PM
Let's face it. The American educational system has become unpracticable, particularly in the upper levels. I think the technical education curriculum is good for those going into scientifically and technologically demanding careers( bioscience, materials engineering, environmental control, computerization.....) but so many well-educated people go into frivolous careers, capitalizing on the latest fashions and trends. But how much do they know about the real world?
My latest rag is that American workers seem to have little instinct for crafstmanship. When resources were expensive in America people had to figure out how to make do with the little they had. An era of abundance has produced people who are very wasteful and disorganized. And that attitude has spilled over into policy decisions as special interest groups battle it out for ever scarcer financial resources. The era of inexpensive resources and cheap mass production has come to an end. Schools need to adjust to that reality and not turn out spoiled individuals who believe material success is a birthright.
BTW, I have lived across the street from a middle school for 33 years and have made many observations, conscious and subconscious. Lately I have been battling the school district over their staff (and parents, too) always parking in front of our homes, when by just unlocking a chain they could make a lot of off street parking available.
The schools need simple, inexpensive ideas that work.
Posted by: ron swaren | Feb 15, 2006 1:04:48 PM
First, thanks Sam for this opportunity.
I believe this is a discussion about taxes...
or a lack of a sufficiency of them
Let me see if I understand. Stable taxes are formed by
a three legged stool: sales tax, wealth tax and
income tax. Oregon never had a sales tax and
likely never will. The wealth tax, or property tax
was effectively extinguished when measure 5 passed.
It used to fund the schools through local taxes.. but with it
gone school funding fell to the state and the income
tax.
Can Portland fix this? In my opinion no more ably than the
"The Education President": Wrong level to solve the problem.
My opinion is that one legged taxation is not enough because income
only grows when the economy grows, when it shrinks: less revenue
is available. When the economy shrinks we need to adjust more
via more education... but funding is reduced when income shrinks.
A formula for failure.
Thus we have a structural problem: on at least two levels:
in media and politics.
Rural Oregon resents the globalized world as citified.
Media makes hay on this urban-rural divide. It is logical.
The media makes its money on advertising and advertising
works best when you tell people what they want to hear. The
Oregonian has different "zoners" to do just that: which boosts
advertising revenues and splits state politics. It is not globalization
but city slickers (Portlanders) that are often disrespected for being too
rich for their own good. This spilt has been going on for
a long time and political parties have made hay out of it.
The quandary is that 'poor Portland' is seen as too rich, and the state legislature
lives on the urban rural divide punishing everyone's children through
starving education. One might ask who benefits from this?
The obvious absent players are corporate taxpayers. They benefit directly
from an educated workforce and contribute far less than they did decades ago.
Funding is not the only problem. Too many strings is another.
In short (in this not short post ) It is not Portland's responsibility,
although it is Portland's problem, it is not just Portland's problem.
Media has failed to highlight the following element of the Oregon
constitution. Portland can focus on this
Article IX, Section 6 of the Oregon Constitution states:
"Whenever the expenses, of any fiscal year, shall exceed the income, the Legislative Assembly shall provide for levying a tax, for the ensuing fiscal year, sufficient, with other sources of income, to pay the deficiency, as well as the estimated expense of the ensuing fiscal year."
Article IX, Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution states:
"The Legislative Assembly shall provide for raising revenue sufficiently to defray the expenses of the State for each fiscal year...."
Yours, David Bean
Posted by: David Bean | Feb 16, 2006 8:22:13 AM
Funding is not the only problem. Too many strings is another.
I worked for 10 years in higher education. From my experience I can tell you this. Great leadership results in a Great school. Bad leadership ruins it. A look at the performance of Lewis and Clark College
from the early 80's to the present documents both extremes.
Same can be said of K - 12 schools and their principals, High Schools & superintendents.
Good or Bad they get consequent results. Keep too many spoons out of the soup.
Let the head cook: cook.
The best schools are a result of the best leaders whose hands are not tied; either by too many requirements or too few funds.
If you need a report to say this, perhaps
http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/manifesto.pdf will do the job.
In short as schools become credential mills in place of: educare- meaning " to lead out the soul",
They then require so many credentials from their leaders that the leaders are too
compliant and can no longer lead.
Posted by: David Bean | Feb 16, 2006 8:49:24 AM
A lot of universities manage just fine with HUNDREDS of students in a lecture class by using break-out recitation sections. The rec sections are often lead by grad students or junior faculty, but sometimes by some student who did well in a prior instance of the class. Occasionally, the rec sections elect their own leadeship, but still manage to coordinate with the master teacher. The students learn well by trying to answer each other's questions and only need help on occasional tough-nut problems.
Use volunteered time wisely.
Don't take my word for it: try the following yourself:
assuming you have some knowledge or skill well beyond most school kids, just try to volunteer some time to the advantage of some local public school. Of course, you will first have to pass a background check, but assuming you are OK... If you are an engineer, you might be put to use making photocopies. If you are a physician, your time might be spent helping slow-learners with fonix. If you are a lawyer, perhaps you can help organize the library.
Go ahead: try to volunteer to teach a class in your area of expertise. It would be lovely if you succeed. But don't be surprised if your volunteer time is used for minimal tasks.
Even more telling: even if you are not so dedicated that you would volunteer for a regular course, try a one-time unpaid contribution of time. For example, suppose in your professional life you deliver seminars which other professionals pay hundreds of dollars/day to attend. To be fair, give the school a few weeks notice that you are willing to deliver a lecture/exercise/seminar suitable for eager high-schoolers and see if they get back to you.
If you think I am being cynical, take an informal poll of well-educated people you know and see what percentage have been ASKED for a gift of professional time. Compare to the fraction who have been asked for money.
Why bellyache about class size before trying obvious enough coping skills?
Posted by: Hardin Dareka | Feb 16, 2006 9:48:01 AM
My fellow California's warned me about moving to Oregon. "They'll tax the hell out of you"
Guess they were right.
Posted by: Patrick | Feb 17, 2006 6:48:26 PM
Patrick: Oregon is only a higher tax state if you make over $60,000 year and live in a $300k house, which makes you "rich" by Portland standards.
It doesn't cost any more to live here if you're poor, so either quit making so damned much money, or just move to Vancouver with the rest of the landed gentry and quit complaining.
Posted by: Tongue in Cheek | Feb 17, 2006 8:53:35 PM
Whoa Patrick, California taxes less than dear old Portland? I left the "Golden State" in 1973 and have lived all over Oregon, mostly in Portland. But I still keep in touch with friends back in Calif. Property taxes in Santa Rosa, San Jose, Eureka, and Hollister similar rates to Portland. All a little higher. More revenue generated because of the difference in housing prices. About 200% more than Portland in some cases. Income tax about the same. Sales tax? Oh yeah we don't have one. Vehicle registration(which is a tax too)almost non-existant in Oregon. In Cal. proportional to the value of the auto, commercial rates for trucks, a lot of money out of your pocket each year. Freeways aren't cheap. System Development fees? Oregon doesn't even know what they are. In Hollister and Santa Rosa they are in the neighborhood of $30,000 for each new home. Sewer fees in Portland(yikes!) are astronomical, but water or downtown parking and parking tickets aren't.
There may be places where fewer taxes are paid, but to my knowledge California isn't one of them. Maybe Alpine county, but nobody lives there.
Posted by: fenian | Feb 23, 2006 6:43:32 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Why not consolidate school districts with the suburbs?
Posted by: Isaac | Feb 9, 2006 11:32:20 PM