When Gov. John Kitzhaber returns from his vacation trip down
the Rogue River, he should go to his office, pull out House
Bill 2753 and sign it. This bill would do more for public
schools than anything else he can hope to accomplish this
year.
In Oregon, cities and counties can raise property taxes
if they get voter approval. Since 1990, however, school
districts have not had this privilege. It's a predicament
that makes little sense and can be corrected by HB 2753.
Last session, the Legislature gave schools $450 million
more than they received in the previous biennium. For the
majority of school districts, the money will be adequate
to meet their needs. For some school districts, however,
the amount of state support falls way short.
Portland, of course, is the prime example. It faces a $14
million shortfall.
Oregonians can argue long into the summer night about why
Portland can't get by on its share of state money. Fundamentally,
it's because the school-funding formula the state uses to
distribute money is imprecise and unjust; for example, it
doesn't take into account the higher percentage of special-needs
kids in Portland as compared with, say, Pendleton. But it
is also because Portland has educational ambitions that
other districts may not share. There's nothing wrong with
that, but it doesn't mean that the state ought to have to
pay for it.
But Portland should be able to raise funds independently
of the state--something HB 2753 would allow it to do.
Unfortunately, the governor says he is inclined to veto
the bill. He has said that he has two concerns: first, that
giving school districts the local option will lead to school
inequality; and second, that districts choosing a local
option will remove themselves from the statewide school-funding
debate.
Ten years ago, these arguments had merit. Today, they don't.
Here's why.
In 1990, schools were heavily dependent on local property
taxes for funding--80 percent of their dollars came locally
and only 20 percent came from the state. If local voters
didn't want to raise their property taxes, schools suffered;
the difference between rich districts and poor districts
was extraordinary. In some areas, schools would shut their
doors in April because of the tightfistedness of local property-tax
payers.
Today, such a scenario could never exist. Because of the
1990 passage of Measure 5, 80 percent of school funding
now come from Salem. This by itself guarantees effective
equity. A local option would simply give districts the right
to throw a little more money into the pot, either to offset
higher costs not reflected in the statewide distribution
formula or to enrich certain programs.
Second, HB 2753 limits the amount of taxes that can be
raised locally; in Portland, that amount is $15 million
a year, less than five percent of the district's budget.
Districts that raised a little cash locally would still
hardly be in a position to opt out of the statewide school-funding
debate.
Kitzhaber has been eloquent about the need to return the
ability to raise revenue to school districts. He also says
he understands how local school levy elections can engage
citizens with their schools. HB 2753 would accomplish both
of these goals. Perhaps some whitewater will clear his head
and allow him to make the right choice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally
published August 11,
1999 |
