2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Measure 5 may have shown benefits by limiting property tax increases, however the great equalization of school funding across the state that was initially touted never seemed to materialize. The ripples of Measure 5 are still being experiences in the schools. Measure 5 re-routed money into a state pool that was then payed out to counties or 'areas' on a per-student basis, which was supposed to bridge the urban-rural disparities in school funding. The problem was that the state opted to fund different areas at different rates, with some areas funded at nearly twice the rate of others. Withers vs. Oregon contested that it was unconstitutional for the state to discriminate via funding levels, which was shot down. Several years later the ruling was appealed and upheld that the state had the right to fund some counties more than others. Most of the conversation during this program focused on special needs students usurping excess funds, but the reality is that students in certain areas of the state were not granted the same amounts of resources, tools, etc. as their peers in other areas, which put them at a disadvantage when entering the work force of colleges and universities. Some districts had to hold bake sales to raise money to keep their music and art programs, while other districts were simultaneously receiving enough money to invest in technology and keeping class sizes smaller. If this isn’t systematic inequality I don’t know what is, and I don’t believe that Oregon has the constitutional right to award a better education to some but not all of its students.

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context