Politics are often
characterized as the "art of the possible’. This "art"
requires compromises to be made between opposing positions
in order to move policy forward. Concessions are made
wherein one position agrees to support policy that they
would not otherwise agree to, in order to gain the backing
of others for policies that they do support. Too often the
result is trading what is not wanted for what is not needed.
The process almost always leads to mixed outcomes and
unintended consequences. The extensive education package
recently adopted by the Legislative Assembly is a good
example of both good policy, and not so good policy, being
enacted through this "art of the possible" process.The
K-12 education enterprise has become a virtual monopoly.
Like all monopolies, it provides poor service at a high cost
while resisting innovation and demonstrating a morbid fear
of competition. The education package addresses this reality
by significantly improving school choice. The most
significant bill enacted allows parents to transfer their
students to any public school district that agrees to accept
the student. Other bills expand charter school opportunities
by allowing sponsorship by institutions of higher education
and by expanding the opportunities to enroll in virtual
school districts.
The education package includes a number of policy changes
that will enhance existing public schools. The Educators
Preparation Improvement Fund will provide additional funding
for training teachers and administrators and includes
accountability and performance standards for both. Other
bills expanded vocational training opportunities, provided
grants to school districts to enhance the education of
talented and gifted students and provide better funding for
remote elementary schools.
The education package adopted several conceptual bills
designed to test, or create future improvements in education
policy. One bill establishes the education goal that 40
percent of all students will earn a bachelors degree, 40
percent will achieve an associates of arts degree, and the
remaining 20 percent will obtain a high school diploma.
Another bill established full day kindergarten for all
Oregon students beginning in the 2015 school year. This bill
did not provide a source of funding that, if enacted today,
would cost about $300 million to accomplish in this budget
cycle. Additional bills provide school districts that are
members of four specific Education Service Districts to
withdraw from that ESD while taking 90 percent of their
funding with them, and a bill that reduces all ESD funding
by a quarter of a percent.
Two bills advanced by governor Kitzhaber that
significantly shift authority over the entire Oregon
education enterprise to the executive were adopted in the
education package. SB 552 designates the Governor as the
state superintendent of education as soon as the incumbent
superintendent leaves her position. SB 909 creates the
Oregon Education Investment Board to be appointed by the
Governor and intended to replace both the Oregon Board of
Education and the Oregon Board of Higher Education. This
Board is intended to have significant authority over how
education curriculums are established and how funding is
distributed among the different levels of the state
education enterprise. The bill also created another board to
oversee the Early Learning Council that is designed to
consolidate at least seventeen current education and health
care programs for pre-school children.
Finally, the education package included spending
authorizations designed to both fund some of the programs
and to encourage political support for other program
objectives. Unfortunately, the spending authority virtually
obliterated our state reserves in the Rainy Day Fund and the
Education Stability Fund. Those combined reserves were drawn
down to only $36 million which is about two tenths of one
percent of the total General Fund and Lottery budgets. This
is a ludicrously inadequate reserve given the instability in
our state and national economies.
In my opinion, the adoption of the education package
amounted to a sea change in Oregon's public education
enterprise. On the positive side it established
unprecedented opportunities for school choice and created
some accountablitiy and performance standards for teachers
and administrators. It also created some admirable goals and
pilot programs. On the negative side it ceded too much
legislative authority over education funding and management
to the governor, and it irresponsibly spent virtually all of
out state reserves during a time of significant economic
instability.
Please remember, if we do not stand up for
rural Oregon... no one will.
Best Regards,
Doug