Other Newspapers' Opinions: School funding is a political problem
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:11 AM PDT
Oregon’s Constitution contains language that some say requires adequate funding for public education. A lawsuit asking the courts to force the Legislature to provide more money for schools, however, has been rejected by a circuit court judge and, earlier this month, by the state Court of Appeals.
The courts understand that inadequate school funding is a political problem, not a legal one, and should be dealt with by the people and their representatives, not the judiciary. The lawsuit was filed in 2006 after the legislatively approved budget of 2005-06 once again fell short of the amount public schools would need to meet the state’s own goals for a high-quality education.
Eighteen school districts including the Creswell, Crow-Applegate-Lorane, Eugene and McKenzie districts joined with individual plaintiffs in bringing the suit. They were encouraged by the fact that courts in other states have ruled in favor of lawsuits demanding increased school funding.
Measure 1, approved by the voters in 2000, was the primary basis for the lawsuit. The measure amended the constitution to say that the “Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of public education meets quality goals established by law, and publish a report that either demonstrates the appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reason for the insufficiency.”
The plaintiffs argue that Measure 1 mandates adequate school funding, pointing to the word “shall” in the first clause of the amendment. The second clause, however, is a billion-dollar escape hatch: If funding does not allow schools to meet the QEM goals, all the Legislature needs to do is publish a report explaining the reasons why the state’s appropriations did not match its aspirations.
The Court of Appeals found no funding mandate in Measure 1. That finding is backed by the measure’s estimate of financial impact, which said the measure would have no effect on state and local expenditures. The plaintiffs intend to appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. It will be useful to have a final ruling on the question of whether the courts can use Measure 1 as a lever to pry larger education appropriations from the state, if only to put an end to what has been a minor diversion of energies that would otherwise have been directed at the governor and the Legislature. That’s where authority to propose and approve school appropriations lies. And those leaders can appropriate only the resources the people agree to provide them.
In the end, the power to provide more money for schools lies in hands of Oregonians, acting through their elected representatives.
— The (Eugene) Register-Guard
