The comments above are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
State won’t pay extra school costs
By Julia Silverman, Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 16, 2008 | No comments posted.
PORTLAND — Lawyers for the state have won the latest round in a protracted legal battle over school funding.
This week, the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with their argument that the Legislature is under no obligation to provide the billions of extra dollars it would take to meet ambitious education goals.
But advocates for education funding, who filed their original lawsuit in 2006, pledged to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
They’ve argued that state lawmakers are constitutionally obligated to “adequately” fund schools, setting aside enough to bring nearly all students up to grade level in core subjects, as outlined in a blueprint known as the Quality Education Model.
Analysts have said meeting the model’s goals would cost $7.7 billion in the 2007-2009 biennium, about $1.5 billion more than schools actually got.
The extra money would pay for smaller class sizes, more courses and extra help for struggling students.
To back up that argument, schools advocates have cited a 2000 constitutional amendment that requires lawmakers to set aside enough money to fully fund the model. If they did not comply, they were required to issue a public report explaining their failure to do so.
But the Court of Appeals agreed with the state’s contention that voters in 2000 never intended to force the state to fund schools at a predetermined level.
Instead, state lawyers argued, voters believed they were imposing an “accountability check” on lawmakers, according to what they read in the voters’ pamphlet and newspaper coverage.
The court also cited a 1976 ruling that constitutional language on “a uniform and general system of common schools” guaranteed no level of funding.
Instead, local school districts were able to “exercise local control over what they desire and can furnish.”
But schools advocates counter the 1976 ruling is moot because of a 1990 ballot measure that shifted the bulk of the responsibility for school funding to the state.
Similar school funding lawsuits have been filed in 45 states. The majority of those have resulted in courts ordering lawmakers to restructure school funding, according to the National Access Network, a Columbia University-based group that tracks the cases.
This week, the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with their argument that the Legislature is under no obligation to provide the billions of extra dollars it would take to meet ambitious education goals.
But advocates for education funding, who filed their original lawsuit in 2006, pledged to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
They’ve argued that state lawmakers are constitutionally obligated to “adequately” fund schools, setting aside enough to bring nearly all students up to grade level in core subjects, as outlined in a blueprint known as the Quality Education Model.
Analysts have said meeting the model’s goals would cost $7.7 billion in the 2007-2009 biennium, about $1.5 billion more than schools actually got.
The extra money would pay for smaller class sizes, more courses and extra help for struggling students.
To back up that argument, schools advocates have cited a 2000 constitutional amendment that requires lawmakers to set aside enough money to fully fund the model. If they did not comply, they were required to issue a public report explaining their failure to do so.
But the Court of Appeals agreed with the state’s contention that voters in 2000 never intended to force the state to fund schools at a predetermined level.
Instead, state lawyers argued, voters believed they were imposing an “accountability check” on lawmakers, according to what they read in the voters’ pamphlet and newspaper coverage.
The court also cited a 1976 ruling that constitutional language on “a uniform and general system of common schools” guaranteed no level of funding.
Instead, local school districts were able to “exercise local control over what they desire and can furnish.”
But schools advocates counter the 1976 ruling is moot because of a 1990 ballot measure that shifted the bulk of the responsibility for school funding to the state.
Similar school funding lawsuits have been filed in 45 states. The majority of those have resulted in courts ordering lawmakers to restructure school funding, according to the National Access Network, a Columbia University-based group that tracks the cases.
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines