The Minnis Plan for Schools: Not Good Enough.

This is the first post of two on stable school funding by Representative Larry Galizio.

In a recent editorial (Wrap it up, June 19, 2005) suggesting a “to do” list for the 73rd Legislative Assembly, the Oregonian states that HB 3460, the cleverly-titled K-12 school funding plan from Karen Minnis, “deserves a careful, serious look…” I couldn’t agree more.

As a freshman legislator and member of the House Revenue Committee who heard public testimony on the original proposal, I have had the opportunity to track its changes and journey through the chamber.

The fact is, this scheme is as much a plan for the stable funding of Oregon schools as George W. Bush’s “Clear skies” initiative fosters clean air. The Minnis plan relies on such a shaky and unstable foundation that a more apt name would be “The Earthquake Plan.”

For starters, the plan’s raison d’etre, according to its proponents, is stable school funding. Despite this, the plan’s funding mechanism, the personal income tax, is the most volatile element of our tax code. As the Oregonian’s editorial pages have articulated numerous times, Oregon’s volatile and unstable tax structure results from an over reliance on the personal income tax. Yet the Speaker’s “stability plan” proffers this most unstable and erratic funding mechanism as its foundation. This structural flaw alone constitutes sufficient grounds to reject the plan.

Secondly, the bill completely severs the relationship between Oregon’s business community and investment in Oregon’s public schools. By eliminating entirely corporate tax support for Oregon’s next generation, the funding scheme does a disservice to our business community and sends the wrong message to all Oregonians. The vast majority of Oregon’s business community understands the link between investment in public education, and a productive and skilled workforce. The Minnis plan, by cutting off corporate support of schools, divides two Oregon communities that are interdependent and should remain mutually supportive.

Third, the plan essentially mandates continued disinvestment in Oregon’s schools. The Minnis scheme initially proposed 50% of personal income taxes for schools, but even political allies of the Speaker couldn’t defend this number. Placed in historical context, the Minnis proposal would cut school funding to the lowest level its ever been in the post-WW II era. The shortened school year, some of the largest classroom sizes in the nation, the loss of music and drama, and the elimination of over one thousand teaching positions, have all taken place with a 52% of personal income tax figure. The Minnis plan would cut that to 51%.

Even if you believe that using the personal income tax as the sole source of school funding is viable, stability is a necessary but insufficient condition of an efficacious school funding policy. Put simply, stable inadequacy is neither practical nor desirable.

Finally, I would urge all citizens concerned with our K-12 public school funding, to study HB 3498, a school funding policy that contains true stability, adequacy, and predictability.