You are here: Home > Press Room > News Releases > 10/6/08

Press Room

News Releases

OREGON SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENT ON SCHOOL FUNDING ADEQUACY LAWSUIT

October 6, 2008 - (Portland, Ore.) -- Pendleton et al v State of Oregon returns to court Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008 at 1:30 PM for oral argument before the Oregon Supreme Court. In addition to the brief on the merits filed by the plaintiffs, who include 18 school districts and four families representing the breadth of Oregon K-12 school communities and students, three "friend of the court", or amicus curiae, briefs have been filed. Weighing in on behalf of the plaintiffs are the national Education Law Center (ELC), the Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) and the Oregon Business Association (OBA).

The plaintiffs, represented by Jim Westwood and Bob Van Brocklin of Stoel Rives LLP, challenge a prior decision by the Court of Appeals which they contend erred by effectively ruling that there is no implied funding adequacy standard to be found in the Oregon Constitution. Section 3, incorporated in the State's 1857 Constitution, demands that the state legislature "shall provide by law for the establishment of a uniform, and general system of Common schools." Section 8, incorporated in 2000 after voters overwhelmingly passed Ballot Measure 1, states in part:

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 reasons for the insufficiency, its extent, and its impact on the ability of the state's system of public education to meet these goals.

In addition to supporting the plaintiffs' legal position, the OBA, representing over 300 member businesses and nearly every sector of Oregon industry, draws on economic research by ECONorthwest and others to illustrate the importance of adequate school funding to the overall economic well-being of the state:

The adequacy of public school funding has both immediate and longterm impacts on Oregon's economy. As an immediate matter, school funding represents a major part of Oregon's economy. During the 2000-02 school year, spending on K- 1 2 public education included salary and payroll amounting to $3.3 billion, purchases of supplies and materials amounting to $922 million, and capital layouts of $281 million. See Alec Josephson and John Tapogna, K-12 Spending and the Oregon Economy, ECONorthwest (June 2002), p. 2.

The OBA further notes that there are significant repercussions of an underfunded public school system, including negative impact on productivity and a region's attractiveness to business looking to locate in a given area. Citing Natalie Cohen (Business Location Decision-Making and the Cities: Bringing Companies Back, Working Paper for The Brookings Institution, April 2000):

As one commentator described, that "(c)orporate real estate executives' litany has changed from 'location, location, location' to 'education, education, education.'"

The amicus brief filed by OSBA seeks to clarify the appellate court's apparent misunderstanding of the policy changes that have occurred since the passage of Ballot Measure 5 in 1990. Citing a 1976 Oregon Supreme Court case, Olsen v. State ex rel. Johnson, the Court of Appeals incorrectly suggested local school districts could "exercise local control over what they desire and can furnish." Legislatively imposed mandates, including the Education Act for the 21st Century and the Quality Education Model define curriculum required of all K-12 public schools. Further, passage of Ballot Measure 5, as well as 47/50, curtails significantly a local district's ability to levy taxes to pay for school services, capping the amount available to schools, pending voter approval, to $5 per $1000 of property valuation for both construction and curriculum. In the case of the Pendleton School District, taxed to the maximum allowed, their local option amounts to only $82.80 per student this year.

In its brief, the national Education Law Center points to the historical relevance of Art. VIII, Section 3, and the similar language to be found in all 50 state constitutions.

The common school "would be open to all and supported by tax funds. It would be for rich and poor alike[.]"... the common schools movement continued and advanced the belief that education was preparation for citizenship and, as such, was essential to preserving the American Republic and its democratic principles.

ELC goes on to say, "In the current wave of litigation about adequate education funding, courts have upheld plaintiffs' claims in about two-thirds (19 of 28) of the state court decisions. Plaintiffs' extraordinary success rate in these cases is even more remarkable when one realizes that defendants have never prevailed in any case in which the courts fully examined the evidence as to whether the states were providing their schoolchildren with an adequate educational opportunity."

The Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation is a 501(c)(3) Oregon Non-profit Corporation organized to oversee and manage Pendleton et al v State of Oregon. All briefs can be read in full on the foundation website at www.osfdf.org.