Teachers strike targets and hurts the wrong stakeholders

The core problem with Portland teachers’ demands is a refusal to accept financial reality and acknowledge the limitations of Oregon’s school-fund structure

Who knows when the Portland Public Schools strike will end. It could be tomorrow. It could be next week. It could be even longer, though one would hope teachers care too much about the children they teach to let that happen.

But the damage already has been done. In fact, a lot of the damage was done before the strike started.

The core problem with Portland schools – all schools in Oregon, in fact – is structural. The state’s system for funding schools is broken and has been since voter-approved property-tax limitations in the 1990s shifted a large portion of the fiscal responsibility to the state Legislature.

Forget for a moment the current debate over whether Portland Public Schools are adequately funded and whether teachers are fairly paid. There’s room for disagreement on those issues. The problem with school system’s financial structure – and, therefore, with this strike – is that the people who decide how much to pay teachers have no control of the revenue stream. All they can do is ask the Legislature, which does not have a scheduled session until January, for more money.

Even with a more sensible fiscal structure, disagreements still would exist. One of the core  tension points in this strike involves an argument over the amount of money available for the school board to allocate. The Portland Association of Teachers argues that Portland Public Schools have more money – including projected tax revenue – than the school board says. A state analyst mostly agreed with the school board.

But the real damage from Oregon’s dysfunctional school-funding system isn’t the result of a lack of funds. It’s the result of a lack of accountability. Because no single entity has the ability to solve fiscal conflicts, each stakeholder can blame someone else. Teachers say the Legislature should provide more money. Legislators say there isn’t money and schools need to be smarter about how they use the money they have. School boards, comprised of unpaid volunteers, are caught in the middle.

In theory, the stakeholders could collaborate and take on shared responsibility and accountability. But that hasn’t happened.

It is interesting that the union has not applied more pressure to the Legislature. After all, most of the Democrats in the Legislature were elected with the help of significant campaign donations from the teacher unions. If legislators who, based on past experience, have reason to fear union-backed primary challengers if they upset the teachers say schools have to live on the money currently allocated, union negotiators should accept that verdict.

So how should this strike end? That’s a hard question for anyone who hasn’t been involved in bargaining sessions. But the first step would be for the teachers to acknowledge that there isn’t a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow – or in this case the picket line. Are there better ways to allocate the money that is available? Maybe. That’s what the two sides should be discussing.

Meanwhile, the teachers have made their point. Staying out longer is unlikely to increase the size of the budget. Negotiations over how to spend the available money can continue with teachers in the classroom. The primary people being hurt now are students and parents. No one thinks the teachers’ plight is their fault. If teachers want everything they demand, they should address that with the only stakeholders who can make the necessary money available – the Legislature.

It’s time for teachers to return to the classroom.

Mark Hester is a retired journalist who worked 20 years at The Oregonian in positions including business editor, sports editor and editorial writer.