1outdoorschool.JPG
Outdoor School Program Leader Christina "Twilight" Flynn shows students how many napkins were saved this fall at Namanu Outdoor School by using cloth napkins.
(Courtesy of Multnomah Education Service District )
It's hard to resist jumping on the bandwagon for "Outdoor School for All," the initiative that would spend lottery money to send Oregon fifth- and sixth-graders for a week of hands-on learning in a camp setting. The idea of Outdoor School is so wholesome and nostalgically driven that the initiative easily qualified for the November ballot.
But here's what voters should remember. As worthwhile as Outdoor School programs may be, the ballot measure relies on a flawed funding strategy that lays claim to dollars currently going to job creation programs and the State School Fund, the pot of money that is divvied among the state's 197 school districts for general educational needs. Even some who support the idea of Outdoor School, such as the Oregon School Boards Association, have reservations. The organization has declined to take a position on Initiative 67, worried about the campaign's play for $22 million of lottery dollars each year.
Ironically, "Outdoor School for All" would likely be "Outdoor School for Some." It's up to schools, public and private, to decide whether to provide such a program. And their programs' applications for grant money to cover costs would be weighed against a long list of criteria, such as whether standardized test scores improve and behavioral problems decrease. One criterion not on the list? Financial need.
Oregonian editorials
reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom.
are Helen Jung, Mark Katches, Steve Moss and Len Reed.
To respond to this editorial:
Post your comment below, submit a
,
or write a
.
If you have questions about
the opinion section, contact Len Reed, interim editorial and commentary editor, at
Currently, about half of Oregon's middle-schoolers attend an Outdoor School program, according to the campaign. Costs are generally covered by charging students' families or through the bake sale-type fundraising that education advocates know too well. Campaign backers, however, want to change that by devoting 4 percent of lottery revenue to a fund, administered by the Oregon State University Extension Service, to cover schools' costs.
Consider where those lottery dollars go. When Oregon voters approved in 1984 a constitutional amendment to create the lottery, the title of the ballot measure stated that profits were to go to economic development. Since then, however, Oregonians carved out lottery dollars for other needs. In 1995, voters approved constitutional amendments dedicating 15 percent of lottery funds -- later increased to 18 percent -- to a pot now called the Education Stability Fund. In 1998, Oregonians reserved another 15 percent for restoration of parks, beaches, watersheds and critical fish and wildlife habitat.
The initiative calls for leaving those constitutional allocations alone. But there are other claims on the remaining money. The Legislature sets aside Lottery dollars to cover debt service on lottery-revenue bonds issued for projects including affordable housing and construction of a veterans' home in Roseburg. Other allocations, driven by statutes and massaged through the legislative budgeting process, include funding for county economic development projects, collegiate athletics and scholarships, and gambling addiction programs.
Of the remainder, legislators have devoted most of it to the State School Fund -- about $447 million for the 2015-2017 biennium. About $113 million was allocated to Business Oregon, the state's economic development agency, to cover both debt service on bonds and funding for projects for the two-year period.
The intention, campaign proponents said, is for the Outdoor School's 4 percent to be taken out of economic development funds. But that language is not anywhere in the initiative, which cannot guarantee that anyway. Legislators decide how to use those funds as part of budgeting.
Even if the Outdoor School funds were to come solely out of economic development projects, that should also be a nonstarter. Business Oregon uses lottery funds for such assistance as providing a $70,000 loan to Deschutes Brewery to help expand its bottling and packaging capacity, leading to about three dozen new jobs. Other projects include the paving of a road in Malheur County for transporting goods, which the agency says preserved 150 jobs and created 20 more in the rural area.
There's also the question of whether it makes sense for the state to direct spending to a specific education program, rather than allowing school districts to make those decisions. Is "Outdoor School for All" more deserving than "Music for All" or "Technology for All" or "Career and Technical Education for All"? That's a tough decision that belongs with the local districts who set their priorities in the context of the curriculum they want to provide.
There's much to be said for the educational and social value of throwing middle schoolers together in rustic conditions for a week. There's the potential for bridging the gap between urban and rural outlooks. There's the benefit of showing students that the value of natural resources is set in finding the balance between protection and use.
But there's also the value in letting school districts make their own decisions of what to pay for. Nostalgia has no place in this. Choosing wisely for today does.
- The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board