Oregon School for The Blind: A Bad Vote, Apologies & More

I just got my e-mailed apology from Representative Vicki Berger for her vote to close the Oregon School for the Blind (OSB). Berger says, "Sadly, I voted today to close the School for the Blind. I have heard from many former students of this venerable school who are upset that it would be closed. But the fact remains that the time has come."

There is something about an e-mailed apology and crocodile tears which lacks sincerity and depth. Berger is just one of many legislators making their apologies after the fact of the bad vote. The oft-repeated arguments usually go as follows after the shallow apologies have been made: the School houses only 31 students on a 9 building campus; the School has not been an accredited school with an academic curriculum for 20 years; the School doesn't fit into Oregon's current educational model; OSB students will be provided with extra funding in their new settings and the closure will help fund education for other blind students in Oregon; the state cannot retrofit OSB's buildings; and there is still the Commission for the Blind to help out.

I hope that Art Stevenson, President of the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon, will address some of these arguments in his KBOO interview tomorrow morning (Monday) at 11:30 AM. We have posted a great deal on OSB and the struggle to keep it open and readers can look back for more details. Media attention and letters to the editor have also been strong in answering these arguments. Still, a few points need to be repeated.

If the School houses a relatively small number of students and programs, and if buildings are in disrepair, these problems should be properly laid at the feet of the legislature and the Oregon Department of Education. It is their job, after all, to see to it that educational needs are met and state property preserved and protected. Holding visually impaired students and their families hostage to problems created by the legislature and ODE is unfair and illogical.

If Oregon can't afford schools and key social and state services, how can we then afford sending Guard troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and shouldering some share of the costs of the wars there? If the costs of retrofitting certain School buildings are prohibitive, is it not fair to ask when these deficiencies were uncovered and why repairs weren't made earlier? Will the new occupants of the School not have to retrofit the buildings at the same or higher costs?

And why do we only have one "educational model" in Oregon? It would seem that a lack of diversity in models and programs puts any special need at risk and creates or enables cyclical swings which surely costs the state more money and resources in the long run. Do we create the model or does the model rule our lives without empathy?

We doubt that the promised funds will make it safely to the school districts and then be spent on visually impaired students. What seems more likely is that funds will be raided by cash-strapped or poorly-run districts, parents will be unable to properly oversee how money is received and spent, ODE and the legislature may eventually clash over programs and funding and the community of visually impaired students and their families will be broken up. Future legislatures and ODE will have a hard time restoring the services now being cut, even if the will and the funding to do so are there. We also doubt that the Commission will survive this legislative session.

The House vote to close the School came with support and opposition gathered from both parties. Brian Clem did an outstanding job of defending the public's interest. Some key Republicans opportunistically used the moment to suddenly appear in a new guise of defending education and public services, no doubt a new and uncomfortable position for them to be in. Somewhere in House Districts 22 and 16 there must be genuinely progressive potential candidates capable of unseating Betty Komp and Sara Gelser. Woodburn and Salem can do better, can't we? Folding in the face of the economic crisis and budget cuts may be understandable, but what is unforgivable is this lack of principles and vision on the part of two allegedly liberal legislators. I suspect that Gelser and Komp were chosen to carry the water on closing the School just because of their liberal and educational credentials. They should have refused.

The much-discussed lawsuits by parents based on how School land was deeded in the 19th century seem unlikely to restore the School, even if they move forward. I want to be wrong about this, of course, but land use issues in Oregon are hot-button topics and it will be easier for the courts to split the differences between the state and parents taking legal action than to make a definitive ruling. Republicans no doubt see an opportunity here to use the School struggle to accomplish some of their aims regarding land use and property rights. It is indeed difficult to reverse damage done and restore programs after they have been cut.