The Seattle School District’s two levies are up for renewal.
- The operations levy provides 24% of the day-to-day operating budget for the district
- The capital levy provides funds for rebuilding and renovating schools
Neither of these levies is a new tax, and both are essential for providing adequate education in the Seattle School District (while I am an employee of the district, I am writing as a private citizen).
The arguments against renewal of the levies have fallen along two lines:
- The district hasn’t managed funds well in the past, or will not spend these funds on the top priorities
- Taxes should be reduced, not maintained or raised (these levies total nearly a billion dollars over the next four years)
If you’d rather a tax cut than adequately funded schools, I don’t know that you’d have any reason to keep reading. But I’m intrigued by how many people have articulated opposition to the levies using the first argument.
KUOW, our local NPR station, had a story on the levies that I heard on the way to class today. They gave roughly equal airtime to a woman who was in favor of both levies, and a woman who was opposed to the capital levy because of the way the district would spend the money.
The second woman had gripes with specific building projects; for example, she wanted the boiler at Nathan Hale replaced, but there’s no plan to spend any levy funds on this. She said, in essence, “I disagree with the way the school district will spend these capital improvement funds, so I will vote to cut them completely.” Is this a valid argument? I think not.
- If you want to have input on how the funds were spent, sign up to speak at a school board meeting or serve on a committee
- It is not helpful to act in a punitive manner toward a public institution. If we do, we are only hurting those whom that institution serves - namely, our students.
- Making a political point when half a billion education dollars are at stake is childish at best. If you’re looking for an opportunity to take your marbles and go home, look elsewhere.
If you live in Seattle, please vote in the February 6 election - yes on both measures. Absentee ballots have already been mailed - if you got one, send it in.
I totally agree with you.
Melissa Westbrook is very poorly informed, yet she claims to be a “longtime” schools activist. She said, for example, that The New School will have its own PTA kitchen. Utter nonsense. Simply false. The plans for the school are nearly complete, and you won’t find a PTA kitchen anywhere on them. Is she deliberately telling lies? Or just badly mistaken? I don’t know. Whatever the explanation, she seems to have completely made things up in her written “analysis” and on the radio. I don’t think we can trust her about any of this.
As people keep saying, intelligent citizens will disagree about projects, but we have school buildings so full of mold that they are making teachers physically ill. My own 6-year-old goes to a school that is held up by scaffolding in some places, and the daycare has been closed by health department because of constant leaks and mold. I haven’t found a way to explain to my daughter why people like Ms. Westbrook are against fixing her school. Ms. Westbrook says that she wants to send some kind of message to the district leadership, but her personal agenda would leave children, teachers, and staff in physical jeopardy. For shame.
Given the huge need for maintenance and repairs throughout the district, it seems callous in the extreme to oppose renewing the levies. Our levy rate is one of the lowest in the region, and our schools desperately need our support.
Well said. If you want to send a message to the district, well, email them or call. Everyone has email, including the school board members, and they will read what you write them.
Beth Bakeman says:
You can listen to the KUOW Weekday discussion here (thanks for the link, Beth).
Lots of detailed discussion here, in response to Melissa Westbrook’s report.
Just so you know, Melissa Westbrook IS a long-time public education/district activist, has served on a number of committees (school closure for one) and I’ve worked with her personally.
She has campaigned for and supported sitting school board members, done hundreds of hours of research, and supported SPS in many ways. Despite her perhaps not knowing what rooms are or are not in the New School plan, I can attest that she knows volumes.
No offense, and appreciate good intent toward SPS and public education, but I am guessing - from the collective comments here about “email the district”, “speak at a school board meeting”, and parent’s sadly vituperative and self-serving position - that you could learn a lot from her.
I am Melissa Westbrook and let me just take a moment for some corrections and explanation.
- there are two errors in what is being reported here about the interview on KUOW on Friday. That was a man, Peter Meier of Schools First, on KUOW yesterday advocating for both the levies. He does sound like a man so I’m confused how someone who was listening could make that error. Two, I was not advocating for a boiler for Hale. The 103-boiler that is in the 1904 buildings(Mann which houses Nova) is what I said I thought should be on the list because of its extreme age and safety problems. I get the feeling that people were so unhappy with what was being said that they stop listening clearly.
-I have spoken at more School Board meetings than you could ever know. I know all the Board members, the Superintendent and have spoken with facilities staff. I do my homework and I wrote a 10-report outlining, in specific, my concerns about this project list. This is not childish whining by any means. As was stated above, this is serious, serious money, almost half a billion dollars. As I said yesterday, we owe it to our friends and neighbors who do not have children in our schools, to spend the money wisely and take care of safety issue first.
-I tried to do my homework BEFORE the Board voted on a list. However, the Facilities staff would answer some questions and not others. (And let me break here and say that Faciilities staff admitted to me it is rare for any citizen to ask them questions or attend Committee meetings so no, it is not like I was asking too many questions for them to get their work done. The district employs a levy liason for just such questions but she didn’t answer all my questions either. The Facilities department required me to file a Public Disclosure request with the legal department in order to see minutes of public meetings (various school design team minutes). What does that tell you about the transparency and accountability of this process?
-the separate PTA kitchen and Alumni room at New School was in the minutes, two different times, as part of their design. I repeatedly, repeatedly, asked to see the schematic drawings for New School and South Lake and was never given the opportunity to do so. I state in my report that I told Facilities staff that I did not want to be inaccurate in my report and continued to ask to see documents. No answer. If I am wrong, I am sorry. But I did everything in my power to research this and the district should have let me have access to any public documents. That was all I asked. They didn’t even have complete sets of minutes. I was the one who forced the issue so that they published the minutes on the district’s website. Now anyone, including anyone here, will be able to read them. You would not have if I hadn’t been doing this research.
- We promised the students and parents at closing schools that they would get better and that includes a safe building that can help provide good academics. Not a single receiving school nor any schools buffeted by the closures and consoldiation process is on the list. Only one of the 7 schools with severe seismic challenges is on the list. If safety is a key issue, why not?
I don’t have a dog in this fight and have no agenda except the one I always have had - making this the best district possible. I’m only putting out information, not telling people how to vote. If this measure fails, it can be brought up again this calendar year. It would delay, not deny projects. I have always taken a district-wide view so I know for people at individual schools it may be hard to understand. But the district did not do all the projects on the last BEX II list, moved money around from project to project and, in one case, did a complete 180 degrees telling voters one thing and doing another. It is even documented in the oversight committee minutes that they were worried it could open them up to mismanagement because they were not doing what the voters had voted for in the levy. BEX II was $34M overbudget.
Hi Melissa,
I think I heard a different story - this story was brief, and was about two moms, which was stated explicitly. It was about 12:15 on Thursday, not Friday. Sorry for any confusion.
Also, I think the people I heard were probably repeating things they’d heard from you.
Melissa-
Sorry, I didn’t get to finish my previous thought before I had to go to class.
I think it’s great that you’re trying to hold the district accountable for making good capital decisions. BEXII did have a lot of problems, which I saw firsthand. My classroom received new counters and sinks, as well as a few other items, and if my experience was typical, it’s no wonder the levy projects went millions over budget.
The contractors lied to district project managers about how much work they had completed, ordered the wrong sinks, and did not do numerous things to spec, so they had to come back and redo them weeks later. I started the year with one sink (out of four) working, and a temporary particle board countertop.
Ultimately, though, those are implementation details. None of this is a reason to vote against the levy. We desperately need to remodel or rebuild many of our school buildings, and that will not happen with a levy failure.
I also think it’s disingenuous to suggest that we could simply have another election and easily win levy passage after fixing the problems you’ve identified. Chances are, most of the people voting against the levy don’t care about the same things you do, and won’t vote for it even if those problems are fixed.
Furthermore, if the levy fails, it puts a stain on the district, which makes people less confident in it, and less willing to approve future levies (including a retry of the capital levy). It would also make it more difficult to find a superintendent; no one wants to come into a district that doesn’t have strong community support, and the levy is a major measure of this.
I don’t live in Seattle anymore, but I would question whether the government schools can ever deliver a quality education. For various reasons, I don’t think it’s possible. And if it’s not, then aren’t we just doing a bigger and bigger dis-service to our kids, not only by sending them there, but by financing a corrupt institution?
I’m a college teacher, so it’s not like I don’t appreciate education.
Even if I’m wrong about the possibility of government schools delivering quality education, should I be forced to pay for something I strongly believe is AGAINST the best interest of children?
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
Yes. It’s written into federal law.
Justin, discourse is great and you seem like a thoughtful person, but I disagree with characterizing a person’s assertions as “disingenuous” (lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere) when you don’t know the speaker and perhaps don’t know the subject as well as she does.
If you knew Melissa you would know that she is none of those; and most levies do pass the second time around, which is why one of the top priorities in the state legislature this spring is removing the supermajority approval requirement because it is generally an artificial hurdle (i.e., they fail because they don’t get the 60% but almost always pass when they go back to the voters).
Seattle had a “double levy failure” in 1975, but it was the operating levy not the capital levy. It was catastrophic and catalyzed the lawsuits that ultimately defined for the state that its “paramount duty” is “to amply fund basic education”.
True - people who support majority vs supermajority believe it wastes time and money to pass a levy that often the majority wanted from the beginning. And you might argue that the time and money are a factor here - but sometimes those are necessary to correct a flawed product. The Schools First budget is around $250K - but that’s decimal dust compared to getting a $500MM capital budget right.
The thing is, it will probably pass, because people don’t have enough information to make truly informed choices (which is in some ways easier - and which is why it’s hard to understand why people are vilifying Melissa - who has gone miles beyond what most people do to vote responsibly.)
Just to be clear, Melissa was not in the story I heard on NPR on Thursday (though she was on KUOW the next day), and I am not criticizing her research. I am, however, questioning whether all of this is a good reason to vote against the capital levy. I don’t think it is.
Not to beat a dead horse, but “questioning” is benign; charging disingenousness is more serious.
As I said, I don’t know Melissa personally, so I can say nothing about her character, and I respect her research, but I don’t think it’s certain that a retry of a failed levy would be successful. Among other reasons, we’ll have a different superintendent by then (assuming that process is successful), which complicates things greatly.
If someone says, in essence, “Do it my way, and the levy will pass, but I will vote against it until I get my way,” that sounds disingenuous to me. It attempts to gloss over the consequences of the position the person is advocating.
Hopefully, though, it will not come to that, and the levy will pass easily.
Okay, let’s look at the question asked.
Is the way money is proposed to be spent a valid reason for voting against levying the money?
So let’s put it in another context. Your 14-year old wants you to give her $5 for chips and soda. You say no.
Your 14-year old wants you to give her $5 for lunch at school. You say yes.
Is the way the money was proposed to be spent a valid reason for saying yes or no?
Of course it was.
Politicians (and school board members are those) are even worse than children when it comes to spending money foolishly.
Of course the way they’re spending the money is a valid reason for saying yes or no.
In Colorado Springs, some years ago, the city asked for a levy for road repairs. Pretty generic description, and the levy failed. They tried again, and it failed again. Miserably. Then they laid out a list of what they wanted to fix. It passed by an overwhelming margin. They didn’t change what they were going to spend money on. What they changed was how much information they shared with the public about the matter.
Hi Ian,
I appreciate your analogy, but this is a little more like saying no when your child asks for $5 to buy a school lunch, because you want her to buy carrots instead of broccoli. The repair/renovation lists are broadly reasonable, but it’s inconceivable that everyone would agree completely with every aspect of a project with a $500M budget.
If the whole thing were a terrible idea (such as, say, financing a pro sports stadium), I might feel differently. This seems to be more about picky details that can be worked out later (much more easily than a levy can be passed later if it fails because of those details).
The trouble is, once it’s voted for, there is no “working out the picky details later” - the people have spoken, and if it’s passed, the district can’t reneg. It has to justify any change to the projects on the list and/or how much is spent on each - and even then it opens itself to charges of manipulation, skull-duggery, etc.
Besides, the New School project (one of Melissa’s primary objections, as mine) is underway as we speak - the board voted that some of the BEX II money be allocated to planning, design, etc and it’s clear from the blog chatter that architects and others are or have been on board. And according to my copy of Seattle Public Schools Bond and Levy Information, is slated for construction from mid 2007 through 2009.
“Working out the picky details later” - no offense meant, but that sounds like your definition of disingenuous: “It attempts to gloss over the consequences of the position the person is advocating.”
I think that voting against school funding is more like saying to your daughter, after she asks for money for chips and soda, “No, and because you were going to eat such lousy food, I don’t give you any money for food for a couple of weeks. Then maybe you’ll be ready to come around to healthy eating.” Sure she will, but the wait for food is going to be awfully damaging.
For me, it’s more like your 14 yo child asking you to buy him a $500 Nintendo Wii, to which you say no for several reasons: you spend any discretionary income on the college savings, piano lessons, and baseball sign-ups that are more in line with your family’s objectives and values; he has a perfectly serviceable old GameCube that you inherited from friends; you have 2 other children with their attendant expenses; and not insignificant, you feel it doesn’t send the right message to a 14 yo to fork over $500 just because he says he wants it.
If he came back with rationale and a plan that was consistent with your family’s values (e.g., “how about I save $250 over the next year, pay you back another $100 after that, and share it with my 2 younger siblings?) - that would be different - but you won’t know until you hear it.
Or like going to the bank and asking for a $500K small business loan without presenting pro forma financial statements and a business plan - even if the business is a social services non-profit that will do great things for many in need.
In either case, suspending the decision pending further justification is not punitive.
Note: several months of forestalled capital spending does not equate to going hungry – this isn’t like the operating levy, which if you vote down means SPS can’t make the payroll for 25% of the teachers.
Of course, Federal Law does not equal “right”. And if I’m not mistaken, you’re arguing that it is “right” to vote one way, and “not right” to vote another way.
-micah
Well, I don’t know of any viable alternatives on a societal level, so yes, I do believe that public education is good and right, and should be well-funded. I think educating all children has a better chance of saving the world than, say, Rock and Roll :).
Well, given that I never had any public or formalized education until I reached college, and managed to graduate with very high grades, and do much better than most of my friends who DID have the benefits of said formal education, I would have to disagree.
Rock and Roll has a better chance of saving the world than government schools.
-micah
Hi Micah,
I was homeschooled until high school, and I too found myself ahead of my peers when I entered 9th grade (though my high school was a private Christian school).
However, I had several advantages that many people in our society - at least, those who cannot afford private school - do not have:
1) Two college-educated parents
2) Family wealth which enabled my parents to own a home while living on one income
3) An interest in reading and access to plenty of books, which pushed me well above grade level
I assume that you had many of the same advantages, which not all children have.
I’m not denying that you can have a great education without formal schooling. I and several of my closest friends are good evidence that you can, and I support homeschooling.
However, society as a whole would not function without public schools. Most people, left to their own devices, would not get a good self-directed education. As romantic as 18th century tales of self-educated, rugged American individualists may be, these exceptions to the rule cannot sustain a society. Look at any country without a decent public education system to see what effect that has.
If you feel that public schools are ineffective compared to homeschooling, I’d encourage you to consider two things:
1) Your experience, like mine, is not typical. We are very privileged.
2) Public schools are responsible for all children, which is a huge order. To a large extent, the problems in public schools are the problems of individual students’ lives, aggregated together and writ large.
Hey Justin,
Good response. However, I would point out that my family was not rich (or even middle-class). Just caring.
The main thing my parents did for my education was to take me to the library. The rest of my time I spent playing.
And somehow I absorbed more about life and the world doing that than spending years of my life in formal schooling.
I would even say that I learned from college DESPITE most of the classes.
My experience among my friends has been that years of formal school killed off whatever innate desire to learn that they originally had. College had something of that effect on me, which is why I was far smarter (comparatively) at 15 than at 25.
-micah
Hi Micah,
Thanks for sticking with me :). Again, that’s great that it worked for you. For others, though, those carefree youthful days could have been filled with vandalism, petty theft, and drugs. For every kid whose desire to learn is hampered by schools, ten more kids are forced to learn and do stuff they don’t really want to, so they grow up to become fairly responsible young adults. What we’re considering here is the societal-level, aggregate effect of having vs. not having schools.
Both levies passed, BTW.