Spokane7
65°
October 2, 2010 in Opinion
Editorial: Prop 1 not the answer for attacking dropout rate
Free public education is society’s gift to its children and an investment in its own future.
So whenever young people stupidly flush it down the toilet they are cheating themselves and the community.
No wonder so many people and organizations are searching for ways to reduce the disturbing rate at which youngsters drop out of school.
One such effort appears on the Nov. 2 general election ballot in Spokane. Proposition 1 would raise about $5 million a year for the next six years if voters approve a property tax increase of 35 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. The owner of a $150,000 house would pay a little more than $50 a year to underwrite the dropout-prevention plans promised by backers of the Children’s Initiative.
But what will those plans look like, and what are the chances they will succeed? No one knows.
Advocates of the measure commendably recognize that the place to direct attention is not within the schools but in the surrounding community, where multiple researchers have identified causes and influences that are tip-offs to future academic difficulty. Thus, the Children’s Initiative would put the revenue under the control of the city, which would appoint an 11-member committee to decide which community organizations should receive funding for programs to keep kids in school by mitigating those adverse influences.
Backers promise the investment will go to “evidence based, best practice and proven programs with measurable results.” Unfortunately, they can’t identify the proven programs they have in mind. And voters can’t make their own judgments because those programs won’t be picked until after the taxes have been approved.
Although Proposition 1 is modeled after funding programs approved in such cities as Seattle, Portland and Miami, those programs have not reduced dropouts.
Indeed, if there were proven programs to reduce dropouts, why haven’t they been widely adopted to revive the steady increase that was happening with graduation rates until about 45 years ago when they leveled off, nationwide, in the mid-70 percent range?
We don’t contend that Proposition 1 is a bad idea, just a premature one. Other efforts are under way in this community under the guidance of Priority Spokane and the Inland Northwest Community Foundation to identify dropout-prevention strategies with, if not immediate proof, at least convincing promise. The community-minded enthusiasts who devised the Children’s Initiative should coordinate with that effort and come back in the future with a specific proposal that voters could evaluate before casting their ballots.
We’ve no doubt that various community organizations could put $5 million a year to good use. But at the end of six years, we foresee a strong renewal campaign, no longer based on dropout concerns but on the necessity of other social-service expenditures.
Improving graduation rates is a cause that merits community enthusiasm. Once a concrete action plan is available, it deserves serious consideration. Proposition 1 is not that plan, however, and for now, we believe voters should reject it.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
jwc928 on October 02 at 6:52 a.m.
As one of the nations guiding lights and brilliant minds advised us, the peons, “We have to pass the bill so YOU can see what’s in it”. It seems we’ve thrown money at education forever and nothing has changed. Time to figure out the internal problems before looking for more money.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on October 02 at 7:24 a.m.
This is a well timed and judicious attempt to create some solid solutions to amelioration of the tragic consequences experienced and present in our town ( not seattle or portland, but here) as a direct result of poor results at fostering our youth. Most of the solutions will not likely be “School Based” ….. we have seen that fail over and over. The effective solutions are going to have to be community based… ie feeding, and clothing, and social support for families in distress and with a “Template” for school failure. I am a volunteer with other concerned citizens for this effort…. and we cannot continue to just sit around and “blame the victims” for their plight… we are “called” to help them, many of us from our view of “Christian Precepts”….. and many from a base of being kind and caring human beings that want to support the change we want to see. The money is a pittance, and those that can well afford to help us would do well to consider “signing on” in some manner, even if it is with financial support only. You’d be welcome to come and bring your ideas to effect the changes needed, Right Here In River City…. john olsen
liarsinnews on October 02 at 9:02 a.m.
My observation, John Olsen, is,and you sound like you may be a party to it, is polluting the the landscape with signs,”VOTE YES FOR THE KIDS” begging for more money. After the last couple of decades, I just noticed a change. The signs show children rather than KIDS. We must stop throwing money at the problem and figure out what the heck is going on. I look at stuff that catch my eye, for example the board members like Rocky Treppiedi whose position is that too much information is provided the public re education business. Rocky even went so far as suggesting to the state AG he contact the state legislature and make changes to the public disclosure law and change it so that some of the information re eduction heretofore given the public, should not be allowed. I attended the AG meeting when Rocky made the statement and even some of his ilk were surprised at his moronic logic.
Ed Byrnes on October 02 at 10:57 a.m.
Here is the thing about evidence based practices and programs: They need to be evaluated at the level of the new communities where they are implemented. Because people are complex and our social environments reflect this complexity this proposition should have included very clear language about what proportion of the funds would be allocated to ongoing program evaluation at the local level. We cannot just count on someone else claiming that a practice or program is evidence based.
liarsinnews on October 02 at 11:16 a.m.
ebyrnes: I agree with you. Another help might be to post
a well thought out ballot sign with info words rather than tugging at the voters heart strings by only saying vote yes for the kids. If in fact, using the forgoing sign, vote yes etc, which was done for increasing administrative salaries, stop doing it.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on October 02 at 5:34 p.m.
Mr Adams… i am not “polluting” the environment…. other than one sign in my own front yard…… and i agree with you regarding the school board and current school policies etc…this attempt that I support is simply one to try some different approaches with some very bright people (smarter than I) who are motivated by caring about and for kids…. not the already screwed up Young adults and adults that i feed every morning… If you do not want more of THEM then be willing to give THIS a try… can’t end up with much poorer results than we have with Mr T et al.. it is a family systems problem…. not an educational problem… the first three priorities on Maselowe’s Hierarchy of needs are what we need first for all people and especially for kids 0-6 ages. john olsen
mmspowaus on October 03 at 3:55 a.m.
Before voting for Prop1 ask your self this question: What unelected persons are going to control all that money?
I can give you 5 million reasons why this is a bad idea…remember the parks board and the downtown YMCA fiasco?
We all want to help the children, but blindly throwing city tax money at nameless, faceless, unaccountable slush fund managers does everyone, including “the children”, a grave disservice…
It is NEVER wrong to demand close scrutiny and stern accountability for tax dollars…
Our children depend on us to demand that our tax dollars are WISELY spent on their behalf,,,
Prop 1 is not the answer…vote it down, and let a better, more accountable version arise next year…