January 29, 2012 in Opinion

Editorial: Yes vote on school levies good for us and our kids

Education finance is complicated, and easy to demagogue. School districts get money from the feds, the state and local voters. However, they cannot do as they please with all of the revenue. Funding per pupil is a tricky calculation because some students require more resources, and this spending is often mandated.

In Washington, it’s even trickier because the state has been caught up in a long-running debate over what constitutes basic education and how to finance it.

In the meantime, districts are covering the basics, such as special education, transportation and many other items. A recent state Supreme Court ruling clarifies the state’s responsibility to finance basic education, but districts cannot expect increased funding as long as the economy remains in the doldrums.

Districts have become reliant on local levies for the maintenance and operation of their schools. On Feb. 14, voting will wrap up on replacement levies for all but two local districts. If voters say yes, then about one-quarter of the districts’ funding will continue. If they say no, hundreds of teachers will lose their jobs, and students will lose art, music and sports programs. Electives and gifted education programs will also be slashed. School clubs will be closed.

Is this a new property tax, as critics allege? Or the continuation of a current tax, as proponents suggest?

Rhetorical spin aside, there’s little difference to the bottom line of taxpayers. What matters is whether you’re willing to pay roughly the same amount you pay now for the next three years. Some districts are asking for slightly more because they fear the state Legislature will cut levy equalization funds in a tough budget year. However, if the state doesn’t make that cut, the districts say they won’t collect the extra money.

Some levy rates will rise, but mostly because property values have declined. The tax will remain the same or nearly so.

We strongly urge a yes vote, because the quality of our schools is one of the community’s strongest selling points. Greater Spokane Incorporated has increased its involvement on this issue because business leaders know the value employers place on high-quality schools. When businesses are considering where to locate, Spokane goes up against peer cities, such as Boise or Madison, Wis., which also have good schools. We must keep pace.

We also owe it our children to give them high-quality experiences as students so they can thrive as adults. Talented workers want to live in communities that will afford their children the opportunities to excel as well.

The last decade has seen a steady decline in school funding. Districts cannot absorb more hits to their budgets without diminishing the quality of education. A 25 percent decrease would be devastating.

It’s up to local voters to say this is unacceptable. Vote yes on school levies.

To respond to this editorial online, go to www.spokesman.com and click on Opinion under the Topics menu.

ADVERTISEMENT Advertise Here

40 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 29 at 7:00 a.m.
Mr Alton and his cronies have yet again sent scurrilous lies to the households in the Mead District in the form of a large yellow mailer. It characterizes the “Continuing” levy as NEW taxes when actually if passed because of decreased house values people will be paying less tax over time. It is a replacement levy, and Mr Alton will be really unhappy when he meets St Peter and is turned away. John
WillyPeter on January 29 at 10:29 a.m.
It’s like this, John. Many citizens think that District 81 pooh-bahs, in cahoots with the SEA, are corrupt. The examples are many, but I’m gonna assume that you know that by now.
Regardless, if Mr. Alton is one of those folks, that’s surely his right.
Lies? How ‘bout this? The District floated a bond for fixing-up and modernizing existing schools. Then admitted after a post vote and contentious dialogue with citizens that they had to be less than truthful on the language of their proposal. Because if they had said what they actually wanted to do, the bond would not have been approved!!
And District employees have admitted working with the union to illegally influence our recent school board election.
And how ‘bout this? The Spokesman doesn’t care about any District wrong-doings. They’re part of the aforementioned gang, After all…they parrot the District’s default, “but, but, but….it’s for the children” mantra. If you believe that, you deserve the failing metrics we know are in our schools now.
District salaries which are set by our PC school board. Well, we don’t need to go there, either.
So, John, many of us are not going to vote for this levy proposal. And we surely have plenty of justification for our vote.
But if demonizing us makes you feel better….go fer it!
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 29 at 10:36 a.m.
Not demonizing anyone but Mr Alton…. he was the one spreading the lies about the levy here in the Mead District… the Spokane 81 is no concern of mine… the Mead District is..cause I don’t want property values out here to drop because of poor schools… The problems with the City Schools is the dysfunctional family systems that are sending kids to school from single parent ( and an abusive boyfriends) home without food… and with an attitude that makes “Anger Management” training for 3rd graders de rigeur… j
woamike on January 29 at 10:38 a.m.
“The last decade has seen a steady decline in school funding.”
Care to elaborate on this assertion, S-R? This does not square with the reality that in the “last decade” we HAVE been spending more on schools that we ever have before.
KMK on January 29 at 12:24 p.m.
Atta Boy Willy Peter!! Let’s punish the kids because of adult misunderstandings or miscommunication. I think you along with D Alton have forgotten that a strong public education system is the bedrock of a Democracy.
woamike on January 29 at 12:36 p.m.
If we keep falling for the “it’s for the kids” meme and keep voting “yes” on levies, NOTHING will change. Bloated administration, waste and fluff will continue. The ONLY thing that will change the status quo is to cut them off for once. Then, maybe they’ll get serious and change things for the better. Right now, voting “yes” is like giving a drunk a drink. I’m not going to do it.
It’s time for us all to take off the blinders.
yes_educate on January 29 at 1:19 p.m.
Fine if you want to change the system but do it in the responsible manner. Change the educational funding laws through legislature, not by rendering the schools nonfunctional. What do you think it will do to our property values when 1 in 4 Mead school district employees lose their jobs and are put in danger of not being able to pay their mortgage, because there are no other jobs? Are you aware the unemployment rate is still 9% in Spokane? What major company is going to want to bring their industry and jobs to Spokane when there are other cities that take better care of their schools? Are low- and middle class families supposed to send their kids to underfunded schools? Not everyone can afford private school.
Contact your legislator and tell them how concerned you are about the unfairness in public financing of education
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/default.aspx
Contact the state’s attorney if you think there is corruption in any of these school districts that need investigating. I hope you have more than wild accusations, though.
I am voting yes for my school district’s maintenance & operating levy. It’s the responsible thing to do.
stitch on January 29 at 2:56 p.m.
“The Spokane 81 is no concern of mine…The Mead district is..cause I don’t want property values out here to drop because of poor schools”..John, your voting yes even though you don’t give a rats ass about District 81 kids, or those in the Mead district either for that matter? Your only concern is that your property values don’t decline? Did I read that correctly?
Analysis Spock…
woamike on January 29 at 3:05 p.m.
@yes_educate,
Nice first post. Are we to believe you are merely a concerned citizen? Tell us, what is your connection to the status quo that uses ever more tax dollars while producing an ever inferior product? Are you one of the many drones sent out to bleat the schools will be “rendered nonfunctional” if the levy doesn’t pass or are you a schoold administrator worried about taking a pay cut?
No, the issue is NOT “the unfairness in public financing of education”. The issue is the bloated bureauracracy (not to mention salaries), the waste, the fluff and the lack of RESULTS of what our public education system is producing.
No, the world will not end if the levy fails… Of course, that’s what you want us to believe.
The public schools need to reform. There is ZERO incentive for them to change if we keep passing these levies.
You want money and even more money?? Then CHANGE your ways. Until then, no more drink for the drunk.
Dazzeetrader11 on January 29 at 3:48 p.m.
If you saw the budget that I’ve seen, you’d think a few things like:
As in the above post about puniching the kids…typical union play…hide be hind the when wht this is about is money for the Unionized teachers. Nothing more.
70% of the proposal is for teaches, administration and support stuff. ie janitors. This is a very deception proposition put for th by the unions stooges to support themselves…and the big raises are in there too.
Bad deal. Let them resubmit a reasonable levy proposal. This one stinks. But whatever happened to tracking the success of the kids as a measure of the effectiveness of the teachers???
When over 50% of this money allocated to teachers goes to the Administrators (not teachers per se), I’d say vote a bit NO!
johnclarke on January 29 at 4:37 p.m.
yes_educate on January 29 at 1:19 p.m.
Joined today and one post? Um, ok. Clearly you know lots about this topic; couple questions for you. Where is the money coming from to fund the billboards and direct mailers for Mead?
Just to level set this folks, they are asking for 60 million dollars. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting a little tired of being treated like you hate kids if you question these non stop taxes. I don’t care that my taxes are “not going up”. Maybe it’s time to ask why they went up in the first place.
“1 in 4 Mead school district employees lose their jobs and are put in danger of not being able to pay their mortgage, because there are no other jobs”
All I can say is welcome to life. These kind of scare tactics are really a bad approach in this economy.
Wow on January 29 at 4:50 p.m.
John…
1. Billboards paid by citizens committee (it says that on them)
2. Mailers are attached to normal monthly newsletter to district citizens…attached them to save money.
I don’t think you hate kids…when was the last time you attended a school board meeting to voice your opinion? You voting no will not change what your are hoping to change. Sounds like 66% of voters are in favor of the levies.
Dazzee, where does it say 70% is for teachers, admin, and staff? I would love to check it out.
johnclarke on January 29 at 5:04 p.m.
Wow on January 29 at 4:50 p.m.
3 posts, all supporting school taxes.
Who said I was voting no?
johnclarke on January 29 at 5:05 p.m.
Oh, and what are are telling me? Vote yes for 60 million dollars on top of the taxes I already pay - then go to a meeting and tell the school board how to spend it? That’s rich.
Wow on January 29 at 5:13 p.m.
Fair enough, you didn’t say you were voting no…I assumed. Wrongfully I hope. Of course by my 3 posts (I’ve had more, but changed my name in light of recent blogging by some), I am in favor of Mead’s levy. I didn’t say vote yes and go to a meeting. Vote however you would like, but I am saying that by voting no, you are not changing anything. Voting yes is changing nothing as well. Calling legislators, attending meetings, etc. will help change the status quo. Yes_Educate was correct about that.
Not here to bash anyone…please don’t take it as such.
babybre on January 29 at 5:29 p.m.
“The problems with the City Schools is the dysfunctional family systems that are sending kids to school from single parent ( and an abusive boyfriends) home without food… and with an attitude that makes “Anger Management” training for 3rd graders de rigeur… j”
That is one of the most elitist, ignorant things I have ever heard. Believe it or not, it’s not just well-off kids with blissfull family lives and two supportive parents at home that can be taught. And I guarantee there are “dysfunctional family systems that are sending kids to school from single parent ( and an abusive boyfriends) home without food… and with an attitude” in your district, too.
I’m voting no on the levy because 90% of SPS graduates are not college-ready as we and THEY are being promised; because this district has a serious problem with respect for the parents whose children are in their care; because our millions of tax dollars are not returning million-dollar results, and it’s our kids who have been paying the price for this for years already.
johnclarke on January 29 at 5:34 p.m.
No offense taken. I guess if it were me asking for 60 large, I’d probably try to be a little in tune with current events. Everyone, and I mean everyone has gotten hurt in this economy. Simply acting like it didn’t happen and it’s “business as usual” might get you a no vote. I would have been a little more proactive and reduced the ask a little bit. Maybe let some people retire and not fill the positions. Get by with a few less administrators pulling down 100k. Besides all that, come ask me to pay for more teachers and maybe an ipad for my kid I’d probably vote yes. This levy is not that.

Those of us in the private sector don’t have the luxury to go to the voters to save our jobs.
Pigrobin on January 29 at 5:35 p.m.
I missed something. Who ever promised 90% of SPS graduates will be college ready? That not only sounds unrealistic, it sounds like a dumb goal all together.
johnclarke on January 29 at 5:36 p.m.
woamike on January 29 at 3:05 p.m.
Agreed.
stitch on January 29 at 5:40 p.m.
Just to clarify, my comment was directed at John Olson, not John Clarke..Mr. Clarke is making perfect sense..Mr. Olson, still waiting..
survivalguy on January 29 at 7:38 p.m.
“…hundreds of teachers will lose their jobs, and students will lose art, music and sports programs. Electives and gifted education programs will also be slashed. School clubs will be closed.”
and from your paper just the other day - “Without levy dollars, district officials say, hundreds of jobs would be eliminated and programs such as sports, clubs, high school electives, elementary school art and music, online learning and gifted-and-talented classes would be cut.”
SAYS WHO?
The SR, the District, GSI - all parroting the same line, dropping the same apocolypse scenario.
Here’s the truth folks - those teachers’ jobs will only be lost if the school board cuts them. There is no magic formula that directs that teachers take the hit if a levy fails.
I have no doubt, however, that our administrator-loving school board would vote a revised budget that cuts teachers, IAs, etc. But that is NOT the way it HAS to happen. If the levy fails, the board could cut every administrator in the Bernard St building, all of the area coordinators, all of the vice principals, etc, etc.
The District could opt out of the Common Core Standards – which they did not HAVE to sign on to, and could still cancel – and save the MILLIONS of dollars they CHOSE to spend on a data system and employees to manage said system, as well as the money set aside for curricula they have not even seen, much less tested for efficacy…)
I’ve scrubbed the D81 budget quite closely - I can easily remove $60 million from that budget. Seriously, it can be done without losing one single teacher who currently stands in front of a classroom.
There would be a total loss of “teachers” who aren’t working as teachers, all of the area coordinators, and others in the District whose salaries get counted as dollars going to the classroom - when the District touts how good it is at getting the taxpayers’ dollars to the classroom. But the “teachers” who are not really teaching children each day do little but cost us money while they aggravate classroom teachers. (While the district disciplines classroom teachers who dare to actually teach…)
There also would be house cleaning in the curricula arena and supplementary materials budget.
They could cut that deadwood if the levy fails, but they won’t…
Sometimes you have to drain the pool to clean it out. I’ll be voting against the Levy – FOR THE KIDS! If it is the kids we truly want to serve, we serve them best by draining the pool and seeing what is left at the bottom, what is really essential.
Citizens shouldn’t stand for teachers being removed from classrooms, or class sizes to go through the roof, as long as there is one Administrator earning more than $100,000 in the Central Office by pushing paper. They would ALL have to go before teachers are laid off – or at least that’s the way it SHOULD be.
johnclarke on January 29 at 7:41 p.m.
survivalguy - are you SERE ?
greenlibertarian on January 29 at 10:50 p.m.
District reform is sorely needed.
It’s just too bad that bald-faced liars like Duane Alton and his ilk are leading the charge.
WillyPeter on January 30 at 11:46 a.m.
Liars! You wanna talk about liars? Do some some research on the District 81 pooh-bahs.
For crying out loud, they lied when they wrote the recent bond ballot. Said they’d “modernize” schools, then after the bond ballot passed, said they were building a new replacement school (Jefferson), a half-mile away. And admitted, in writing, that they knew that if they’d said the bond would be to build a new school in a different location, that the bond probably wouldn’t pass.
So the ballot was a LIE, greenlib.
Spokane citizens expect honesty, truthfulness, and competecy from the District. None of which emanate from our school district. Consequently, many citizens will demand change.
I don’t know Mr. Alton, but I support voting ‘NO.’
After all, I’m doing it for the kids……..:-)
libmark on January 31 at 8:33 a.m.
In the mail yesterday I got a flyer opposing the renewal of the School District 81 levy that looked a lot like this: http://taxfacs.com/forthekids/index.php/flyers/spokane-district-81
I was curious. Who exactly is “Citizens for Responsible Taxation?” Unless I’m mistaken, that’s probably all of us… so what is being said in my name?
Beyond a few statements that at least need a little disambiguation (a “yes” vote means new property taxes! – more on that in a bit), there is the niggling issue of the basic math provided. The flyer states that if passed the levy will cost $4.46 per $1000 of assessed value. Ok, fine, a source is even cited. Way to go. But then the flyer states that for a $100,000 house the cost of the levy will be $1,338. My calculator tells me that $4.46 multiplied by 100 ($100,000/$1,000) equals $446. Wait… Oh, I get it. This is a three-year levy so multiplying $446 by three years does indeed give you $1,338. Could someone be trying to be less than truthful since any mention of a three-year time frame is nowhere to be found on the flyer? I could almost think that someone was trying to trick me into believing that this is the single year cost of the levy.
libmark on January 31 at 8:35 a.m.
Continued from above…
But who would try to be intentionally deceitful?
It turns out that Citizens for Responsible Taxation’s registered agent with the Washington Secretary of State is one John Beal. (Source: http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=603071430) It turns out that John Beal “has years of active service in teaching the Bible, America’s Christian history, the nature and source of law and government and working for Biblical justice in the Spokane community.” (Source: http://cpwashington-events.blogspot.com/2010/02/institute-on-constitution-spokane.html)
Surely someone who has spent years teaching the Bible and has run for public office wouldn’t intentionally be misleading and dishonest?
Being a forgiving person, I’ll grant Mr. Beal and CRT the benefit of the doubt. An honest omission and transgression, I’m sure. Coulda happened to a bishop.
But back to the claims about what a yes vote and a no vote means for a moment. Mr. Beal says that a yes vote means new property taxes. The actual answer is that it could mean new property taxes, but not necessarily so. Details on that ambiguity can be found at the following links. (Source: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jan/29/editorial-yes-vote-on-school-levies-good-for-us/ and http://www.spokaneschools.org/Page/17363)
Being a forgiving person, I’ll grant Mr. Beal and the CRT the benefit of the doubt on this one. An honest omission and transgression, I’m sure. Coulda happened to a bishop.
Continued below…
libmark on January 31 at 8:36 a.m.
Continued from above…
Another line from the flyer caught my eye. According to Mr. Beal, the “cost to District 81 taxpayers for EXCESS school levy” is $217,500,000.
Given that I’d already followed Mr. Beal’s somewhat incomplete statements about how much the levy would raise, I’m happy to take the $217,500,000 amount on his word. Maybe not the best strategy given the track record, but hey, I only have so much time. What caught my eye was that bold, italicized word: EXCESS.
Let’s chew on that for a minute.
According to the conservative Washington Policy Center, Spokane Public Schools spend $12,293 per pupil. (Source: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/facts/key-facts-about-spokane-public-schools)
Excessive? Well, let’s let the market decide. Side note: Washington Policy Center’s tagline is “Improving lives through market solutions.” The WPC also claims “The research shows that more money won’t help public schools…” All right, all knowing invisible hand of the market. What say you? What is considered EXCESSIVE for a K-12 education in Spokane?
Let’s look at St. George’s, a local, renowned and highly respected K-12 education program.
At St. George’s, kindergarten tuition is $14,600. 1st – 5th grade tuition is $16,870. 6th – 12th tuition is $17, 480. http://www.sgs.org/data/files/gallery/FinancialAidFiles/Tuition.FA_201112.pdf
To me, that is the invisible hand of the market waving its hand above its head and yelling something like “Hey, we’re shortchanging our public K-12 institutions to the tune of $2,000 - $5,000 per year per pupil!” But what about the WPC’s statement that more money wouldn’t help a school? I see now that they were very specific about claiming research shows that more money wouldn’t help schools – it wouldn’t help public schools but it apparently can – and does – help private schools. Got it. Thanks for being so clear and specific, WPC. It’s appreciated. Mr. Beal? Are you taking notes on how this is done? Good.
Being a forgiving person, I’ll grant Mr. Beal and CRT the benefit of the doubt on $12,293 being excessive. An honest omission and transgression. Coulda happened to a bishop.
Finally, there was one other choice of wording that I found strange. “Give yourself a Tax Break… You Deserve it. Vote No”, claims the flyer. Not withstanding the odd capitalization choices and lack of punctuation at the end of the sentence, what’s up with the “You Deserve it” phrase?
I deserve it? I deserve to save about $3 a day so that kids across the Spokane School District can experience larger class sizes, less access to their libraries, less exposure to art and music education, fewer Advanced Placement classes, fewer drop out prevention programs, and so on?
I deserve it? I’m sorry, but that sounds more like a punishment and I’m being sentenced to live in a community that doesn’t care for or support its families and children. That sounds like a certain version of hell.
But again, being a forgiving person, I’ll grant Mr. Beal and CRT the benefit of the doubt. An honest omission and transgression. Coulda happened to a bishop.
survivalguy on January 31 at 1:06 p.m.
libmark:
St. Georges is one comparison, and based on that you might conclude we are shortchanging the kids…
Or, you could compare with an urban private school like G-Prep, where they spend LESS than SPS 81 and achieve MUCH more with an equally diverse AND low income population.
Your satire aside, your message and point are taken. My question to you is:
Why is there a need for an outside group (CRT, or anyone?) to get a message out about spending levels / taxation rates / student outcomes? Is that not the media’s job? Of course it is. But the SR and other local media are all for the Levy, lots of $$$ involved. Never mind the small issue of the truth…
Spokane kids face remediation in math and english in college that is excessive. That is the direct result of the curent crop of board members and administrators that SPS employs.
Vote NO on the levy AND demand that when cuts are made that they are made to admin first, and see what happens.
Drain the swamp, find the real teachers (hint - they are IN THE CLASSROOM) and watch achievment soar.
libmark on January 31 at 3:15 p.m.
Survivalguy —
I see that G Prep’s ‘08-‘09 tuition was $8,615 but I don’t see any updated numbers. http://www.gprep.com/s/766/index.aspx?sid=766&gid=1&pgid=289
As for G Prep having an equally diverse student population as to SD 81 as a whole, I’d like to see those numbers. I appreciate that G Prep tries to keep their tuition as affordable as possible but I just can’t see the same student body walking through their doors (and over a $8,000/year threshold) as the SD 81 student body.
At any rate, let’s say that G Prep does have the same range of special needs kids, the same depths of poverty, the same messed up family situations, etc., I think the point remains that it’s a stretch to label SD 81’s costs as excessive.
Rather than vote No and demand change, here’s my approach: vote Yes and make sure that I’m in my kids’ school for several hours a week, volunteering in the classroom, encouraging and pulling up kids who are falling behind, pushing kids who are excelling, and making sure that my kids’ teachers are doing the same. I’m pretty darn certain that if all the hours spent castigating the public school system were spent instead on volunteering in an elementary school classroom, our “problem” wouldn’t be so much of a problem.
survivalguy on January 31 at 4:14 p.m.
libmark:
“I’m pretty darn certain that if all the hours spent castigating the public school system were spent instead on volunteering in an elementary school classroom, our “problem” wouldn’t be so much of a problem.”
You would be wrong about that, and I’m “pretty darn certain” of it. I’ve volunteered, my whole family has volunteered, large parts of my neighborhood have volunteered in District 81 schools - elementary schools in particular. And I don’t mean a few hours, I mean hours each and every day, every year, for years.
But our “problem”, as you put it, the problem we spend the vast majority of our time with is children who are simply not being taught the material.
“Wow, that teacher ought to find a new job!” you might say. You might say that, if you’ve not spent the time in the classroom, in the schools, in the District offices, in the Boad meetings that we and other concerned parents have spent - time spent trying to find out WHY the teachers are not allowed to teach the material.
It sounds counterintuitive. Teachers teach, how could they NOT be ALLOWED to teach material?
I’ll assume that you are not a District mouthpiece, or someone who has consumed their Contructivist KoolAid, and I’ll give you the Reader’s Digest version here.
We have a District administration who subscribe to a pedigogical approach to teaching that says, in essence, children learn best those things they “discover” or “construct” the meaning of on their own. It is called by many names, but a common name for this particular approach is “contructivism”.
This is a kind of higher-level instruction extrapolated to the elementary classroom by folks that needed a thesis for their Ed, and by others that saw a huge amount of money to be made.
In practice, here in Spokane’s elementary classrooms, what the “takeover” by “contructivist” has done over the last decade is to deny our children basic instruction in simple concepts like long division and multiplication. Teachers have been diciplined for using flash cards to allow students to place math facts into memory. The use of flash cards is derided by contructivist as “drill-and-kill”, as in: The children, by learning that 6x6=36 and recalling it as so - have been stunted in their academic growth! It is called “abuse” to have a child memorize their multiplication tables…
Ask to explain their approach, ask to explain why no other method of teaching will be allowed, ask to explain why teachers would be diciplined for doing the right thing for their students - the board and administration will tell you that you just don’t understand, that as an engineer or architect or nuclear physics professor or any profession that did not require you to attend a school of education where you must prove your alliegence to the almighty contructivist collective - you have nothing to tell them about how to educate children…
I spend a great deal of time volunteering. And - I’ve been a teacher. I’ve taught math, biology, physiology, and political science on three continents. I’ve managed to get across the rudements of calculus to kids that don’t speak english while being shaded by a poncho from the sun in sub-Saharan Africa… Our children here in Spokane can learn this stuff, easily, if only we will teach them.
But, this district and the administration are as hell bent on not-teaching-them-as-a-way-to-teach-them as any I’ve ever encountered.
The public has been misinformed about what the problem is, they’ve been told that it is the “money”, or lack of it, that is the problem. Money lies at the root of the problem - but it is the money that is spent on such people as populate our administration and board that causes our children to perform poorly, not a lack of money.
If you see my critisism of the district’s administration and board that allows such foolishness as “hours spent castigating the public school system” - then I am guilty as charged and proud of it.
woamike on January 31 at 4:55 p.m.
@survivalguy, good post.
@libmark, you say:
“Rather than vote No and demand change, here’s my approach: vote Yes and make sure that I’m in my kids’ school for several hours a week, volunteering in the classroom, encouraging and pulling up kids who are falling behind, pushing kids who are excelling, and making sure that my kids’ teachers are doing the same. I’m pretty darn certain that if all the hours spent castigating the public school system were spent instead on volunteering in an elementary school classroom, our “problem” wouldn’t be so much of a problem.”
It’s lovely that you seem to have employment and/or resources that allow you to spend “several hours a week” essentially doing the teachers job for him/her… what about the rest of us… that live in the real world??
So basically your answer is keep throwing good money after bad and then go into the schools as a volunteer to fix the “problem”. It is clear you do not know what the problem is and/or are part of it.
NOTHING wil change if the levy passes. It will be the same old crap as usual. Voting “yes” is vote AGAINST children. That includes you too, Mead. No More!
flyerd1 on January 31 at 10:24 p.m.
1. Irt it not being a new tax:
Anything that has an end date (like a “3yr” levy tax) has to have a “new” one started in order to “remain” in place so it’s perfectly accurate to say it’s a new tax.
2. Actual levy rates and Levy Equalization Funds (LEF):
The levy rate most often used by school districts is the smaller, LEF assisted one. However, with our current economy, this is a time when LEF funds could go away and people should plan accordingly. That would cause the amount taken by this levy to be approximately 22% more than the optimistic school dist claims.
3. Irt A) It being 28% (mead) of their budget & B) What the levy $ is and is not used for:
A levy is meant to be a one time fill-gap revenue stream that might be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. It’s “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when they’ve gotten to the point of expecting levies as a never ending part of their budget. It’s extremely disingenuous to say the money “is not” used for new buildings, repairs, pensions, etc. That’s a simple “shell game”. It’s like having a monthly budget (that includes $100 each for phone, power, partying, and gas) and saying “gee mom, I don’t have enough money to cover all my monthly bills; If you could give me $100 I can pay my pwr bill”. There’s no way to realistically seperate that $100 out and stipulate it’s actually being used to pay “the pwr bill” as opposed to gas, phone, partying, etc. Similarly (like the phone, pwr, and gas in previous example), if all salaries, pensions, maintenance, etcetera were covered “without” asking for a levy, there would be no request for additional money (like the $100 in previous example) via the levy tax.
After asserting that funding is inadequate to cover all expenses they request a levy to fund what they choose to define as the underfunded part of the budget. The exact part of the budget the school dist “chooses to say” the levy money pays for is simply a matter of which shell they choose to say it goes towards. Again, it’s a simple shell game of distortion to say “a given amount” of any budget is only going to be used “for select items of that overall budget.”
4. Despite how this may sound, I’m completely for education funding via a fair and equitable method. A much more equitable method of requesting additional funding should be to request it via a sales tax increase (whatever fraction of a penny required). That way, “everyone” casting a vote would actually be voting to increase “their own taxes” as well as other people’s taxes. Otherwise this type of a levy tax requires a super majority in order to be considered more of a fair vote (#5 below). A cost cutting, as opposed to revenue generating, method of addressing the education budgets would be to address the underfunded TERS1 pensions and work to modify those pensions via negotiations and constitutional changes. The state already acknowledged that TERS1 (stopped in 1977) was unsustainable and a responsible re-negotiation could be done without undue harm to current pension beneficiaries. All other post TERS1 plans should be transitioned to 401K plans. Additionally, cost structures should be reviewed and compared to the charter schools that currently operate for far less money while achieving better scholastic success rates.
5. See next post…
flyerd1 on January 31 at 10:24 p.m.
1. Irt it not being a new tax:
Anything that has an end date (like a “3yr” levy tax) has to have a “new” one started in order to “remain” in place so it’s perfectly accurate to say it’s a new tax.
2. Actual levy rates and Levy Equalization Funds (LEF):
The levy rate most often used by school districts is the smaller, LEF assisted one. However, with our current economy, this is a time when LEF funds could go away and people should plan accordingly. That would cause the amount taken by this levy to be approximately 22% more than the optimistic school dist claims.
3. Irt A) It being 28% (mead) of their budget & B) What the levy $ is and is not used for:
A levy is meant to be a one time fill-gap revenue stream that might be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. It’s “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when they’ve gotten to the point of expecting levies as a never ending part of their budget. It’s extremely disingenuous to say the money “is not” used for new buildings, repairs, pensions, etc. That’s a simple “shell game”. It’s like having a monthly budget (that includes $100 each for phone, power, partying, and gas) and saying “gee mom, I don’t have enough money to cover all my monthly bills; If you could give me $100 I can pay my pwr bill”. There’s no way to realistically seperate that $100 out and stipulate it’s actually being used to pay “the pwr bill” as opposed to gas, phone, partying, etc. Similarly (like the phone, pwr, and gas in previous example), if all salaries, pensions, maintenance, etcetera were covered “without” asking for a levy, there would be no request for additional money (like the $100 in previous example) via the levy tax.
After asserting that funding is inadequate to cover all expenses they request a levy to fund what they choose to define as the underfunded part of the budget. The exact part of the budget the school dist “chooses to say” the levy money pays for is simply a matter of which shell they choose to say it goes towards. Again, it’s a simple shell game of distortion to say “a given amount” of any budget is only going to be used “for select items of that overall budget.”
4. Despite how this may sound, I’m completely for education funding via a fair and equitable method. A much more equitable method of requesting additional funding should be to request it via a sales tax increase (whatever fraction of a penny required). That way, “everyone” casting a vote would actually be voting to increase “their own taxes” as well as other people’s taxes. Otherwise this type of a levy tax requires a super majority in order to be considered more of a fair vote (#5 below). A cost cutting, as opposed to revenue generating, method of addressing the education budgets would be to address the underfunded TERS1 pensions and work to modify those pensions via negotiations and constitutional changes. The state already acknowledged that TERS1 (stopped in 1977) was unsustainable and a responsible re-negotiation could be done without undue harm to current pension beneficiaries. All other post TERS1 plans should be transitioned to 401K plans. Additionally, cost structures should be reviewed and compared to the charter schools that currently operate for far less money while achieving better scholastic success rates.
5. See next post…
flyerd1 on January 31 at 10:25 p.m.
Continued:
5. If it was a super majority vote this would at least be a fair vote. A super majority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that could be beneficial to them and that they are “not” directly impacted by (in a financially impacting way, i.e. they pay for it). For example (using property ownership rates of 60%), if 65% of “non-property owners” vote “YES”, a levy like this could pass with only 40% of property owners voting for it (even though the property owners pay it).
If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax by 2% you wouldn’t want people from Idaho to be allowed to vote because, as stated above, they would be a subset of voters that don’t have to pay for the tax but could actually benefit as their sales went up due to people going into Idaho to avoid the 2% increase.
The counter point of “renters pay these fees via rent” is ridiculous because only in a perfect system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can’t get a renter at a price that covers the levy costs he/she has to lower the rent in order to rent the unit out…
libmark on February 01 at 8:55 a.m.
Nice post, Survivalguy. Thanks for keeping the invectives at bay. Online forums are a poor place to hammer out how the world should work since it’s so easy to slip into snide asides that do nothing to move things along…
I’m sorry to say (glad to say?) that my experience in the public schools has not been the same as yours. When my daughter was in 3rd grade (at the Franklin APPLE program) she had multiplication tables to memorize. Her whole class did. They had to just memorize the thing.
The shortcomings that I see in the schools aren’t so much of the pedagogical type (although that does certainly exist) but those issues are dwarfed by one teacher trying to herd 30 kids toward an educated mind. On one end of the spectrum a 3rd grade teacher might have handful of kids willing and able to tackle concepts and ideas well beyond their grade level. On the other end she might have a handful of kids showing up on Monday mornings who haven’t had anything to eat all weekend, no access to books, no access to adults that have the ability to nurture, challenge and grow their inquisitiveness, and so on. And then there is the block of students in the middle. For a dedicated teacher to tackle that package of issues is a huge logistical hurdle that shouldn’t be minimized.
I contend that no matter what the teaching style, we are going to have — at best — mixed results when we throw those kids together without adequate classroom support. Further cutting of the support of what is already in place just doesn’t strike me as producing the results that we are both looking for.
Woamike — I’ve spent more than a decade now structuring my life so that I can spend time and energy on the things that are important to me. And right now that is my kids’ education. I won’t apologize for that. I live in the real world, I have bills to pay but I’ve worked hard and sacrificed in the past so that I can now volunteer at least two hours per week in my elementary school. Can everyone do the same? Hell no. But don’t try to drag down those that do — that’s just flat out goofy.
So if money won’t solve the problem (which I agree that, alone, it won’t) and volunteering isn’t something to be aspired to, what then is your solution?
flyerd1 — I chuckled a bit about your semantic dodgeball game regarding new vs. replacement. If my wife were to open up the mail and say “Hey, honey. We got a new car insurance policy!” I’d have to ask if she meant new as in something changed and we’re now paying a different amount OR if she meant that it is just a replacement of our former policy. That’s the beauty of language… you can make it be as obscure as you want it to be.
As for the ins and outs of the Mead levy, I’m not in the Mead district so I’ll take your word there.
I don’t know much about charter school success rates but I’d like to see some research regarding their outcomes.
I’d be all in favor of switching from a property tax based levy system to a sales tax system if a comprehensive online sales tax system were instituted.
Regarding the supermajority vs. a simple majority vote, I see your conundrum. And yet… anything other than a simple majority vote strikes me as granting non-property owners a 3/5ths vote. We tried that once and it didn’t work out very well.
flyerd1 on February 02 at 4:42 a.m.
libmark– Wow, not many people read all of the way through the longer posts so that’s encouraging in and of itself. Thanks for the feedback. :-)
1. Irt it not being a new tax:
Here’s another funny comparison for you: Imagine you just payed off your mortgage and the bank calls to say “we’d like you to keep making a monthly mortgage payment but it’s not a new mortgage it’s just a replacement mortgage…”
2. Actual levy rates and Levy Equalization Funds (LEF):
It’s not so much a Mead specific point as a general point that the levy rate will be 20-25% higher if the state LEF are reduced or go away.
5. Irt supermajority votes: Non-property owners still have a whole vote, the supermajority simply accounts for them being able to vote a tax on “someone else”. Consider this example with 100 people (60 owners / 40 non).
With a simple majority: 40% of the 60= 24, 65% of the 40=26. 24=26=50% and a passing of the vote. A simple majority allows a passing margin even though 60% of the payers of the tax voted against it. Does that sound like a fair system? It’s even worse with a 75% yes rate among non’s (.75x40=30) which only takes 32% owners (.33x60=20) to pass with a simple majority (30+20=50). 33% approval rate to pass a tax?…
With supermajority: Still looking at 75% non’s (30), it takes 30 more votes to get to a 60% supermajority threshold. That equates to 50% of the owners (.50x60=30). At least now there would actually be a “simple majority of the owners” (who end up paying the tax). Because it’s easier to vote yes for something that sounds good, and you don’t have to pay for, it’s a fair expectation that the yes votes would be somewhere in the 65-85% range on a consistent basis among the non-property voters. The avg of that range is 75% which leads to a 60% figure for the supermajority requirement to yield a “simple majority” among actual property owners. The specific vote threshold required with a supermajority depends on the actual “yes” voting rate among the non voters as well as the sheer # of non-owner voters in a given vote.

I’m not sure what you mean by “it didn’t work out very well”. Are you saying that if a levy failed (because it only received 51% and it had a 60% supermajority requirement) that “it didn’t work out”? I think it’s more important to have a fair voting system than to simply be interested in passing something.
libmark on February 03 at 8:09 a.m.
flyerd1 — You betcha!
I can see your mortgage analogy but it isn’t as if we’ve reached the end of the road in terms of funding education and it is now completely paid for. Our best efforts to the contrary, there are still more kids coming along who need education. This levy isn’t some fixed bill that we can pay off and then be done with it… it’s an ongoing thing and therefore one that I think can most accurately be labeled as “replacement” rather than “new.”
I’m with you on the LEF front… no argument there. We’ll just have to wait to see what the state throws our way.
As for the simple majority vs. supermajority, there are a couple issues there to hash out. I think we need to be careful about not drawing too narrow of boundaries when we talk about voting for a tax “on someone else.” I readily agree that a renter has a less of an immediate stake in the financial side of the equation and yet at the same time they have no less of a stake than anyone else in the future of their community. Given that the poor tend to vote in far fewer numbers than the rest of the population (here’s a sample of that: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voter_Turnout_by_Income,_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png) I don’t necessarily see a need to throw up extra barriers to prevent the poor from voting for taxes on others — the fact that they are poor is enough of a barrier in and of itself.
flyerd1 on February 05 at 12:37 a.m.
libmark-
1.You’re completely right irt not reaching the end of needing to fund education and that more kids are coming along. However, that does not mean the funding should come from endless levies. It seems like you’re buying into the false rhetoric spin put out by the pro levy propaganda machine.
Specifically, when you say: “This levy isn’t some fixed bill that we can pay off and then be done with it… it’s an ongoing thing…” I could not disagree more with that statement. Levies absolutely DO have an end date and are supposed to be done with at their expiration. I refer back to #3A in my original post:
It’s like the old saying: give a man a fish (levy $), feed him for a day (3yrs). Teach a man to fish (stop levy $ iot force budget streamlining), feed him for a lifetime (they learn to operate within a budget, except for the once every 10-20 yrs when they need a specific and temporary levy).
2. Irt poor votes: I don’t see a direct relationship between being poor and voting turnout. Your link isn’t all that relevant imo. My father-in-law worked for the census bureau for over 10 years and often described a reluctance to participate in surveys among the poor. It seemed like the poor were more suspicious of participating in census surveys so that data isn’t the most reliable. Even if we assumed the data was correct, there’s no barrier preventing “anyone” (regardless of income) from voting. It would be much more likely that voting would be lower among the poor due to a perception that the system is broken and their vote doesn’t matter.
I also don’t particularly understand why you would specify “…barriers to prevent the poor from voting for taxes on others.” What about voting for taxes for “everyone” rather than for a specific group? Also, we do have plenty of homeowners who could easily be considered “poor” (barely making it). What about the fact that non-property owners are able to vote raise those poor homeowners taxes as well?…
Btw, there are many renters who are anything but poor and in fact renting was generally the best financial option from 2004’ish to now’ish as the housing mess has played out. Renters avoided the property value (and net worth) declines experienced by property owners. Additionally, most property owners lose more every month to loan interest and property taxes (even after accounting for any interest & property tax deductions) than renters lose in wasted rent money.
flyerd1 on February 13 at 1:50 a.m.
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of most levy supporters that people in opposition are sinister child haters, there are many anti-levy citizens with no ulterior motives. I, for one, simply appreciate having actual truths presented (rather than fear invoking commentary and distortions I’ve read/heard). Making it appear that 3yrs of levy costs will be paid in a single yr is an example of distortion on the anti-levy side. Similarly, there are many examples distortions & less than true statements from the pro-levy side. Here’s one irt what levy $ will actually be used for:
It’s extremely disingenuous to say “specific funds” are for “specific items” of an overall budget. Basic accounting shows that the net impact of a levy is simply to increase the “overall budget” (even if presented as paying for specific items). Here’s an explanation of why (please try to understand that this simply explains the shell game of saying “where” certain $ goes (regardless of your opinion as to the need for the $) and is applicable in many other situations you may encounter besides this one:
Imagine an $8M budget spread into 10 buckets. If someone decided $8M wasn’t enough and wanted to request more $ they could simply put the entire $8M into buckets 1-8 and say “we need $2M (levy $) but it’s only for buckets 9 & 10” (maintenance & operations, or whatever your specific levy indicates). The net result of the additional $2M would simply be that the new budget is $10M instead of $8M. The shell game here is that they could just as easily have said the $2M is for buckets 1 & 2 or 3 & 5 or 4 & 7 etc. In other words, the “exact” place they “choose” to say the $ goes to is absolutely irrelevant because it’s all part of “one overall budget” that is being spent.
Regardless of your stance irt the actual need for the $ it’s a complete shell game when they say “don’t worry, the money is only for this bucket or that one”. It raises the Q of why do they need to use shell games to sell a levy; shouldn’t the actual need be strong enough so as not to require moving shells around?Could it be because they need to distract you from looking in some of the other buckets?..
Being “civic-minded” includes being “fiscally aware” of where/how the community spends ii’s money. Too many people fall into the word manipulation traps employed by pro-levy supporters as well as the exploitative “heart string” tactics of “it’s for the children”…
flyerd1 on February 13 at 6:06 a.m.
News agencies are supposed to unbiasedly “report”. Do we have a Spokesman newspaper bias? Let’s see:
In regard to publishing letters to the editor concerning the Spokane school levies there were:
33 Pro Levy (including numerous “editorials” and “Guest Opinion” columns with NO 200 word limits)…
vs.
3 Anti-Levy (with none of the aforementioned “extra long” columns). Additionally, 2 of the 3 were posted 2 days before the voting deadline (after most people would have already voted)…
11x more pro levy and multiple allowed to be greater than the 200 word limit. “News” Bias? The answer is obvious…