How many failures are too many?

State lawmakers are moving ahead with Gov. Chris Gregoire’s request to delay the requirement that high school students pass the math portion of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning or a comparable measure of their skills before receiving a diploma.

Instead of requiring that for the Class of 2008, Gregoire wants to push the requirement back a few years to the Class of 2011. Too many students are failing it, despite millions of dollars in extra coaching, and state leaders appear unwilling to deny diplomas to large numbers of students next year.

But as state Sen. Jim Clements pointed out during an education committee hearing last week, a painful question remains: “What’s the acceptable level of failure when we have this perfect world of WASL?” said Clements, R-Selah. “How many kids can fail and we say it’s a success?”

The reason he asks, he said, is that 15 percent to 16 percent of the high schoolers in his district are failing the reading or writing sections of the test, which remain a graduation requirement. No answer was forthcoming, despite Clements’ two tries. “We will, um, continue that conversation,” said committee Chairwoman Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell.

Meanwhile, efforts are being mounted elsewhere in the Legislature to broaden the reprieve to include the reading and writing portions of the must-pass test as well.

Reading between the lines

The fight over Seattle’s crumbling Alaskan Way Viaduct is producing the legislative version of Greek choruses, with various alliances of lawmakers trying to stake out their positions with increasingly opaque joint statements. The battle is whether to proceed with a $2.8 billion rebuild of the waterfront viaduct, which was envisioned as part of the gas tax increase two years ago, or to pursue construction of a $4.6 billion tunnel as some Seattle city leaders want, or to divert the money elsewhere while the two sides argue over which plan is best.

The opening salvo in the volley of joint statements came from Gregoire, House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Seattle, Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, and Seattle City Council President Nick Licata: “We all understand that we need to move forward. No action is not an option. … There are two remaining options: move forward with an elevated viaduct replacement or reprogram funding to the 520 replacement project. We thank all parties for a very candid discussion.”

Then came this, from east-of-Seattle Republican state Reps. Fred Jarrett, Jay Rodne and Glenn Anderson (this was Rodne being quoted): “The 520 bridge and I-405 are important to our daily commutes and future economic vitality. For too long their much-needed improvements have been delayed as a result of inaction on the Alaskan Way Viaduct. It’s time to move forward.”

Translation: Give us the money.

Then this, from Reps. Helen Sommers and Mary Lou Dickerson, both Seattle Democrats: “The people in our district – as well as in most Seattle districts – voted in 2005 to sustain the increased transportation revenues because they had confidence that the viaduct was a priority project. We need to respect that confidence.”

Translation: When people voted to uphold a big gas-tax hike two years ago, they thought a big part of that money would pay for a viaduct project. Don’t try to shift that cash.

And now this, from state Sens. Ken Jacobsen, Adam Kline, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Ed Murray and Erik Poulsen, all Seattle Democrats: “We are working together for a satisfactory solution that ensures that the values of Seattle residents are respected. We are committed to listening to the people of Seattle and ensuring that their voices are heard in Olympia.”

Translation (I think): We haven’t given up on the tunnel.

Check the fine print

Reading just the title of a bill is a bad idea. Senate Bill 5130, sponsored by Sen. Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle, is a case in point. How the short title printout and Web site describe it: “Expanding hunter access to certain private lands.” What you discover, though, if you actually read the bill: That the bill would expand access and preserve habitat – by tacking a $5 to $25 surcharge onto both small game and big game hunting licenses.