Today's Seattle Times quotes me in today's news article about the Families and Education Levy. Unfortunately, the story is more about the opponents of the levy than an investigative report of the program itself: "Foes of Families and Education Levy speak up — quietly "
the few vocal levy opponents — who say they've been willing to publicly state their position, at the risk of being labeled anti-families or anti-education — said they can't shake concerns about the measure's cost, scope and what they think is a lack of accountabilityOy. I did tell the reporter that I felt that some people who have legitimate criticism of the levy might be reluctant to voice their concerns out of fear of being labeled as anti-family or anti-education. Putting the (unrebutted) label of "anti-families or anti-education" at the top of the article is more likely to perpetuate than to dispel the unfortunate misperception that challenging a poorly devised education measure to do a better job is anti-education when it is actually pro-education. The word "Foes" in the headline also strikes me as more loaded and negative than appropriate here.
The rest of the article quotes me fairly and accurately. Although to be fair to the other four people who worked on the voters' guide statement, I was a co-author, not the sole author as the article seems to imply.
But the story is not and should not be about me or the other opponents of the levy. The real story is about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the last 14 years and $138 million of levy spending, and the fact that the new levy doesn't offer any meaningful improvements to ensure that the money will be better spent this time. I wish the Times would have done more of its own investigative reporting on the levy all along, while citing levy supporters and opponents only for their opinions.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 10, 2004 11:21 AM | Email This---------------
Let us make one point crystal clear: This newspaper, nor its management, is “against education”. Too often this tag is hung on people who choose to question the merits of any facet of our present educational system in this country, the expenditure of money in certain areas, or where this money comes from. This is, of course, ridiculous. Because we might question the operation of, or expenditures by our State Highway Department does not mean we’re “against highways.” If the press, or anybody for that matter, takes issue with the accepted method of treatment in our state institutions, how much money is spent on this endeavor, or how it is spent, does not mean these people are “against mental health or rehabilitation programs.” The point is, all of these public service areas represent the expenditure of public tax money. All tax monies come from the public and the public has a constitutional right to question, at all times, how this money is spent. If their right of open expression is smothered or discouraged by having to wear the tag of an “againster” then it is high time we put Louis Bruno* in the governor’s chair, replace members of the legislature with school superintendents and turn the State over to education forces, lock, stock and barrel.
Our objection to the excess school levy is not based upon any personal feud with local school administrators, teachers or members of the school board. It is on the one hand a matter of economics, a question of what we are getting for the zooming number of dollars being spent to turn out a finished human product faced with going out into today’s world and making a living. It is more than that. It is born of a deep concern about whether we are heading down the right road in education. It stems from downright alarm over the prevailing and ever-increasing concept that money, more money, and still more money is the answer to quality education. It is not. Does raising a superintendent’s salary assure adequate and proper management? It does not. Does increasing teacher salaries guarantee proper instruction? It does not. Does blind acceptance of the expenditure of thousands and millions of dollars for new buildings and equipment guarantee youth will be properly served, that they will be able to meet the challenge of life? It does not.
There has to be something more than this. There has to be a reevaluation of our entire educational program and a halt called to spending until a study can be made. We must stop, look and determine where we should be heading. School representatives can quote comparative figures by the thousands backing up their case for more money, but the fact remains that spending has risen way out of proportion percentage-wise when compared with the increase in number of students. School officials, in general, attempt to justify this by claiming all of this additional spending is in the interest of “quality education.” We challenge this on the basis that “quality education” is actually subject to various interpretations. And secondly, we contend it takes more than money to accomplish this end.
---------------
*Louis Bruno was the Superintendent of Public Education in those days and the levy failed. For the whole text - please e-mail me.
Josef
josef_kunzler@hotmail.com