It's in the P-I

I was quoted in yesterday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer article about the Families and Education Levy: "Campaign 2004: School levy seen as social safety net". Even though the article seems to be biased in favor of the levy, the reporter quoted me fairly and accurately. The public would have been better served had the P-I asked more hard questions about this $117 million tax increase to expand a program of questionable effectiveness. Nevertheless, the article does give us some new information about the levy.

Significantly, we learn that nobody really knows what this levy is about. Note the headline, which calls the measure a "school levy". The Seattle Times, on the other hand, argues that it is not a school levy! September 2:

It is not a school levy, but a readiness-for-school levy

and also on September 8:

This is not a school levy. It is a city levy to pay for school-related things...

Then again, yesterday's P-I article also admits that it might not be a school levy after all:

The so-called "social services levy" has been on the ballot twice before, in 1990 and 1997

It's a families levy! It's an education levy! It's a families and education levy! It's a school levy! It's not a school levy! It's a social services levy! It's a floor wax and a dessert topping levy!

The P-I also reminds us that the purpose of the levy is to:

provide children with services to bolster their success in school and help close the achievement gap.

That is exactly what the levy campaign says:

The levy’s ultimate goal is to improve academic achievement among children and youth, and close the academic achievement gaps based on race, ethnicity, language and income.

But the P-I also reports that the levy intends to pay for things that have nothing to do with academic achievement or closing the achievement gap. In addition to crossing guards:

The levy also helps pay for a wellness center with a nurse able to dispense medication, saving parents the difficulty of doctor visits.

So it's an Expand-the-nanny-state-and-train-parents-to-avoid-their-difficult-responsibilities levy! And, while we're at it, a John Kerry federal Department of Wellness levy. The other thing we learn is that the students who are served by this program to "support student academic achievement" won't all be expected to actually achieve anything. The city will declare victory as long as the children simply show up:

Sid Sidorowitz, acting manager of the city's Office of Education, said programs funded under the levy would be assessed a number of ways, ranging from test scores and surveys to attendance and discipline rates.

Sorry, folks. "Attendance" is not the same thing as achievement.

It's not in the P-I

The most interesting thing to me about this article is that the pro-levy sources that it quotes do not refute our argument that the last 14 years and $138 million of levy spending were ineffective. The same holds true for Friday's Seattle Times article and for that matter the levy campaign website. The levy campaign does argue (disingenuously, of course) against some of our arguments on their "Myths and Facts" page. But the levy supporters have simply chosen to shift the discussion away from the last 14 years and $138 million of spending. And you really have to wonder why that is. If there were lots of accomplishments, they'd be touting them, would they not? It's a shame the two daily papers haven't been working harder to find out what really happened to all that time and money and how much (or little) it actually accomplished.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 12, 2004 11:28 AM | Email This