This Tuesday communities throughout the region are voting on school construction and operation levies. (Not Seattle, we had ours two years ago). School levies are traditionally voted on in "special elections" when turnout is lowest, presumably because the school bureaucrats have figured out that casual voters tend to vote against school levies.
As usual, the campaigns are less a thoughtful discussion of school financial needs, than they are a narrowly-targeted get out the vote drive, backed by truth-stretching campaign brochures and lamestream media puff pieces with the obligatory unquestioned claims by school lobbyists to the effect that levies are needed because "the state Legislature hasn't fully funded education" (How much do we need to spend to "fully fund" education? They never tell us except to say that whatever we spend just isn't enough).
The levy campaigners will tell you that the levy is "for the children". But it's really more about rewarding the grown-ups who work in the school system. Be sure to vote YES for your local levy if you're convinced that your local school district serves your community as well as it should but for a few dollars more. Vote NO if you feel that your local school district doesn't serve you as well as it should. Not that voting NO does all that much good. They'll just keep running special elections until they get the answer they're looking for. But if more people vote NO on these things, somebody in the education bureaucracy might eventually start paying attention. Maybe. But what else can you do? It's not like there's any other way to hold these people accountable.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 07, 2006 12:25 AM | Email ThisI agree with the other points you raise. It is just a really cynical process. But it does serve some practical value. Sometimes school districts ask for too much, and their levy proposals fail. Then they usually scale them back a little bit and they pass.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 7, 2006 12:41 AMQuestion, what percentage of the state budget is spent on K-12 education last year vs, say 1984?
Question, not counting teacher pay (state mandated pass-through dollars), what percentage of the school district's budgets are dependent on local levies vs. state funding (again for last year and say 1984)?
Posted by: Doug on February 7, 2006 12:43 AMBut that's not what you're voting on. This is a budget vote, not an opinion poll. How about "Vote YES if you think these funds are a good investment for our society. Vote NO if you think they aren't." Doesn't that make more sense?
If more people vote NO on these things, somebody in the education bureaucracy might eventually start paying attention. Maybe. But what else can you do? It's not like there's any other way to hold these people accountable.
You mean like an elected school board? Or is that too difficult for you to deal with?
Must you view everything as an ideological battle, no matter how badly it hurts our children?
THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES...THEY CAN PUT A CONDOM ON A BANANA IN TWO SECONDS FLAT...THEY HAVE LEARNED NEW JOB SKILLS, SPANISH AND KOREAN...THEY HAVE $100 MILLION DOLLAR SCHOOLS TO ATTEND (PLUS COST OVER-RIDES)...BESIDES MY KIDS WILL NEED SOMEONE TO MOW THEIR YARDS, CLEAN THEIR POOL AND WAX THEIR CARS SOMEDAY...UNLESS JOSE’ BEATS THEM TO IT!!!
THE PROBLEM IS THAT OUR SCHOOLS ARE STILL TEACHING 19TH CENTURY PROGRAMS... TO OUR 21ST CENTURY KIDS...AT 22ND CENTURY PRICES!!!
The solution to all of our school woes is to open up the system to true competition. Offer tax deductions to all those who want to send their children to private schools.
If our public school system is so good and we are getting a bargain, let's put it up against a private system and let the market decide. Let's let the market regulate what administrators get paid and how many we need. Let's let the market determine when to hire and fire teachers. And let's let the market decide if unions are needed.
Somehow, I think there would be big changes if teaching students was suddenly open to competition.
There's nothing that a WEA lifer fears more than real competition in education.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 7, 2006 01:55 AMIf you want to know where "your" money is being spent, make an appointment with the school and "ASK" them. It is public information.
When my children attended school, I was the "election chair" for 4 different levy cyles. My first stint was an education in itself.
I recommend that instead of voting NO, ask questions first. Get an Education about Education in this state and your community.
(although I have to agree with Stefan, the taxpayer's hands are tied. Get rid of the WEA.)
It's math, for what we spend on a class of 30 students, a two or three person team could deliver world class education and bring home a nice salary. But instead we have bureaucrats siphoning off 50% of every dollar for unnecessary and bloated administration.
If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.
If you always do what you’ve always done and expect different results, you’re insane.
It’s time to employ a different educational paradigm, and a willingness to discuss the dismal state government controlled education is in today is the real test of whether someone cares about this society and its children. I hate to use the “c” word again, but the consequences of staying on our current path are more than anyone is willing to pay.
Here's the statute that governs election dates:
RCW 29A.04.330
City, town, and district general and special elections -- Exceptions.
(1) All city, town, and district general elections shall be held throughout the state of Washington on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November in the odd-numbered years.
This section shall not apply to:
(a) Elections for the recall of any elective public officer;
(b) Public utility districts, conservation districts, or district elections at which the ownership of property within those districts is a prerequisite to voting, all of which elections shall be held at the times prescribed in the laws specifically applicable thereto;
(c) Consolidation proposals as provided for in RCW 28A.315.235 and nonhigh capital fund aid proposals as provided for in chapter 28A.540 RCW.
(2) The county auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections, upon request in the form of a resolution of the governing body of a city, town, or district, presented to the auditor at least forty-five days prior to the proposed election date, may, if the county auditor deems an emergency to exist, call a special election in such city, town, or district, and for the purpose of such special election he or she may combine, unite, or divide precincts. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, such a special election shall be held on one of the following dates as decided by the governing body:
(a) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in February;
(b) The second Tuesday in March;
(c) The fourth Tuesday in April;
(d) The third Tuesday in May;
(e) The day of the primary election as specified by *RCW 29A.04.310; or
(f) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
(3) In a presidential election year, if a presidential preference primary is conducted in February, March, April, or May under chapter 29A.56 RCW, the date on which a special election may be called under subsection (2) of this section during the month of that primary is the date of the presidential primary.
(4) In addition to subsection (2)(a) through (f) of this section, a special election to validate an excess levy or bond issue may be called at any time to meet the needs resulting from fire, flood, earthquake, or other act of God, except that no special election may be held between the first day for candidates to file for public office and the last day to certify the returns of the general election other than as provided in subsection (2)(e) and (f) of this section. Such special election shall be conducted and notice thereof given in the manner provided by law.
5) This section shall supersede the provisions of any and all other statutes, whether general or special in nature, having different dates for such city, town, and district elections, the purpose of this section being to establish mandatory dates for holding elections.
In a nutshell substandard performance on on counts.
Cost per student is way too high, as compared to private and foreign schools.
The cost to performance ratio is simple abysmal.
More money for the a education system that is simply underperforming?
If you could show more money increased performance I might be interested. However there is no evidence that more money results in improved performance. To the contrary, the most heavily funded school have the worst performance.
Show me the improvement, show me value, and I might consider showing you the money.
Posted by: JCM on February 7, 2006 07:41 AMSome districts are poorly run, and need some fresh air to clear out the dead weight. Others, though, like Bellevue, are doing a top rate job and are frugal with the funds they get. Don't lump everyone together, especially if you have no idea what you are talking about. I have found over the years that those who complain the loudest spend the least amount of time in the school.
BTW - Tacoma - you really shouldn't be criticizing the local students, when you haven't learned how to use the caps lock key.
Posted by: Janet S on February 7, 2006 07:45 AMMost people will support " positive results" in a district. If the district is not performing and the Levys repeatedly fail then its time to replace the Board and Schools administration and keep moving down the food chain until the desired results are achieved. The kids will respond to leadership and expectation levels, so should the adults in charge.
Posted by: Roscoe on February 7, 2006 08:00 AMOur district spends $29,435,387.00 MORE on various and assorted salaries than they do on kids educations.
Enough.
Posted by: Cheryl on February 7, 2006 08:06 AMStossel has another immaculate column about this subject
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on February 7, 2006 08:06 AMI thought about voting no right up until I was convinced the Sedro-Woolley School District was doing just enough to justify holding my nose and voting a grudging yes.
What we really need are school boards that are more taxpayer-friendly and gung-ho to put the educrats (shorthand for education bureaucrats) in their place.
As far as the "simple" majority scheme, check out THIS from the school directors' association, THIS MS Word WA State PTA word document, THIS left-wing blog and THIS Elizabeth Hovde column.
Should be a good start. Gotta go to work!!
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 08:13 AMAll votes should take place during the general election in November. period.
Looking at how bad schools DO hurt our children I will be voting No. Blathering at current school boards is wasted breath. They get their marching orders from Chuck Hasse and we get the finger from behind the desk.
If you say what about the kids…ya? What about them Bruce. What about every kid since 1965 that has been sacrificed by out and out no accountability education system. A system that wants to make up the rules and guidelines and outcomes built on shifting sands and blowing winds of the moment.
Vote Yes!!! For more of the same. Bruce come on hate your kids even more! What would you like next Bruce? Kids that get to pick their grades, pick their orientation and then get a job where they get paid but can’t perform at all and are fully protected from the consequences of their choices AND OURS as parents.
I understand...we feel stupid that we let this happen and feel boxed in. Do we admit that we are "wrong" and at least start to turn the ship around. After all we can see the consequences of the last 40 years coming home. Do we try and change school boards? Do we ask our teachers with their spittle coverd lips to shut up and teach and grade? Do we ask them why they will NOT allow
vouchers so the money can follow the kid not the kid following the ideology.
Look at the Way Marysville was held HOSTAGE threatened extorted and now fully turned over to the teachers...come on folks you can vote it down one more time!
Parents stand up vote no and take the REAL responsbility of education for your kid(s) and no none of you will die if do this but surely we all will if stay on this path of public education.
I realize I have let down my school masters for not conforming to the ideology of 16 years of public education. Who is in trouble me or the teachers I had that did not get through to me???? HAA HAAAAA....oh boy they tried did they ever....Sorry Psycho Mrs T I still laugh at your class. Thank God the drugs were not around when I went to school otherwise I would be voting yes!
Posted by: Col. Hogan on February 7, 2006 08:24 AMMy school district is below average in technology funding compared to other districts, and I think that investment is worthwhile.
But I do believe in the 60% majority rule, simply because there are many non-property owners who vote in elections and they should not be easily allowed to tax property owners. The 60% rule offsets that effect.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2006 08:33 AMThe Growth Management Act has driven up land value, so via the property tax the public schools can get more $$$$....
Give that a whirl, eh?
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 08:37 AMSo, go ahead - shoot yourself in the foot.
I'll be voting in favor of my levies, and my house will continue to be priced in the stratosphere,
Posted by: Janet S on February 7, 2006 08:44 AMTo amplify your points...
Elizabeth Hovde, 24 Feb. 2005:
Setting aside the platitudes, the supermajority requirement was created for a good reason that its critics don't like to talk about: School levies tax only property owners. And a supermajority helps safeguard property owners from the spending whims of those whom the tax does not directly affect. Sixty percent support for taxes that only some people in the community have to pay makes sense still today, even given the increased number of propertyowners. While landlords can pass on their tax burdens to renters, the connection is often lost on renters. And the tax pain is diluted by communal living in any case.There are other reasons to keep the supermajority around. One of the most compelling among them is that school employees are numerous and have an extra special interest in school levies. Statewide, there are 160,000 people on the K-12 payroll. About 99,000 of them are full-time school employees.
These workers make up a good bulk of voters in a lot of communities. Take Clark County, where the second- and third-largest employers are the Evergreen and Vancouver school districts, respectively. In a December survey by The Columbian, Battle Ground School District rounded out the top 10 employers in the county. Isolate school employees in their given communities and they can dominate a voting area.
These workers are inclined to vote in favor of school levies because it can benefit them personally, which makes sense.
Fred Bucke and Bob Hegamin, 10 March 2003
We contend the supermajority requirement is not unfair to the children of our state. First, we cite that use of the supermajority is not unique. We have found that the more important or the more costly the public issue is, the greater the majority consensus and the broader public support beyond just a simple majority are required. Examples include criminal charges that require a jury of 100% or unanimous vote; civil verdicts an 80% majority vote, some government decisions – 75%; overriding a veto a two-thirds majority vote. And, consider the fact that this proposed amendment will itself require at least a two-thirds majority vote from both the Senate and the House of Representatives for passage.In light of the proposed amendment, not to be overlooked are the vast numbers of faculty, general school employees, parents of school children, and dedicated followers used with great effect in passing school levies. Put in perspective, the numbers in this built-in constituency is already very impressive when it is recognized that fewer than one-third of registered voters in a taxing district are generally needed to pass excess property levies, which are then imposed on all property owners in the district. Simply said, this proposed amendment will “lower the bar” still more, by permitting the passage of a levy or bond issue with a simple majority vote, regardless of the number of votes cast.
Despite the argument from proponents that the mandated “supermajority” requirement is unfair, school levies can do extremely well under the current system. As an example, Seattle voters in 2001 passed two School District excess property tax levies, each with a “YES” voter greater than 70%, presenting Seattle’s property owners with a bill of $736 million.
Here you go.
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 08:56 AMI love that Leftwing blog link! How "undemocratic" to require a supermajority. I don't remember these people making the same fuss over the Senate confirming Justices, when they where all for a minority holding everything up, requiring a supermajority to allow a vote on a nominee.
Posted by: fred on February 7, 2006 09:02 AMAlso, the 60% majority should be retained for passage of levys and other significant tax hikes.
-Roscoe
All votes should take place during the general election in November. period.
-Eric
Actually, I might be willing to trade the 60% requirement for a strict enforcement of levies only appearing on the general election on a two-year cycle. That is, these issues must appear at the same time we're voting on our state legislators, and if one fails, the district doesn't get to try again until the next general election two years hence. This business of try, try again until they get the vote they want is terrible. (I understand that something similar to this has been proposed in the legislature, except I think that levies were allowed to be brought at any general election.)
Good idea!!!
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 09:09 AMBoy have I heard this line before. Sorry Janet but working as a fire fighter. I can't tell you how many times I have helped out at my kids school.
Funny we can buy computers for class but not fix a leaking roof or paint the class room?
Show me results and I'll be happy to give the money. If I did my job the same way the schools are going, you would have my head for not performing at 100%.
What a fantastic point. Bravo.
Posted by: Paouse on February 7, 2006 09:21 AMI would agree to trading the 60% requirement for making levies be mandatory in the general election in a heartbeat. Especially if the supermajority is in place to "protect" property owners.
Property tax impacts everyone (if you rent, your landlord pays it, so you do indirectly). I have never understood this arguement.
Posted by: Eric on February 7, 2006 09:56 AMNot to mention the large constituency of school related voters noted above. These make good arguments for keeping a super majority.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2006 10:05 AMWe voters have the ability and the right to affect how the local property tax dollars are used by the school districts. And it really doesn't take much, a little involvement on the levy committee, a few well timed public outcries at the local school board meetings and it's easy to get the property tax dollars earmarked for what is perceived as being needed.
Administration DOES NOT siphon off 50% of every dollar at the local school level. Our problems with the dollars has more to do with what is going on at the state level than anything else. Since 1984 average class sizes have been going up in direct correlation with average teacher pay. It's very simple, the democratically controlled legislature and the WEA have held hands since that time and have given the local school boards less money to work with by requiring a higher percentage of the availble dollars to be spent on teacher pay and benefits.
The local school boards then need to run larger levies because the state no longer lets them determine if the money should be spent on reducing class sizes where it matters the most such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Additionally, those funds you hear the most about beings spent (i.e. computers for 6 or 7 year olds) are mainly funds that the school districts have to go out and beg for in the form of grants and not funds from M&O taxes.
Some schools may or may not be run efficiently, but the truth is that the state taxes spent on education are the funds that have been spent uneffectively to the tune of putting the local school districts at a huge disadvantage.
Posted by: Doug on February 7, 2006 10:43 AMI WRITE IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT IS…SO...NON-METRO SEXUAL...AND LIB’S GET IRRITATED BY IT…ALSO AS YOU SCROLL THROUGH THE COMMENTS IT IS EASY TO PICK OUT AND SKIP OVER IF YOU WISH!!!
SO YOU SEE I’M OFFERING YOU A PUBLIC SERVICE.
Any libertarian or republican should be incensed that any one person's vote counts more than others.
This is a fundamental right...one person...one vote. The 60% rule is discriminatory on its face.
If it weren't we should make sure our president gets 60% of the vote before taking office. Ludicrous, eh?
Posted by: LovinUSA on February 7, 2006 11:16 AMI agree that our schools are not serving our students well. I actually think that in their current state they are doing a disservice.
However, let's not paint broad strokes here. I would invite everyone to attend our next school board meeting in Federal Way (see fwps.org) to see what a school board should look like. We have a majority of the board intent on changing the way things are done. The school bond they are putting forward is an example of their intent to change the district.
The bond is going to set a low, constant tax rate for a consistant reconstruction plan. Not only will we replace our monolithic high schools with smaller schools, but it will do it in a way that won't give any surprises to the tax payers. And we'll be increasing our capacity ahead of schedule, rather than racing to meet the influx of new students every year.
This bond shows vision, a commitment to keep the community in charge of the district, and an intent to execute the powers assigned to the board wisely and with prudence.
(Also, note that FWPS is one of the top 10 districts in the states, as far as achievement goes. That's still pretty sad, but we are going to change things to make us do better.)
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 7, 2006 11:17 AMI'm not sure I understand what this means.
To me the 60% requirements means that it just requires 60% of the voters voting to agree on something for it to pass. Since not everyone is being taxed in these instances, how is then fair for non-property owners to have more influence over property owners who will be ones footing the bill?
Tacoma, sorry but I'm no lib and I skip over your posts too. I hate reading all caps.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2006 11:20 AMa) How many people are employed by the school district in your community?
b) Do you think property taxes are a fair way to pay for schools?
c) Have you read the previous comments here?
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 11:40 AMOk just for you...no more all CAP comments...
Right and of course, I think we should bar school employees from voting on school levies. Same for anybody else who stands to directly profit from a tax increase.
Maybe I'm onto something, maybe not - I'd like to see how far this idea goes.
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 01:25 PMI think the 60% rule offsets those factors for schools.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2006 01:31 PMGood point. I think the left-wing tilt of the judiciary would rule out my idea anyway.
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 01:33 PMI always reply that I'm for 50%, but they have to run the levies during regular elections. Otherwise, it is too easy to just get out the base, and not have to make a good case for the money.
Jonathan - I enjoyed your post, but I have a question. Why are small high schools better than large ones? My experience says that they both have advantages and disadvantages. Students are different. Some thrive in a large school with lots of academic offerings, others need a smaller controlled environment. Why not offer both, and let the market decide?
Tacoma - I feel like I ruined your fun! Sorry!
Posted by: Janet S on February 7, 2006 01:49 PMYeah, run them in November. Problem is State Senate Democrats refuse to compromise on November-only.
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 02:01 PM1. On a levy you are voting for the $$ Amount NOT the levy rate. The rate moves up/down depending upon the the tax base. So if assessed values go up, the levy rate goes down. Schools do not get more money than the $$ Amount approved in the levy.
2. If a local levy for the school does not pass, then matching funds from the state AND federal level are lost. Think of it like a 401k, if you don't contribute, then your employer has nothing to match. These funds from the state and federal level are approximately 100% match to the levy funds.
3. Your school district will tell you how much of the levy goes to the classroom. In my case, it is 80%.
4. I believe my school district (Central Kitsap) is doing well and improving with all of the added work that needs to be done (accountability reporting, testing) because of bills like "No Child Left Behind." More work requires more money.
I agree with others on this comments section that we shouldn't be punishing our children by voting no, but instead voting the right people onto the board that will take making and abiding by a fiscally sound budget a priority.
Ask yourself what is the difference between children educated today and those educated 50 years ago--its the beaurocracy. Too much handling of politics and not enough attention spent teaching in the classroom.
And yes, I voted yes today.
Posted by: Shannon C on February 7, 2006 02:13 PMAs to 2, I forgot. Good catch!
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 7, 2006 03:33 PMRCW 84.52.053 expressly authorizes the school districts to call special elections for the approval of a levy. It is, then, perfectly legitimate to hold those elections whether or not there is an emergency. [Bob Edelman at February 7, 2006 07:16 AM, please take note.]
Special elections for school levies are held in the first three or four months of the year for a few simple reasons -- none of which have anything to do with the probable voter turnout or leanings of the voters who are thought to be likely to vote at that time. First, the election must be held in the year the levy is imposed -- and the levy is imposed in December to be collected in the following calendar year. Second, school fiscal years coincide with academic years, thereby making it necessary for school districts to approve their budgets for the coming school year during the summer. No one could approve a budget without knowing whether the levy funding will be coming in during the following calendar year, that is, during the second half of the school year. Third, if a school district needs to lay off employees it must notify them in mid-May -- but no school district would know if layoffs are going to be necessary until it knows whether the levy has been approved by the voters.
Levies supplement the regular state and federal funding for a simple reason: No system could possibly provide all the funding needed for each of our 296 school districts without doing one of two things -- necessitating the hiring of armies of bureaucrats to process district requests for funds on the basis of differences among the districts, or wasting money by providing some districts more than they need in order to avoid shortchanging any of them.
The "supermajority" requirement of 60 percent for approval is needed for the obvious reason that the voters wanted a limit on property taxes when they approved that part of our state constitution. If there were no supermajority requirement, there would be no limit on property taxes. It makes it harder to approve excess levies because it's meant to be harder to put the onus on local taxpayers rather than funding the schools at the state level.
If you don't think the money is being used well, speak to your school board members. They are the ones who approve the budget.
If you have no faith in your school board members, and you have a rational basis for believing the money isn't needed, then vote "no."
If you have no rational basis for your "no" vote, please vent your spleen here and elsewhere -- then tear your ballot into little pieces as a way to let off a little more steam.
Posted by: Micajah on February 7, 2006 05:16 PMI voted YES in Bellevue. Our levy propositions are passing fairly overwhelmingly -- 73% to 27%. Looks like the levies might fail in a couple of districts.
I think the election requirement is reasonable. It serves as a check on the power of the school board. People usually will pass levy requests if they are reasonable and they have confidence in the school board.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 7, 2006 08:48 PMthe voters of tacoma have rejected the dome issues once again with a yes vote of 52%...no 48%...
in addition, the voters rejected both of the school levees by 55% to 45% margins...
the real sad part only 26% of the turned out...
Posted by: tacoma phlash on February 7, 2006 11:39 PMas a student of the tacoma school district, i care for my education. Do you want to see the drop out rate go higher? Do you want to see society and the youths of the future plumate down into chaos? What message are you sending? " ohh i'm sorry i am too worried to give a damn about you, i rather go golfing, so i am going to say no. Doesn't hurt me."
caring for your children, you'll say yes BECAUSE taking the programs out, taking classes that they aren't BORED with, something to stimulate their mind...you'll know that it makes ALL the difference in the world for their education.
by cutting down administration? it's bad enough for students to find a connection with teachers already in schools, by making the student to teacher ratio larger isn't going to help any students do better in school, most likely worse. I DONT THINK YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR OWN CITY FALL DOWN INTO POVERTY AND SEEING GANGS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN IN IT ROAMING AROUND MAKING TROUBLE. you're going to blame the parents and no supervision. I blame anyone that votes no! your are going to take the one thing away that gives them structure and guidelines. Education and schools AND programs gives every students endless possiblities and opportunities and tools for them to make our future better. IT GIVES THEM HOPE! i hope your happy you know you will be contributing to the on growing statistics of america's drop out rate.
you loose a little BUT YOU GAIN SOO MUCH MORE!
if you care for children your own, your grandchild, niece, or nephew, you'll vote yes.
Posted by: alyssad on March 4, 2006 12:48 AM