Sound Politics: But they're pro-choice!

March 18, 2006

But they're pro-choice!

Today's Seattle Times reports that "Parents may get less of a choice"

Seattle's difficult school-closure process is under way, but ahead may loom another far-reaching — and potentially contentious — change: reducing elementary-school choice.

School Board Member Michael DeBell explains that the right to choose costs too much:

"Choice is expensive," said School Board member Michael DeBell, chair of the board's finance committee. "Now we are in a tight budget situation. And I think we are starting to get an idea clearly of how much it costs us."

But Michael DeBell is pro-choice!

"We are not eliminating school choice, but we want to reduce it," said board President Brita Butler-Wall.

But Brita Butler-Wall is pro-choice!

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 18, 2006 12:51 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Seattle needs to really do an assessment of what their population of projected school age children will be by year for the next 20 years. In the projection the Seattle School Board needs to take into account shrinkage from private/parochial schools and home schooling.

Once they do the above study the SSB can then decide which schools to leave open and which to mothball or sell based upon projected demographics. Initially I'd suggest leasing/mothballing nonneeded facilities, but given the age and condition of some of the buildings it may make sense to demolish them and use them as parks/open spaces until the school age population swings upward.

Because of the physical size of the property SSB should probably hold all real estate for the time being and/or swap it with other similar sized parcels that are more "kids friendly". Once the parcels are gone, it will be tremendously expensive to try and reassemble them in the future barring a Boeing or Microsoft implosion.

While Mr Vinh's article in the Seattle Times is interesting, it failed to list the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) whose staff runs the calculations.

Posted by: Green Lake Mark on March 18, 2006 07:21 AM

2. Funny the P-I is so concerned about people having a choice of schools, or which Democrat to vote for.

But the paper is in lockstep with the politburo who declare that it's mandatory that we shall wear helmets, and quit smoking, and sort our garbage, and spend vast sums on rail transportation instead of highway lanes. We're just too uncomprehending to be allowed any choice there...

Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 18, 2006 08:58 AM

3. No Hank, they aren't lockstep on helmets, bikes anyway. You're required to wear a bike helmet everywhere in King County, except Seattle.

They're only about choice if you'll make the kind of choices they prefer.

Posted by: South County on March 18, 2006 09:11 AM

4. I forgot - to the real cognoscenti, the bikes are mandatory too. And the REI costumery for the socially conscious velocipediste.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 18, 2006 09:21 AM

5. They are pro choice as long as you choose what they want. You have to choose the school that they force your kids into. You have to choose to spend ridiculous amounts of cash on mass transportation, you have to choose to allow killing fetuses, etc etc.

Posted by: Jason Woodruff on March 18, 2006 10:40 AM

6. Here's one thing I don't understand. Ms. Butler-Wall talks about how an abortion helped her to achieve the life she wanted. Wouldn't an adoption have produced the same outcome? I don't see how it would not have...

Posted by: Peggy U. on March 18, 2006 02:22 PM

7. You're funny, Stefan... But to run with your humor, I might point out that many liberals around Seattle want to reduce the number of abortions, want to talk about the personal and emotional expense of abortion on countless women in America, and want to improve (sex) education for children -- and we're STILL pro-choice!

Posted by: Mickymse on March 18, 2006 02:58 PM

8. Mickymse -- I'm basically libertarian. I think you and I agree that reducing the number of abortions is commendable but that this can be accomplished more appropriately without the heavy hand of the criminal justice system.

The point of this post, like other similar ones that I've done, is to highlight the hypocrisy of the liberals who call themselves "pro-choice", meaning only reproductive choice, while also seeking to restrict people's choices on many issues that are no less important than reproductive choice.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 18, 2006 03:31 PM

9. How are they in a "tight budget situation" when they spend something like $10,000 per student?

WTF exactly do they do with all that money, shovel it directly into the WEA coffers?

Granted, the number of school age kids in Seattle has been dropping (one of the symptoms of being a leftist distopia), with the number fleeing for private and home schooling reducing the population still further, which means the SSD will have excess facilities. Excess facilities means some get shuttered.

I agree that either mothballing them or leasing them to private schools (oh, the irony) would be the best option, just in case Seattle ever becomes family-friendly again.

Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on March 18, 2006 08:02 PM