The Washington Senate joined the House and passed EHJR 4204, the proposed Constitutional amendment to allow simple majorities to pass school levies, under the theories that
1) It's only fair! = Somebody's else's vote to confiscate your wealth has the same moral weight as your vote to keep your wealth.Amendments to require that the simple majority applies only in November elections (not in the customary low-turnout spring levy elections) and to require a minimal 15% approval of registered voters were rejected.
2) It's for the children! = Washington's government schools are doing such an excellent job of educating children, that they deserve to be further insulated from public accountability.
The proposed amendment is subject to voter approval on this November's ballot.
Joining all Democrats (except Sheldon and Hargrove) to put this over the top were 3 Republican Senators: Brandland, Clements and Pflug.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 12, 2007 01:13 PM | Email ThisIf we can't lock up on this issue, then what issue can we actually hold together on?
I may give to individual candidates, but not one dime to the GOP... and particularly, not one dime to Hewitt and Company. Because if he can't control his people, then he can't control my money.Simple, really. Posted by: Hinton on April 12, 2007 01:37 PMAnything that the Democrat goons can dream up, they pass, and then send over to Gregoire for the rubber stamp.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 12, 2007 01:40 PMhttp://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/washingtonstate/index.ssf?/base/news-27/1176346453145420.xml&storylist=orwashington
Sen. Jim Clements, R-Selah, tried to amend a bill Wednesday on math and science education to delay the reading and writing requirement. The amendment was ruled out of order because it did not directly relate to the bill, but Clements said afterward that something needs to be done.
"We're coming down to the end of the track and my concern is that we're running out of track," Clements said, adding that if the math requirement is delayed it's "only fair" to delay reading and writing.
I think he thinks he is doing right to insure better education. One of the 3 was from Bellingham and the third was in Maple Valley. Yakima has been having trouble passing their levies, but don't quote me on it.
Posted by: swatter on April 12, 2007 01:49 PMTherefore, whenever those words or sentiments are used, I immediately take up an opposing position.
Posted by: H Moul on April 12, 2007 02:10 PMI will be voting for the change to simple majority. The reasons given in the 1940s for passage of the amendment no longer apply. There's plenty of notice about elections, and most people in most districts who vote are property owners and will be paying the bill. This bill is an example of how lots of things should be "sunsetted", required to go through a revoting process in order to stay in effect.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on April 12, 2007 02:34 PMAnd there's plenty of reasons why 60% is still applicable, one of which is the thousands of public school and related employees (janitors, maintenance, etc) in every district who vote for these levies.
Posted by: Palouse on April 12, 2007 02:56 PMBUT.
I could support a simple majority vote if we had general fairness.
A reasonable minimum turnout required for validation of both bonds AND levies.
Elections timed in which the education industry can not swamp the average citizen. Basically, the general election.
No emergency clause authorized special elections.
End the School Board's ability to select the the persons who will write the "Statement Against" in the Voter's Pamphlet.
Institute matching funds for the advertising and promotion of the opposing viewpoint. Currently there is zero money spent in that regard.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on April 12, 2007 03:14 PMEnough already!!
Posted by: Libertarian on April 12, 2007 03:19 PMThe whole government system stinks!!!
Posted by: HW on April 12, 2007 03:33 PMThe difference is that the voters are choosing to tax themselves rather than having the legislature do it for them (which should have a 60% rule).
Bart has some good ideas on how to make these elections more fair to the taxpayers.
For example, the antis on any of these measures are usually blind-sided by the notice for the election and have little time to prepare an against statement. It is not like an election with two parties. There are not antiParties floating around to be sure we vote.
I just deleted two more paragraphs, so I just want to keep it shorter.
Posted by: swatter on April 12, 2007 04:28 PMTo all Senate & House Representatives
The House and Senate should pass legislation that would allow school levies to be approved by the following.
Limit the voters in any property tax levy and any tax levy elections to registered voters who are owners of real property.
Owners include persons who own the property out right and persons who are purchasing the property through a mortgage, real-
estate contract, or under a deed of trust. Homeowners who rent their homes but live out of the voting area should also have
the right to vote on any property tax levy of their homes. Sixty (60) percent homeowners vote to approve for property-tax
levies
The proposed amendment is subject to voter approval on this November's ballot.
VOTE NO, NO, NO
If they aren't willing to give up the ability to re-submit and re-re-submit the question after it's voted down, then forget it.
Posted by: Kirk Parker on April 12, 2007 05:55 PMSchool levies are unlike other property taxes because they are exempt from the constitutional taxpayer protection of no more than 1%.
60% was because property owners were guaranteed a 1% cap on property taxes. Because a school special levy is not within that cap, it is subject to the 60%.
So this action is not necessarily "for the children" since the state could fund schools within the 1% cap by squeezing out trifles like roads and fire services. This is about neutralizing the 1% guarantee.
And the reason Seattle can pass levies which generate over 30% of their budget is because property taxes hit commercial property. The cost per $1,000 in value is very low. Yakima doesn't have the ability to do this. A high cost per $1,000 value is required to get minimal funds.
Some districts cannot pass any levies—especially ones with much public land or tribal land.
Finally, enhancing the local districts' ability to ask for more funds through levies increases the disparity between property rich and property poor districts.
Posted by: knowsabit on April 12, 2007 06:02 PMAll taxes either at the voter booth or in the legislature should require a 60% pass rate. If it's REALLY a good idea, then 60% should be an easy bar to reach.
The problem is the shell game that Olympia has played is starting to catch on. If a district passes a levy, well then they don't need as much funding from Olympia...and we can use that money to placate our special interests instead. Thus the "for the children" refrain only goes to "for our special interests so we can elected".
They've done the same with the transportation budget for years. Give transporation x amount of money (reqquired from the gas tax for example) to build whatever, then get 6.5% refunded to the state under the sales tax....thus not all transportation money really goes to transportation. On top of that, since transportation is already getting money from the gas tax...we don't have to fund additional spending from the general fund....and we get 6.5% back TO the general fund.
Hey, if it's REALLY a good idea, then reaching 60% is easy. If it's a marginally good idea, then go back and come up with something that 60% will like....if it's like most of the ideas coming out of Olympia....well good luck getting 50% (except in King County where they'll get whatever amount they need to ensure the correct outcome!).
Posted by: drw on April 12, 2007 06:09 PMI understand the frustration behind your comment, but do please understand what it is you are proposing. You are totally rejecting public education. You are rejecting the notion that all citizens contribute moneys for public schools. Is that what you are proposing?
If it is, and if you want to pursue that policy, you will have a huge hurtle to overcome. According to our state constitution, the state government has a duty to fund a basic education for all children at no cost. A free public education. You will need to amend the constitution before you can file your initiative.
Good luck!
Posted by: huckleberry on April 12, 2007 06:18 PM35 Bil for transit -
Hell No
Make it easier to pass bloated school bonds, change our constitution
Hell Hell No
Fund a new stadium for millionares, pay all cost overruns, and get no income from the stadium
Hell No
RTID
Hell No
Income tax of 2% for piss poor family leave
Hell No
Next...................................
Show them what we think of them
Posted by: GS on April 12, 2007 06:42 PMThe representatives in the state legislature are at least following a constitutional process to amend the constitution, rather than hiding behind activist courts, or fraudulently invoking emergency spending clauses. I suppose that is something.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the state legislature gets its way in this orgy of spending, and you get your way in that the people who actually fund this dollarpalooza pack up and leave?
Posted by: huckleberry on April 12, 2007 11:11 PM1. The impotent position of pubbies in the leg.
2. The fact that money currently allocated
to the government perceived as not spent well
3. Public schools are perceived as of inferior
quality and they turn out a bad product. The
quality is not likely to get better soon and
the cost is likely to go up.
This change to a simply majority is perceived as removing any controls over school quality. I don't know about the rest of the state, but most Seattle levies pass. Since few want to vote against a school levy, it is kinda like kicking
a puppy. Maybe the percentage of voters voting to validate an election should be high. If enough believe in what the system is doing, they will show up.
The issue is the school district's throwing out these multi-tens of millions of school levies in February as a special election where you get what- maybe 10-15% of the people voting. The issue is that it comes out of nowhere and you don't have time to 'vet' it.
Then, who do you think votes? Adding parents and immediaate family with school kids, teachers, etc. and you have the people that vote. I am shocked that these levies don't all pass by 80%, much less the few that barely pass by 60%.
WVH, you are basically giving school districts blank checks when you reduce the 60% majority equalizer on off-year and during special February elections.
Oh, I know and I reject the counter-argument- we don't know if we need a levy till it is too late for the fall election.
50% is fine for the general, but only for the general. Ergo, every off-year. And shoot, they all pass anyways with the 60%. What's the big deal?
Posted by: swatter on April 13, 2007 08:44 AMPersonally I'd like to see parents give more attention to their child's education. Most parents could care less what the kids learn in school or whether they complete their homework. Teachers have to deal with the kids who are from all different backgrounds and guide them though a critical time in their development. TrueSoldier, you are placing the blame on the teachers when it should be placing it on the inattentive and uncaring parents.
One assumes that with the high per student costs in our current education spending, there is considerable waste in those budgets. I would guess we spend about twice per student what we need to. And yet we consistently pass levies in special, off-year elections with over 60% voting yes. By lowering the threshold to 50%, I believe our education budgets will start creeping upwards to three to four times what is actually needed. That is the big deal. Tocqueville was right.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 13, 2007 09:46 AMMost parents? Do you have anything to back that up besides a gut feeling? (BTW, are you a teacher?) I also believe that too many parents take a hands off attitude towards education, but I do not believe that most feel that way.
The interesting thing is that some schools give mixed messages about how involved parents should be in their child's education. They like mom & dad supporting fundraisers, field trips, and other fiscal pursuits, but parents sometimes have the strangest ideas about long division, dead white male writers, and chastity. If a weak-willed parent threw up their hands in despair and walked away from it, I'd find it a little understandable. Unfortunately, those same parents turn around in February and vote more money to support an increasingly dubious institution.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 13, 2007 09:57 AMParents do need to take more responsibility, but when you have teachers who are more interested in political indoctrination than they are in teaching the basics there is a problem.
I do take my children's education very seriously. I sit down with them and help them understand their homework (I do not give them the answers only the tools to figure it out) and then check their homework.
I do believe that there are some really good teachers out there. My First grader has an excellent teacher that challenges her students to do more not just get by. Teachers like that deserve to be paid more than a teacher that gives their personal political feelings as fact (like his Kindergarten teacher last year). An incentive program would be a great way for the good teachers to get better pay and the bad teachers to just get by like they have been letting their students do for years.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 13, 2007 10:02 AMI hate to burst your bubble, school districts pretty much have a blank check. Few people want to vote against a school levy, most would prefer to stay home or not vote on the levy. A simple majority and holding the election at the same time as the general is fair. I believe the Evergreen Foundation has advocated moving levies to the general election.
The reason that I don't have a problem with the simple majority is that schools should be a public good. If people felt that schools were of good quality and actually educated children, I think most would be OK with a simple majority. The problem is the schools are not that good.
Posted by: WVH on April 13, 2007 12:03 PM(From the esteemed King County Elections division)
Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: 18389/55252 = 33.28%
YES 11962 65.14% NO 6402 34.86%
Which means that 11962/55252 = 21.6% of registered voters and probably less than 10% of homeowners raised property taxes for the other 78.4% of registered voters.
Granted, it did pass comfortably over the 60% requirement - there are a lot of dummies in apartments that think they don't pay taxes.
Betcha all 3000 of district employees plus families, double votes, and dead employees made up over half the 'yes' votes. With these elections are purposely staged on odd dates to ensure low turnout, the gummint school contingent makes the difference.
All tax increases should require 60%, including in the legislature!
Couldn't agree more.
But what's particular disturbing about this is that VAST majority of school levies pass by 60% of the vote anyway (I don't have the exact percent, but if anyone does, please post it). Why then is this deserving of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?
Posted by: Palouse on April 13, 2007 05:12 PMWhy then is this deserving of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?
99.5%
Posted by: huckleberry on April 13, 2007 06:19 PMLet's try this...
99.5% < 100.0%
(That kind of took all the wit out of my post!)
Posted by: huckleberry on April 13, 2007 08:20 PMThere are a lot of good teachers who choose to stick with the public schools. A lot of profesional educators are not the problem. The problem is:
1. The current institutional structure which does
not allow educators to in fact be profesional.
One of the characteristics of a professional
is autonomy over how they do their job.
Because of regulations and union requirements
that autonomy is not there.
2. There should be competition in education and
schools should be allowed to fail and
principals and teachers should face competitive
forces based on performance.
3. There is a lot that is wrong with the current
public school system and I do not hestitate
to point that out. There are a lot of good
professional educators and I am proud to be
one. Far from being a slur for me.
4. I am not convinced that current dollars in
the system are being spent as efficienctly
as they could be. But, there has to be
public funding. I am not waffling, public
education is a societal good. If you don't
believe that, check out the third world
countries that are third world because they
have no public education and have 30%
illiteracy.
So, competition in education would produce a better result. But, there are many talented professional educators in the current system who push a boulder up hill every day with their nose.
Point well taken about not only DC but other urban school districts. Seattle is sadly, going the way of large urban school districts. The parents that are needed to enrich the education for all are driven out of the school district. Case in point, the recent flap over Madrona. Secular progressives of both races have chosen the life outcome for kids based upon their current ideology and how they view the world. Because a lot of low-income children have parents that may love them, but often don't know how to parent, unfortunately the school is taking over a lot of parental functions. For some principal with a leftist ideology that views our economic system as evil to limit opportunities for children based on their ideology is wrong. Some parents are brain dead and some I wouldn't trust with a fish to raise, but there we are. I know the conservative mantra is people should be responsible and to a extent I agree, but the children are here and they didn't choose their parents. We have had a discussion on other threads about the achievement levels of certain Asian groups. Check out who brings kids to museums, symphony, opera, and ballet. These parents sacrifice and value education.
I have had a running discussion with a secular progressive who regularly posts here. Secular progressive ideology which is in essence I do my own thing and the consequences be damned as not worked for my community and other communities. The largest social experiment in that ideology has been the Black community and it is a total failure. Unfortunately, the school boards, ed
bureaucracies, and union leadership is grounded in that ideology. Until there is competition and there are educators like Joe Clark and Marva Collins leading schools in neighborhoods of color, the failure of DC will spread. Schools will cost more per pupil, there will be more education failure and the net effect is that schools will be become pre-prison training camps.
The only thing that will save this mess from happening is competition. Because the control of secular progressives relies on votes from a stream of useful idiots produced by inferior schools and these useful idiots are managed by race pimps like Sharpton/Jackson, I 'm not hopeful.
How about we just flush the public schools down the drain, and start over with all private and sectarian schools. The dream of public education has been perverted into a nightmare, and it is time to rebuild. A blank check to public schools will not help.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 14, 2007 10:26 AMVOTE THEM OUT IN NOVEMBER
Posted by: George on April 14, 2007 11:12 AM1. The general election is where most voters come
out to vote. So, the population of voters is
at the peak. Even if a person does not have
children in school, there is a societal
interest in public education. If one goes
to the RCW sections, they speak of an
informed citizenery able to make choices
like voting and the needs of an educated
population for commerce.
2. The second issue has to do with capacity.
Private and parochial schools do not
have the capacity to absorb all students.
3. Public schools are actually workable if
there is competition and choice. Right now,
we have a education monopoly and there is
very little incentive to change or perform
well. The worst performing teacher gets
about the same as the best teacher. Schools
should be allowed to fail and the principal
should be allowed to hire and fire all
staff from janitors on up. Make that
principal accountable for results at his or
her school. The model is a totally charter
school district where each school gets the
same per pupil allocation and see what each
school can do with their dollars. Close
failing schools and expand successful
schools. There should not be a set salary
schedule.
Posted by: WVH on April 14, 2007 02:20 PM
1. You are essentially saying that the proper role of government is to indoctrinate young people into the government's view on what the right way of voting is. Surely there is a better way to educate young voters than government indoctrination.
2. Capacity will follow. One hopes...? (Realistically, I see know painless way to transition from, what, 85% government schools to 100% non-government schools. All we can hope is that capacity of private schools, and number of home-schoolers will continue to grow.)
3. You cannot wish away your discontent of public schools with the hypothetical "if there is competition and choice". Essentially you are placing all your faith in the school vouchers basket. Maybe you should describe just how you think vouchers will help. Personally, I don't think any public school reform initiative can work as long as the public school establishment is dominated by the NEA/WEA.
Once again, WVH, you and I are not that far apart. We have slightly different prejudices regarding who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, but we both believe, I hope, that the government stranglehold on "popular education" must be broken.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 15, 2007 10:21 AMYou said "Close failing schools and expand successful schools." I believe SPS tried doing this just last year. Do you recall what happened?
Posted by: huckleberry on April 15, 2007 12:45 PM1. My recollection was that not all
schools proposed for closure were failing.
2. The closure policy was under the current
insitutional structure. I am proposing
an entirely different structure.
3. The question is whether money currently
in the system can be allocated differently
and there might be smaller and different
types of schools.
But, my recollection is that some of the schools were not failing, but they were thought too small or in the wrong location. I know that some one will correct that recollection if it is incorrect.
Posted by: WVH on April 15, 2007 04:35 PM1. My recollection was that not all
schools proposed for closure were failing.
2. The closure policy was under the current
insitutional structure. I am proposing
an entirely different structure.
3. The question is whether money currently
in the system can be allocated differently
and there might be smaller and different
types of schools.
But, my recollection is that some of the schools were not failing, but they were thought too small or in the wrong location. I know that some one will correct that recollection if it is incorrect.
Posted by: WVH on April 15, 2007 04:36 PMYou seem to be suggesting that Seattle School District follow the new British model, which simulates free enterprise by empowering principals to run their schools like businesses. The principles, teachers, and parents design a custom program centered on some academic theme, and brand it and market it the way a business might. The schools with successful products draw students, and thrive, and the schools with unpopular products.... well, it really hasn't been decided what to do with those schools. This is a new idea, after all. (I suspect they will not be closed, but receive an infusion of government capital. But that is the cynic in me speaking.)
If the schools are truly automonomous, I like the idea.
Would it work in this state? I think it would be illegal, to some extent. The state constitution is pretty specific about the same education being offered to all students. If you get too cute with regard to program or curriculum, some jealous non-participants could attack it on those grounds. Of course, if you could get the constitution amended, I think that would be swell.
You asked whether the schools that SPS proposed closing were failing or successful schools. I don't remember what sort of WASL numbers those schools were posting compared to the rest of Seattle, but I do seem to recall that SPS was going after schools that were under-enrolled, i.e., operating below capacity, which can be taken as a sign of failure.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 15, 2007 11:08 PMYes, I am proposing a system which is actually based on the Belgium model. Money follows the kid and parents are allowed to choose where their kid goes to school. If enough parents bail, the school fails because it has no customers. Belgium schools are obsessed with student achievement.
1. An all charter school district answers the
question about sucking money from the public
schools. They are all public schools, but
each is a charter.
2. The powers of the Office of Superintendant
are legislatively defined. The Office is
in the Const. The legislature could set
up a competitive system, but it won't
at this time because of the composition
of the legislature.
3. Sometimes, if things get bad enough, pigs
fly. Michigan probably won't become a right
to work state, but the fact some are talking
about it shows that when things get bad, people
look at a lot of options.
4. A couple of years from now, these ideas
won't seem so far out, especially if the
new sup hasn't made much progress or is leaving
and the school population is Seattle continues
to decline.
ARTICLE IX - SECTION 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. [...]
You are also faced with a totally incompetent school board dominated by a socialist teacher's union that will never allow competition. Socialists despise competitiveness. I wish you luck.
A general and uniform system of public education means that the per pupil allocation is the same and that the standard of education achievement as stated in the RCW is the same. I am a lawyer and member of both the WA and NY bars, the model I proposed in legal. It has been researched. You keep referencing the current system. The problem is political, not legal. The major affected stakeholders and current school bureaucracies and unions as well as naysayers like you are the problem. Eventually, it will get bad enough, that people will consider what is now unthinkable.
Posted by: WVH on April 17, 2007 11:40 AMBy the way, do you have a reading list of case law that defines what the framers meant when they demanded a "general and uniform system of public schools"? Thanks.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 17, 2007 02:08 PMI do not feel that SPS can be transformed from within, you aren't getting my posts. There has to be an entirely new insitutional structure which is based on the charter school district. We actually are on the same page. For my dissertation, I created a model callled the Learning Academy Model. (c)
No I don't have a series of case law for that I do have the legal research for my dissertion. A uniform system of public educatiion refers to standards. If you read one Consitutional passage out of context as you have done, then there wouldn't be advanced placement classes. It means similar standards and similar funding.
Posted by: WVH on April 17, 2007 09:36 PMWhen you read the Consitution in context, this is what it is referring to:
RCW 28A.150.020
Common schools.
"Common schools" means schools maintained at public expense in each school district and carrying on a program from kindergarten through the twelfth grade or any part thereof including vocational educational courses otherwise permitted by law.
[1969 ex.s. c 223 § 28A.01.060. Prior: 1909 c 97 p 261 § 1, part; RRS § 4680, part; prior: 1897 c 118 § 64, part; 1890 p 371 § 44, part. Formerly RCW 28A.01.060, 28.58.190, part, 28.01.060.]
Is your dissertation available? Does it cover most of your legal research? If not, perhaps you could share your bibliography?
Anyway, if the constitution means that the state should fund all schools "similarly", how does the state get by with funding SPS at a higher per capita level than most other districts? Do uniform and similar mean the same thing, or is that close enough for government work?
You are suggesting that the state's role should be limited to a) counting the number of students in each district so they know how to divide up the education pie, and b) publishing a standard of essential learnings that schools must teach if they are to receive state funding (as measured, how?). I wish this were true.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 18, 2007 09:30 AM1. I am not a school finance expert and that is what you are asking. In the Constitution, there are sections which speak to the funding of all public schools. There are laws regarding levies and the use of levy funds. Keep in mind that there are federal funds as well, paricularly for special needs children. Urban school districts attract special needs children. The Washington Adminsitrative Code or WAC and the RCW also have sections. I think part of your problem is you are not a lawyer and neither of us is a school finance expert. You take sections out of context and genralize. Whether sometihing is legal is different from minute financial details.
2. All disssertations in this country are available for purchase from the University of Michigan.
Posted by: WVH on April 18, 2007 10:53 AM2. Can you e-mail me the title of your dissertation or something so I can make inquiries at UM? BTW, I thought I heard that Wellesley restricted access to Hillary Clinton's dissertation promoting socialism. (Ooops, Wikipedia says it was not a dissertation for an advanced degree but a senior thesis. Perhaps senior theses are treated differently?) Anyway, I don't think I have enough information to locate your dissertation at UM.
1. Of course non-lawyers will be less familiar with legal codes than lawyers, and non-accountants will be less familiar with public fiscal matters than accountants, but I'm not sure why that is even worth mentioning. If you mean to say that you are too busy to share with me the fruits of labor that you earned while at college, then just say that. But to suggest that there is something wrong with my intellectual faculties because I am not a lawyer or accountant, well, that is just insulting. And smacks of elitism!
WVH, I suspect our exchanges are growing wearisome to the SP.COM readers, and I find it difficult maintaining this dialog by constantly back-tracking through these gruesomely formatted threads. Is it possible for us to move this discussion to e-mail?
Thanks,
Huckleberry
1. A couple of points, most people who work on a dissertation have no problem with giving access. The thesis of Hillary is now available to the public, I believe either Newsweek or some publication has printed exerpts.
2. Regarding the elitism, let me use another example. People like to quote Biblical passages without either quoting the entire passage or the context surrounding the passage. One does not have to be a theologan to recognize the difficulty in that. A Consitution is analogus to a skeleton, it is fleshed out by the laws passed by the legislature, the RCW, the administrative code and case law. Just quoting a section from a Consitution does not give the full meaning and that is what I was pointing out.
Posted by: WVH on April 18, 2007 09:55 PM