Loading...
Title : Times Editorial Says No to SPS Operations Levy
link : Times Editorial Says No to SPS Operations Levy
Times Editorial Says No to SPS Operations Levy
The Times can't seem to ever get it right. Here's what I said in the Comments section:The Times is looking for a new editorial voice and shucks, I was going to apply but with this editorial, well, I'm going to blow that chance. I have been a public education advocate in this city for over 20 years and written the most widely-read public education blog in the state for nine years (Seattle Schools Community Forum). I know this district and I know it better than the entire Seattle Times editorial board. (I'd take all them on in a debate anytime, any place.)
The Times is wrong. Period.
Let's first examine the language they use. "Scheme" "political ploy" "political pawns". As if the Seattle School district was doing something more for a political reason than to support their students in teaching and learning.
Worst of all, they blame the School Board. For the Operations levy, 90% of the organizing of the levy IS in administration, not governance. Remember, it has been the Times to warn against "micro-managing" and to accuse the Board of that in this case is appalling.
"True enough, the Legislature has not fully funded special education although it has plunged billions of dollars into public education to meet the demands of the Washington Supreme Court’s 2012 McCleary ruling"
Let's dissect that sentence. First, "true enough" is good enough for the Times and the lack of full-funding for the most vulnerable students in Seattle Schools? Shameful. And, the "demands" of the WA Supreme Court were because 1)the state had not fully funded schools...for decades and 2) the Legislature dragged its feet getting it done.
Pop quiz - how much does Seattle Schools spend beyond the federal/state funding for Special Education? Answer: about $72M. Can you imagine what would happen if the district didn't support those students? And the Legislature is going to "fix that" this session? I will await the Times' answer when the state gives an underwhelming sum.
Next question - if you have 53,000 students and the state said that nine (9!) nurses were enough for those students in over 100 schools, as a district what would you do? Well, you would do what Seattle Schools does and hire about 60 more nurses because that allotment from the state is ridiculous.
"School leaders want to take a ballot victory to the Legislature and say: “See how our voters want to provide more than a basic education to Seattle children. The Legislature should allow them to support their schools in whatever way they feel comfortable doing.”"
No, I think Seattle Schools is showing what nearly every other district in the state knows - the state's plan for public education spending is not good. It's out of whack and nearly every district in the state will be in the red within just a few years. That would seem nuts but not to the Times.
"That’s just as the Legislature should be winding down its regular session, and the district and voters will have a better idea of what resources truly are needed."
So the district should spend another $1M in April for another election? The Times has no problem with that? The district has said if the state comes thru (and that's a BIG if), then they would take the lower rate (so less money). Special Ed funding will not solve all the need.
Lastly, Seattle voters should understand one more thing about the Legislature's grand plan. When they enacted the state property tax for education, they did it in a manner to balance out property-poor districts with property-rich districts.
That means all the money collected in Seattle does NOT stay in Seattle.
I have been both critic and cheerleader to Seattle Schools and, in this case, I'm the latter. Please vote YES for both levies.
Editor's note: I'll have a follow-up post about what I am seeing and how I believe the City and the Times (among others) are colluding to flip the SPS table where 53,000 students sit.
thus Article Times Editorial Says No to SPS Operations Levy
that is all articles Times Editorial Says No to SPS Operations Levy This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Times Editorial Says No to SPS Operations Levy with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2019/01/times-editorial-says-no-to-sps.html
0 Response to "Times Editorial Says No to SPS Operations Levy"
Post a Comment