From the League of Women Voters of King County October Newsletter
The Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of Seattle-King County unanimously voted to oppose Seattle Proposition 1, the Families, Education and Preschool Promise (FEPP) Levy. In addition to urging the city to convene a coalition to address concerns about the proposed levy before taking further action.
Although the Board’s decision to oppose Proposition 1 was unanimous, it was not made lightly. Children from low-income families deserve high-quality preschools. High school graduates deserve to attend college, even when they cannot afford it. But the levy’s vague language and regressive nature make it an inappropriate vehicle for funding these priorities.
Chief among the League’s concerns is the confusing language in the proposition on how levy funds will be spent. Specifically, the measure providers that:
Proceeds may only be leveraged to support Seattle School District and Seattle Colleges, programs or functions with the existence of a current, effective Partnership Agreement (emphasis added). (Prop. 1, Sec. 10)
This clause creates the possibility that levy funds will flow to charter schools, a possibility that city officials have yet to deny. The League has consistently opposed public funding of charter schools because they lack transparency and public accountability. They can also exacerbate segregation and educational disparities.
Moreover, the League has opposed the use of levies as long-term funding sources, particularly in areas where funding responsibility lies with the state. “Taxpayers cannot continue to bear the burden of filling the funding gaps in our communities, the importance of these services notwithstanding,” said LWVS-KC President Stephanie Cirkovich. “Homeowners can expect their taxes to increase by an average of $112 annually under this levy, and they deserve to know how those funds will be spent.”
The League also opposes the Levy because it prioritizes special programming over basic education. Officials concede that it would reduce funding for K-12 over the expiring levy, straining Seattle Public Schools during a period of economic hardship. The timing of the FEPP Levy vote puts public schools in further jeopardy. In February, SPS will be asking voters to renew its operations and capital levies through its sole funding source— property taxes. If voters approve the FEPP Levy in November, they may reject additional taxes desperately needed by SPS. The city has a duty to ensure that K-12 is fully funded before expanding services under the levy.
Earlier this year, the city modified Proposition 1 in response to public outcry when an earlier version cut key services. The city owes voters the same transparency now and should invite further public input on the content, scope, and implementation of this measure. Unless the city commits to resolving the concerns of the League expressed her, voters should reject Proposition 1.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
LETTER: Why I’m opposed to the next Families and Education Levy
By Melissa Westbrook of the Seattle Schools Community Forum blog
Mon, 09/17/2018
I’m Melissa Westbrook; I’m the writer/moderator of the Seattle Schools Community Forum blog, the most widely-read public education blog in the state. I’ve been a public education advocate for more than 20 years.
I’m writing to you today to let you know that I oppose the City of Seattle’s renewal of the Families and Education levy, slated for the November 2018 ballot.
I came to this decision with sadness because I have voted for and publicly supported this levy since its inception. But this current levy is a fairly radical change from previous ones – not to mention it is not just a renewal but a larger cost renewal to voters.
I would be happy to talk to you about this issue as you start your coverage of the November elections.
Basically, my issues with the levy are these:
– The Mayor and City Council have chosen to roll the City’s Pre-K levy into the F&E levy. The majority of the levy, about 52%, will go to the expansion of Pre-K.
I don’t argue that pre-k isn’t a good thing. But Seattle’s Pre-K program is costly and now it’s a larger portion of the levy than K-12 which has traditionally been where the bulk of the levy dollars have gone.
– The City has been unclear about whether they will continue to support in-school Family Support Workers as part of the K-12 portion of the F&E levy. As someone who volunteers in a Title One school, I can tell you first-hand how greatly needed in-school Family Support workers are for low-income or immigrant families who need that support.
– With the larger property tax enacted by the Legislature to fulfill the McCleary decision, I question a dollar increase AND an expansion of the F&E levy to both pre-K and community college. And, Seattle Schools has its own two levy renewals in Feb. 2019 and I believe that with those four large property taxes, there might be voter fatigue.
It would be sad if the F&E levy lost but it would be catastrophic if the district were to lose one or both of their levies.
– There is no language in the new F&E levy that says that the K-12 dollars can only go to Seattle Public Schools. Meaning, any charter school in Seattle could access those dollars.
I had a lawyer check that language and there is nothing there in the levy language that protects the K-12 dollars for Seattle Public Schools.
The city of Seattle itself voted – in a firm majority – against charter schools. I don’t think that has changed much and I think voters need to know this is what will happen.
Given that earlier this year, Green Dot Charter Schools was able to get an illegal zoning departure for one of their new schools, I suspect there are those on the City Council who may support charter schools. (That zoning departure was quite deliberate and done outside of city code and I think there was help/support from a couple of CMs.)
I’m glad to discuss these issues with you and your media outlet.
Sincerely,
Melissa Westbrook
And from the Seattle Times:
Here’s what you need to know about the city’s largest-ever education levy, and whether the expiring tax has made a difference in schools, before you send in your ballot.
By Neal Morton, Seattle Times staff reporter
Seattle voters will soon decide whether doubling the city government’s investment in public education is worth a property-tax hike.
The city’s existing levies to pay for certain K-12 programs and a subsidized preschool pilot both expire at the end of this year. And after campaigning on a promise to make community college free for high-school graduates, Mayor Jenny Durkan has pitched the city’s largest-ever education levy to combine the K-12 and preschool programs with her proposed scholarships. On your ballot, this initiative will be called Seattle Proposition No. 1.
Here’s what you need to know before you make this Election Day decision. If there are any more questions you want answered, ask us at edlab@seattletimes.com.
How much would it cost? What tax hike can homeowners expect?
If approved, the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy would raise about $619.6 million over seven years and expire after 2025.
If approved, the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy would raise about $619.6 million over seven years and expire after 2025.
The ballot language states that the city’s property-tax rate would be limited to 36.5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, meaning the owner of a home with the median value of $665,000 would pay $242 next year to support the levy. The average yearly tax bill over the seven-year life of the new levy would be $248, up from $136 this year.
Disabled veterans and low-income Seattleites could qualify for exemptions under state law.
What’s different this time?
The city’s education levy has funded K-12 programs, family support workers in schools and school-based health clinics. The new proposal for the first time would include the city’s preschool program, which subsidizes tuition on a sliding scale, and college scholarships.
The new levy also would provide $4.2 million to address the rising number of homeless students in Seattle.
What programs would go away if it fails?
A spokesperson for the city’s education department, the Department of Education and Early Learning, would not specify. But in an email, the spokesperson said the city would be ready to present “contingency plans.”
“If the levy does not pass, our programs such as the … (preschool program) would be at severe risk of losing funding,” the email said.
What do levy supporters point to as past successes of these programs?
Overall, it’s a mixed bag. We’ll know more Monday, when the education department releases a third-year evaluation of the city’s preschool pilot.
As for the Families and Education Levy, the department said it’s helped reduce the opportunity gaps at four high schools on measures like attendance and core-course performance. The department’s most recent annual report, however, for the 2016-17 school year, shows those high schools met just 2 of 8 targets for underserved students passing their core courses with C’s or better.
The department also cited an analysis of the same groups of middle-school students over time. “Students were three times more likely to attain math proficiency by the end of the (8th grade) if they attended” a levy-funded middle school. But the department’s annual report shows fewer than half of those schools — 7 of 16 — met their academic targets in math. Only 4 in 7 met their targets in reading.
Who supports — and opposes — this tax hike?
Mayor Jenny Durkan proposed the levy and the City Council voted unanimously to send it to the ballot, with minor alterations. The politicians say it would help close the opportunity gap between kids from more- and less-privileged backgrounds.
The city’s largest business and labor groups, including the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, have endorsed the measure, as have five Democratic Party legislative-district organizations with territory in Seattle.
Top contributors to the political campaign supporting the levy include Amazon, Mariners board member Chris Larson, hotel owner Howard S. Wright and the Service Employees International Union.
No one has registered a political campaign opposing the levy.
But the League of Women Voters has come out against the measure. And Melissa Westbrook, a local education activist and blogger, has argued against it.
Does this have anything to do with charter schools in Seattle?
As of last week, it’s unclear.
The city spokesman on Wednesday said its attorney’s office still hasn’t answered two lingering questions about whether charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run, could benefit from the levy: Can graduates from those schools also access the college scholarship program, and can charter schools compete with the traditional Seattle school district for K-12 grants from the levy?
The Washington State Charter Schools Association, however, hasn’t ruled out that its members in Seattle will seek the levy money.
Stay tuned for more coverage.
Who would oversee how the city spends the levy revenues?
Ultimate authority would rest with the mayor and City Council. But a standing oversight committee would include the mayor, a council member, the superintendent of Seattle Public Schools, a director on the Seattle School Board, the chancellor of Seattle Colleges and a dozen appointed members.
The oversight committee would review a report of the levy’s impacts each school year and recommend changes.
How does this proposal fit in with all the other tax hikes in Seattle?
In 2018, the statewide property-tax rate rose to $2.70 per $1,000 of assessed value to pay for a new K-12 budget. Lawmakers earlier this year agreed to offer homeowners some relief, and approved a one-year cut to the statewide rate by 30 cents in 2019.
The new state budget also capped the local property taxes that individual school districts can collect to pay for so-called enrichment activities, such as extracurricular programs or smaller class sizes.
The Seattle school district currently taps its separate local levy to hire more school nurses and provide special services for students with disabilities.
In February, the district will ask voters to renew that levy but plans to propose a higher tax rate than the state’s cap allows, just in case lawmakers offer some flexibility.
Also in February, the district may ask voters to approve more than $1 billion in its capital levy for new school construction and renovations. Voters last approved that levy, with a price tag of nearly $700 million, in 2013.
How does the fate of this levy affect the finances of Seattle Public Schools, if at all?
The Seattle School Board’s budget for the 2017-18 school year topped $850 million, so the $20 million that Seattle Public Schools received from the city this year made up a little more than 2 percent.
The district’s own operations levy, which voters consider every three years, typically represents about 15-20 percent of the overall budget. That reality has left district officials worried about voters’ willingness to support yet another tax for education on the ballot next year — after they’ve already voted on the city’s education levy.
“The (city’s) levy is important to us and our families,” said JoLynn Berge, the district’s assistant superintendent for business and finance. But, “we can’t make it without the maintenance and operations levy.”
Seattle Times staff reporters Dahlia Bazzaz and Daniel Beekman contributed to this report.
*This post was submitted by Dora Taylor
I am inclined to agree. This would be the first school levy I have ever opposed, and comes with the understand Jenny Durkan can get her act together on the charter business and reintroduce it in April. Someone needs to tell the Seattle Times there *is* opposition.
This is very interesting. Clearly Bezos has an interest in expanding pre-k so that he can advance social impact investing in that sector. I have a couple of posts that frame that out if you are not familiar with how the fin-tech elite plan to profit off the poverty of toddlers.
https://wrenchinthegears.com/2018/06/10/heckman-and-pritzker-pitch-apps-as-poverty-solutions-yielding-a-13-return-on-investment/
and https://wrenchinthegears.com/2018/09/15/montessori-inc-pre-k-predictive-profiling-for-power-and-profit/
I am glad that people have a sense that something is amiss. It is important that people understand the Pay for Success component to the pre-k in addition to the anti-charter argument.