Editorial
Don't overload Seattle's school levy

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

Making the levy package too big or diluting its mission of helping schools close the academic achievement gap would give voters reason to cry foul.

Education is a core value for Seattle voters. They approved both of the previous Families and Education levies in 1990 and 1997. In February, an overwhelming majority of Seattle voters passed two Seattle School District levies.

A significant increase over the $69 million 1997 levy, the mayor's $103 million proposal is, for the most part, on the mark. A product of intense community involvement over two years, it reflects a commitment to early learning and a focus on accountability and measurable outcomes. Voters deserve to see how their investments will help disadvantaged children at every age do better in school.

Council members are right to consider additions to the mayor's package. But they should grow it with caution, making sure their enhancements adhere to the levy's mission of improved student achievement, particularly for low-income and minority students.

In particular, the council should add back a middle-school support program funded by the previous levy, which directs dollars to the district's middle-school principals. Imposing guidelines on the schools' use of the funds to match the goals of the new levy makes more sense than taking the money away. The mayor's plan also cuts four school-nurse positions. Those, too, should be added back.

But this is not a Christmas tree. Council members should not see it as a way to fund their pet projects. Councilman Richard Conlin has talked about a levy as large as $143 million. That's too big. Councilwoman Jan Drago has suggested including school crossing guards. They should be paid for out of the general fund, not this levy.

No one should assume Seattle voters' goodwill is infinite or unstudied. Voters rejected last year's misguided latte tax for early childhood learning because they recognized it would set a bad precedent.

Polling found support drops when the price tag rises to $120 million. Council members should be careful. Too much of a good thing could yield nothing.