The Times endorses
Yes to Families and Education Levy

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

Seattle voters should extend the Families and Education Levy for another seven years despite City Council add-ons that ratcheted up the cost. This package is too important to turn down.

The levy's purpose is to close the achievement gap between children of different income and racial groups. It is not a school levy, but a readiness-for-school levy. It complements classroom efforts with community services within the school. It includes health clinics at high schools and some middle schools, social workers at schools to help with family problems and truancy, and free city-supported preschool for 350 to 400 4-year-olds south of downtown. Seattle voters passed the first Families and Education Levy in 1990. This is the third levy, and builds on some things learned in the first two. First, it is more focused on the achievement gap. Second, the city adds strong accountability unseen in the first two levies. Money is set aside to measure the results and verify what works. Another new element is that the duties of the city and Seattle Public Schools will be spelled out in a written agreement.

There is a sense of urgency here. Education reform has raised the academic bar for children. In 2008, the state expects every high-school graduate to have passed the WASL test or its equivalent. That is a high bar, and Seattle has to provide the services to help children get over it. The city cannot sidestep this responsibility. The city's future depends on it, and the individual futures of the children depend on it.

This levy is marketed as a renewal, but in reality it is a 69-percent increase from the previous $69 million levy. There is a temptation to say it's too much. After a citizens' committee review and a staff review, Mayor Greg Nickels recommended a new seven-year levy of $103 million. It was more than he originally intended but it was the amount needed. The Seattle City Council, which had been unable to spend new general-fund money on much of anything, bumped up the levy to almost $117 million by adding such things as school nurses and crossing guards.

We thought the nurses ought to be paid by the School District and the crossing guards by the city general fund. We preferred the $103 million proposal. It was more focused and more clearly justified. But that is not the proposal on the ballot. This one is, and the choices are yes or no.

Our answer is yes. Seattle cannot afford the alternative.