Foes of Families and Education Levy speak up — quietly

By Jessica Blanchard
Seattle Times staff reporter

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

Two previous levies have passed by wide margins, and supporters of the new $116.8 million, seven-year Seattle property-tax levy have waged a well-financed campaign.

But the few vocal levy opponents — who say they've been willing to publicly state their position, at the risk of being labeled anti-families or anti-education — said they can't shake concerns about the measure's cost, scope and what they think is a lack of accountability.

Their approach so far has been low-key. There have been no rallies, no protests, no army of volunteers — just a few people who said they want to make sure voters hear both sides of the debate.

"The public just needs more information about this than they've been getting," said Stefan Sharkansky, a Seattle resident who drafted the levy opposition statement for the voters guide.

The city levy would provide funding for a variety of school programs, community-based organizations and health clinics. Proponents have stressed that the new levy is a renewal of the two previous $69 million measures.

But Paul Guppy, research director of the Washington Policy Center, a Seattle think tank, questions whether that's accurate.

Levy talk The Families and Education Levy is a seven-year property-tax levy on Tuesday's ballot that would raise $116.8 million for Seattle public schools for a variety of programs, including preschool and early learning programs and after-school activities. The levy also would provide money for crossing guards and school nurses. It requires a simple majority to pass. It would annually cost Seattle property owners about $19.34 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.

The owner of the average Seattle home — valued at about $336,000 — was taxed about $34 a year under the 1997 levy, or nearly $240 over seven years. But under the new levy, that same homeowner would see the tax nearly double, to about $65 a year, or $455 over seven years.

"I would say that's misleading," Guppy said. Calling the levy a renewal "makes people think they're not getting a tax increase when they are."

Pro-levy spokeswoman Dana Robinson Slote said the Seattle School District is under increasing pressure to improve standardized test scores and comply with the state's education-reform efforts and the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

The levy's increased cost, she said, reflects the need to put money toward programs that will help meet those academic goals.

"We keep raising the bar for kids, but we can't keep raising the bar up and ratcheting the funds down," she said. "You can't have it both ways."

For Sharkansky, one of the most outspoken levy critics, the primary concern is the lack of regular, thorough program evaluations that demonstrate how the levy money was used and how it improved student achievement. Sharkansky said he has pored over pages of public records, including the levy's 2003 progress report, and thinks there is little data to show whether levy money was spent effectively.

"All the previous programs had 'measurable outcomes,' but they were so loose as to be largely meaningless," he said. He cited one example from the 2003 levy progress report: the Community Action Camp, a three-week summer program for high-schoolers that trains students to be "social activists" and places them in a weeklong internship with local community organizations.

Looking at the evaluation, he notes that the program's main achievements were that "67 percent felt that the project gave them a useful role in the community" and that "100 percent of the students involved showed increased leadership skills."

"What does that mean?" he said. "That doesn't say much."

In his view, the K-12 Literacy Initiative is one of the few examples of effective programs. The 2003 progress report says that program, a professional development course for educators that focuses on strategies for teaching literacy, led to increases in students' Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) reading and writing test scores.

Robinson Slote said measuring the outcomes of levy-funded programs is not that simple.

She conceded that some previous program evaluations may have been subjective but argued that a program's success can't always be demonstrated through WASL test scores or grade-point-average increases.

And, she said, the new levy addresses concerns about accountability. If the levy passes, an Oversight Committee will write a plan that outlines each program's goals for the next seven years. Each year, the levy-funded programs will undergo a rigorous review by the committee and the City Council, she said.

But to those raising questions about the measure, more accountability won't solve what they see as an underlying problem: if programs the levy pays for are important, they should be funded by the Seattle School District or by the city. Leaving it to a vote is "kind of a risky way to fund essential programs," Guppy said.

Jessica Blanchard: 206-464-3896 or jblanchard@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive

More local news headlines...