Guest columnists
Families and Education Levy earned itself a failing grade

By Andy MacDonald and Stefan Sharkansky
Special to The Times

Stefan Sharkansky

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

On Tuesday, Seattle voters will decide whether to extend and enlarge the 14-year-old Families and Education Levy. The stated goal of the levy is to "support student academic achievement." We applaud that objective. But the decision to reward the levy officials with a 69 percent tax increase and a new seven-year allocation of $117 million cannot be based solely on noble goals and eager promises.

Just as we re-elect incumbent officials based on their records in office, we must judge this incumbent program by its actual accomplishments over the last 14 years.

Unfortunately, these earlier levies failed to deliver on their promises, so the responsible action is to vote "no" on the current proposal.

At the same time, we would ask the City Council to draft a stronger measure that corrects the inadequacies of the current proposal, addresses the failures of the earlier levies, and provides a plausible and effective vehicle for supporting student achievement.

We read all of the city's own evaluation reports for the programs that were funded by the levies between 1990 and 2003. There were 25 such programs in all. Only three of these demonstrated even slight improvements in grades, test scores or graduation rates. Three out of 25.

	Andy MacDonald

If we could hand out letter grades to public officials, the people in charge of the levies would receive F's. A responsible parent would cut off their allowances until they came back with a realistic plan to change their work habits and improve their grades. They certainly wouldn't get a 69 percent increase in their allowances until after those grades started to improve.

Our community faces a crisis with so many of our children failing to reach their potential in school. Fortunately, many of us are energized to do more for those children who today need our assistance.

But if the current levy proposal, which only perpetuates the same failures of the earlier levies, will not make meaningful contributions to student success, how might we craft a levy proposal that has a more realistic chance of accomplishing some good?

First, set clear, identifiable and achievable goals.

Second, cut back the budget to a fair and manageable level.

Third, mandate processes and controls for transparent decision-making with accountability for results.

The text of the proposed levy provides no details of how the money will be spent, only a few "illustrative examples" of how the money might be spent. Some of these examples have only a distant connection to achievement (e.g.: crossing guards, which used to be paid out of the city's general fund).

A recent guest column in support of the levy ("Invest in the children and Seattle's future" Times op-ed, Aug. 31) opened with the implausible promise that the levy will prepare all of Seattle's children for school. One can only conclude that this levy gives the City Council a $117 million blank check to either plug holes in the general budget or spend arbitrary amounts on unrealistic promises.

Instead, let's focus on a few realistic, achievable goals that have a clear connection to school achievement.

The proposed levy asks for $117 million over seven years. That works out to $455 for the average family. Instead of this unearned increase, an accountable levy would ask for less money — say, to continue at the current rate of spending for three years, so the program managers can demonstrate meaningful results and that the community is getting good value for its money.

The proposed levy does not require any of the funded programs to improve learning or to deliver any other specific results. It requires only that the "implementation" of the plan be reported to the City Council and the mayor. This is no better than the current levy. If a program merely reports how many students show up for roll call, it will meet the reporting requirement. Only by setting meaningful success targets and reporting results, can programs truly be held accountable.

The Families and Education Levy was intended to help Seattle's children succeed in school. Based on the levy's own records, it hasn't worked. We can't afford to be in the same place seven years from now, faced with the same poor school outcomes and asking the same questions about accountability. Our students deserve programs that give them meaningful help to succeed in school, supported by a levy with effective standards and processes.

Like a politician who hasn't met his promises, the current levy proposal should be rejected by the voters.

Andy MacDonald a software developer living in Ballard, and Stefan Sharkansky, a small-business owner in Green Lake, were two of the co-writers of the Voters' Pamphlet statement against Seattle Proposition 1, the Families and Education Levy, on Tuesday's ballot. Contact them through www.soundpolitics.com.