Spokane7
46°
February 1, 2012 in City
Levy rejection is lesson on how schools suffer
Cash Stone, shown at his home in north Spokane on Tuesday, is a 38-year teacher and coach who worked in the Mead School District when a series of failed levy votes cut varsity sports.
(Full-size photo)
Get your yellow flier yet? If so, and if the scare language and the big numbers are giving you pause, when it comes to supporting your local schools, you might want to consider one more number: 1972.
Or, in the words of one old newspaper article: “the gloomy specter of 1972.”
Forty years ago, voters in Spokane rejected three consecutive levies, leading to widespread cuts, school closures and layoffs. Meanwhile, the Mead School District was implementing draconian changes on the heels of two consecutive years of levy rejections: Cutting nearly a third of its teaching staff. Eliminating all electives and extracurricular activities. Going from six class periods a day to five.
These were not theoretical cuts. Not the easy trimming of administrative fat. Not the simple, corrective efficiencies a tax hater’s dreams are made of.
“It was horrendous,” said Cash Stone, a longtime teacher and wrestling coach at Mead High who’s now retired. “I don’t want anyone to experience what we went through.”
To their credit, voters in the Mead and Spokane districts have not done that since. There has been the occasional levy failure – but those levies have been tightened, rerun and passed before they took effect on the budget. And there have been bond failures, affecting construction and maintenance.
But when it comes to the maintenance and operations levies, the property taxes that support about a quarter of local school budgets, we’ve been saying yes for decades. We’ve said yes so much that a lot of us no longer have any idea what happens when we say no.
In 1972, the Spokane school district tried to pass levies in February, April and November. Each barely failed – falling just short of the 60 percent majority that was then required. Nine elementary schools closed. Ten percent of teachers were laid off. Class offerings were reduced. Extracurricular activities were eliminated, then restored in a scaled-back form. An acrimonious conflict arose between the teachers union and the administration, planting the seeds for a battle that would play out for years and culminate in a teachers strike in 1979.
“It was a really big deal,” said Mike Ormsby, the U.S. attorney for Eastern Washington. “A lot of programs were eliminated – enrichment programs” in art, music and other subjects.
Ormsby was a freshman at North Central when the levies failed and a sophomore when they took effect. He said that for high school students in their junior or senior years, the cuts were disruptive. Students transferred between schools to make sure they could get into the classes they needed, as individual class offerings were scaled back.
Things were worse in Mead. Levies failed in 1970 and 1971, helped along by the last-minute appearance of fliers containing misleading language, exaggerations and nonsense like “Help schools, vote no.” Extracurricular activities were cut and stayed cut. Stone – a longtime fixture at Mead who was a technical adviser and extra in “Vision Quest” – remembers a standout wrestler named Dennis Trainor. Trainor, now the owner of Western States Construction, won the state title at 145 pounds as a junior. As a senior, “he and I were walking the halls,” Stone said.
The Colbert school was closed. Fifty out of 168 teachers were sent packing. Electives went out the window. Students in advanced placement courses were suddenly – in the years right before college – no longer in advanced placement courses.
“Kids like Dennis Trainor – they didn’t get their senior year back,” Stone said. “He’s just one example. There’s plenty of others.”
The lessons of 1972 settled in quickly. In 1973, voters all around the region voted overwhelmingly in favor of levies. In the intervening decades, levies have become a larger part of school budgets, as the state has continually shortchanged districts in its duty to educate its citizens.
The Mead levy failures in the 1970s led to cuts of not quite $500,000. Its current levy proposal of $20 million constitutes more than 26 percent of its budget. It would not – despite the all-caps claims of “NEW” or “EXCESS” taxes on the fliers of the critics – increase taxes. Even if this passes, school taxes in the Mead district are expected to go down: tax rates are rising, but home values are dropping, and the district expects to bring in slightly less than it has.
In Spokane, meanwhile, the current three-year, $73 million levy proposal would cover more than 23 percent of the budget. That’s compared to cuts of 17 percent in 1972 – cuts that also were softened by a much larger reserve fund.
“I think today, the ramifications of a levy failure would probably be more dramatic,” Ormsby said.
These levies – and several others around our region – replace expiring levies. They are “NEW” only in the strictest, most semantically argumentative sense of the word. They are “EXCESS” only in the Land of Nod, where craven self-interest dresses up as help for schools.
I’ve seen it argued that if we reject the levies, all that will happen is taxes will go down and schools will go on. Sure they will – after all, we’ve got to send the little nippers somewhere during the day.
Schools will go on. They will just be much, much worse. If we fail to recognize that, we’ll give our kids the chance to live through the good old days of 1972 all over again.
Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@spokesman.com.
The draw of the unknowable 
karl2002 on February 01 at 5:04 a.m.
“Even if this passes, school taxes in the Mead district are expected to go down:”
The problem with the Mead Levy request in my mind is that it is such a large increase: A 39% increase from the current Maintenance & Operations levy. The current & M&O levy rate is $3.28 per $1000 and the proposed rate is $4.55 per $1000.
http://www.spokanecounty.org/tca/
I just don’t see the need in these economic times for such a large increase. I will vote against this levy request. Send me a proposal with a more reasonable rate and will support it.
survivalguy on February 01 at 5:20 a.m.
The SR, the District, GSI, now Shawn too - all parroting the same line, dropping the same apocolypse scenario.
Here’s the truth folks - those teachers’ jobs and school closures will only be lost if the school boards cuts them. There is no magic formula that directs that teachers take the hit if a levy fails.
I have no doubt, however, that our administrator-loving school board would vote a revised budget that cuts teachers, IAs, etc. But that is NOT the way it HAS to happen. If the levy fails, the board could cut every administrator in the Bernard St building, all of the area coordinators, all of the vice principals, etc, etc.
The District could opt out of the Common Core Standards – which they did not HAVE to sign on to, and could still cancel – and save the MILLIONS of dollars they CHOSE to spend on a data system and employees to manage said system, as well as the money set aside for curricula they have not even seen, much less tested for efficacy…)
I’ve scrubbed the D81 budget quite closely - I can easily remove $60 million from that budget. Seriously, it can be done without losing one single teacher who currently stands in front of a classroom.
There would be a total loss of “teachers” who aren’t working as teachers, all of the area coordinators, and others in the District whose salaries get counted as dollars going to the classroom - when the District touts how good it is at getting the taxpayers’ dollars to the classroom. But the “teachers” who are not really teaching children each day do little but cost us money while they aggravate classroom teachers. (While the district disciplines classroom teachers who dare to actually teach…)
There also would be house cleaning in the curricula arena and supplementary materials budget.
They could cut that deadwood if the levy fails, but they won’t…
Sometimes you have to drain the pool to clean it out. I’ll be voting against the Levy – FOR THE KIDS! If it is the kids we truly want to serve, we serve them best by draining the pool and seeing what is left at the bottom, what is really essential.
Citizens shouldn’t stand for teachers being removed from classrooms, or class sizes to go through the roof, as long as there is one Administrator earning more than $100,000 in the Central Office by pushing paper. They would ALL have to go before teachers are laid off – or at least that’s the way it SHOULD be.
JBlim on February 01 at 5:50 a.m.
But of course we should put the district’s multimillion dollar budget in the hands of any fool just as long as he’ll work for less than $100K. And where my 25 cent cup of coffee?
Notapatriot on February 01 at 5:50 a.m.
Bravo Survivalguy. Well stated.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 01 at 6:22 a.m.
So I say again…”Why don’t you big brave boys/girls tell us who you are? Identify yourself by name, and history? No guts no glory folks…. hiding under your “hats” or behind the bushes…come out come out>> John,.. ( I am in the phone book).:))
DHF on February 01 at 6:25 a.m.
As a former state employee I remember voting in the $ 30.00 car tabs. The union AFSCME tried to put on the spin that there would be mass layoff’s and budget cuts, no raises. And you know what. It was all spin. Like everything else in life today people tighten the belt and have to do without some essentials. If this country would quit spending money on all of the wars, foreign aid, military aid to countries who hate our guts we would have money for schools. And that should also include taxpayer money to outfits like Solyndra, and the others who take taxpayer money and then file for bankruptcy the next week. All of that wasted money should go for jobs and schools.
survivalguy on February 01 at 6:26 a.m.
@JBlim:
The amount you pay does not guarantee competency, nor indicate ability.
A Brig General in the Army, as the Asst Div Commander has the responsibility for the budget and the 30,000+ troops under his command - every teacher, cook, infantryman, baker & candlestick maker, all the real property on a camp that spans more area than Spokane - not to mention the actual lives of those folks.
Pay? $8054 / M (less than $100 K per year)
We’ve put the STATE budget in the hands of someone that makes less than Nancy…
It is not about how much they make, it is about what they are doing with it, how many of them are actually needed, and how many of them are actually impeding our student’s progress.
I’m not anti-levy. I’m anti-THIS levy.
Nancy is leaving, we have a window of opportunity. Fail this levy, get a new super, start back toward a track that teaches children.
Shawn’s article only points out the poor decisions made by school boards at the time, NOT that the NO vote on the levy at the time was wrong. Typical emotional appeal of the SR; “It’s going to be painfull if you express your discontent this way!”
We accept pain when the likely outcome will benefit us Shawn, No Pain - No Gain.
Vote NO!!!
homerun on February 01 at 7:03 a.m.
I never thought you would every write something that I agreed with.
Well said! Please vote yes for our kids.
Orphan on February 01 at 7:23 a.m.
Vote no, just like the federal budget we need to get the Mead
School District’s budget under control before there is one dime more spent.
Its no wonder they have money problems when they put their administrators in the highest paying job they can find or make up for them for the last few years so they can collect the largest retirement pay. I can name names but wont on here.
The_Seer on February 01 at 7:55 a.m.
I’ll bet NONE of the posters above even live in the Mead district or have ANY school age children.
Time to step aside all you angry, old, white men. Your time is done and you’ve done enough to ruing almost everything you’ve touched. Go back to sleep.
johnclarke on February 01 at 7:57 a.m.
The_Seer on February 01 at 7:55 a.m.
I’ll bet NONE of the posters above even live in the Mead district or have ANY school age children
This one does, and he’s voting no.
DickAdams on February 01 at 8:02 a.m.
survivalguy:
I could not agree more. Great post. In addition to it, the District 81 school board member Roco Treppiedi where the board members depend on him for legal advice.. I`m perplexed as to why the voters continue to reelect him. Treppiedi, is the city attorney that lead the city officials in trying to cover-up the Otto Zehm murder. Another fact, Treppiedi attempted to convince the state AG to ask the state legislators to change the public records law and stop giving the citizens any information regarding schools. Treppiedi, publicly asked the AG to ask the legislators in Olympia to change the public records law saying, the public gets too much information and wants the law changed to reflect his views and not to provide any information to the citizens.
Albert on February 01 at 8:11 a.m.
@johnclarke, I too live in the Mead District and my “levy” would increase my house payment by $200. per month! Not bad for a house valued at LESS than when I purchased it in 1998. My house value implodes, yet my taxes & levies increased. $200. a month for “maintenance” NOT teachers, nor educational programs…you’ve got to be kidding. My wife and I voted NO within 5 minutes of receiving the ballots and returned them promptly.
Albert on February 01 at 8:15 a.m.
@Seer… must you bring a racist comment into every comment that your bigoted mind produces?
“Time to step aside all you angry, old, white men.”
You sir are disgusting! Grow up and dump your 1970’s judgmental views.
bradyc on February 01 at 8:25 a.m.
Karl, please stop with the misinformation and telling only part of the story. Quit falling for the Alton propaganda and think for yourself. The Mead initiative is actually a decrease of $.26 from the current situation of $5.61 that homeowners are currently assessed per $1000.
If anyone above actually thinks that eliminating 25% of a school district’s budget won’t adversely impact the students’ education then there is no hope for you.
bradyc on February 01 at 8:33 a.m.
And, the $.26 decrease is the worst case scenario in the event that the state doesn’t renew the LEA program. If that stays the same, the reduction in taxes increases to $1.37.
The_Seer on February 01 at 8:46 a.m.
Alfred E. Neuman: There is nothing racist in calling angry white men angry white men. It’s called accuracy. Get over yourself and that veneer of political correctness you employ to shield reality.
Alton has no children in any district. Can’t people remember how many times that whacko ran for Congress and got pummeled? Why are you prepared to listen to his nonsense now?
sju on February 01 at 8:51 a.m.
1. Vestals “story”, listed under “news” on this paper’s website is disingenuous at best. At worst, it is an attempt to aplly an emotional appeal to all the voters, all local districts, to vote Yes on their respective levy.
2. I would point out to Shawn, and the rest who read this, that Mead is touted in Real Estate ads as THE place to buy because of its school district. Was it always that way? NO NO NO!
The early 70’s was a time of bloated administration and poor performance in most of the local districts. The failures of levies at that time had to do with those issues, and educational outcomes for students not being what the “buying public” expected for their dollars.
So, perhaps there is some news in what Shawn has provided in print today - When people don’t percieve value for their money they will withold that money until the value equation changes.
That’s what happened in the 70’s, and it would appear that it did the job. Administrators and boards were tone deaf with the first failure and stayed tone deaf UNTIL the people made it clear that they would support a levy - when that levy provided a value thay were expecting.
I can’t speak to the current issues in Mead, but I can to the issues in Spokane’s D81:
It appears that the same issues that were extant in the 70’s are again at the fore:
- Evidence that student outcomes are not matching administrator’s and board member’s rhetoric.
- Evidence that levy dollars are going to support a bloated administration.
- Evidence that administrators hold an educational ideology that the public finds failing their children.
It also appears that, once again, people have attempted to get the ship-of-learning back on track using all the available public forums and meeting they can - to no avail. So they are left with the ultimate no-confidence measure - the power of the purse.
Contrary to what the SR, Shawn, the union, or D81 administrators might threaten the public with - it is nowhere in law or regulation that the cuts required due to a levy failure MUST come from the classroom.
Your board could make those cuts to administrative staff, funding for unproved curricula, opting out of the Common Core madness, lots of places.
Or, they could cut teachers, generally self-sustaining sports, generally self-sustaining clubs, and a host of other “punishments” applied to show the general public what heartless uncaring citizens they are…
The lesson of the 70’s levy failures is NOT that they were painfull, but that they ultimattely trimmed and improved the districts - for Mead, into the “premier” real estate location in the county.
PROFINTOX on February 01 at 8:56 a.m.
I will admit, I do not reside in the Mead school district; my child attends in D81. But people should at least quote information completely and correctly, regardless of how they intend to vote on any levy, regardless of where they live. Do the research. In the case of the Mead proposal — if the levy is passed — the worst-case scenario is that total property tax rate per $1000 will go down from the current $5.61 immediately to $4.24 for 2012 and then will increase to $5.17, $5.22 and $5.22 for 2013, 2014 and 2015. Best case scenario would be an immediate reduction to $4.24 for 2012 and then to $4.45, $4.50 and $4.53 for the noted years. In either case, TOTAL tax burden decreases. The M & O portion increases however while the bond portion decreases. At least state the facts correctly please. The vote of course is still up to you.
Middleman on February 01 at 9:09 a.m.
Reading the Duane Alton supported website (www.forthekids-really.com/) led me to respond to the ridiculous comments located within. If you are a proponent of the beliefs of this group, here are some facts.This is not a BOND (as many of the “testimonials assert). Bonds are used to fund BUILDINGS and physical objects such as busses, computers, air conditioning or additional classrooms. This is a LEVY!!! It pays for what the State of Washington will NOT PAY. That being EVERYTHING other than BASIC education.
This is not an increase in taxes!!! At least not in the district I live in (Central Valley). It is a continuation of the levies that are expiring. Is it a new tax? Technically, yes. As one levy ends, another begins and carries on. In that way, it is a new tax, but only in that way.
Speaking of our State’s support of BASIC Education, our State Supreme Court found (after a lengthy appeal) that our State does NOT adequately support our state schools under the Washington Constitution. This is our Supreme Court talking. Its law folks. So, LEVIES in Washington State are a means to assist all districts in augmenting not only what the State does not provide for basic ed., but also everything that is not basic Ed.
Wanna know what isn’t basic Ed? All athletics. All music programs. All drama, debate, and choir programs. All administrators. All para-educators. All special programs such as AVID. A good portion of transportation money and school lunch funding. Do you folks find no value in these things? Are athletics, drama, debate, school plays, travelling choir concerts and band competitions a luxury that our students should do without?
It is interesting that I read the article on this site that stated one of the ways our nation needs to improve education was by giving principals more authority over school budgets and teacher hiring. If levies don’t pass, we either won’t have any principal or we will have to forego basic education items to hire them out of basic Ed money. How does that sound?
You say that the children are our future? That supporting a school levy to allow them extra-curricular experiences which enrich their lives is spending their inheritance? Your mission statement says that you will “objectively question, and clarify all proposed taxes that we can affirm and justify.” Have any of your children been in athletics? How about the school play or the marching band? Have any of your children ever been assisted by a caring para-pro in a classroom when they were struggling?
One poster above stated: “Evidently Public School officials are only concerned about their agenda and care little any more about the desires, needs or lives of the general public”. When did I as a citizen of the Inland Empire stop being part of this community and all the people which live here? This man sees me and my family as an outsider “trying to do bad things and think opposite of what our city needs”. On the contrary, I have children. I will soon have grandchildren. I am absolutely concerned with this region and the health and well-being of all its citizens. That is why I am stating in this post that our children need the basics so very much. They need better instruction and MORE instruction (I am a supporter of an extended school day). I also firmly believe that so much mental, physical and emotional growth occurs in those arenas where Basic Ed. does not cover. And, we will surely lose those if we have levies fail. It is a certainty.
I would strongly argue that by taking away these non-basic education opportunities, you are already damaging your child’s inheritance. Not in dollars, but enrichment, memories and opportunity.
johnclarke on February 01 at 9:26 a.m.
Albert on February 01 at 8:11 a.m.
@johnclarke, I too live in the Mead District and my “levy” would increase my house payment by $200. per month!
Wow, how is that possible ?
We are in complete agreement. I’m sorry, but this levy does not really benefit my kid. It’s a $60 million dollar blank check to provide security for public jobs. I don’t care that “taxes are not going up”. Where is the taxpayer levy to support my job? The public sector has to adjust, just like all of us “normal” working folk have done through this economy.
pseeger on February 01 at 9:40 a.m.
Why is there no “Contact Us” button on the CFRT website, and why do none of the website sponsors identify themselves? I can guess who most of them are, but I would love the opportunity to interact with them. Johnclarke, I’m surprised at your selfish stance. Your opinion is your opinion, but usually you offer thoughtful and thought-provoking posts. Of course, that may just mean that usually I agree with you, and that this time I think you are way off base. By the way, Albert, I know you’ve already voted, but please check your math. Old math, new math, whatever. No way your numbers are correct.
Coffee on February 01 at 9:41 a.m.
Vote NO for the children.
bradyc on February 01 at 9:46 a.m.
Again with the misinformation. House payments aren’t involved at all in this equation. That said, property taxes aren’t going up, period.
johnclarke, $60 million blank check…so you advocate for a system of private education then if you support no taxpayer $$ for education?
That’s not fraught with massive adverse impacts to society, no not all.
Middleman on February 01 at 9:46 a.m.
PSeeger,
I tried to post the letter to their site which I just posted here. Not only would they not post to their blog/testimonial page, but they shut down the blog edit portal immediately after I posted. We can only surmise what they are afraid of as far as rebuttals are concerned. They simply can’t handle the truth or any cerebral discussion of the issue. Only rhetoric and mis-truths. Unfortunately, some folks in our community swallow their load of horse excrement. Too bad.
Al_Loysius on February 01 at 9:58 a.m.
District 81 Superintendent Nancy Stowell makes $225k a year. The Governor makes $161k a year and the Attorney General about the same. Why does the Super job pay so much?
District 81 has “area directors” (mostly former principals) who sit on the organization chart and “supervise” schools on the north and south side of town. Why? Jimminey Crickets, it is not like District 81 is some huge district like LA.
pseeger on February 01 at 10:01 a.m.
I have a hard time understanding how an “No” vote helps the kids, as many on this thread are claiming. You advocate a scorched-earth policy which throws the baby out with the bathwater. You disbelieve anyone who doesn’t agree with you, including the Washington Supreme Court. You claim that schools and children will benefit from huge cuts, but I don’t see how that it is true. I know that you are angry, but I think that your target is misdirected. In this game of political gamesmanship, why would you choose to make our kids the football?
pseeger on February 01 at 10:04 a.m.
Al, how are you voting? I often disagree with you, usually on Sportslink threads, but you’re not a knee-jerk kind of guy and you seem to think things through. So given the validity of your post just above, will you note your protest with a “No” vote?
JimLahey on February 01 at 10:06 a.m.
I voted yes. I’ve lived here since ‘09 and I’m leaving in May. I have no kids. I don’t own a home. I only voted yes to help raise your taxes before I depart. Yes for kids!
bradyc on February 01 at 10:19 a.m.
can’t believe I’m agreeing with liberal, I reserve the right to remind you of your post above later on:)
Al, District 81 is the second largest district in the state. It serves 30,000 kids and 52 schools/campuses and has 4000 employees. It is the third largest education system in the state behind the UW and Seattle school district. And it, along with other school districts throughout the state, have seen their budgets cut significantly over the last 2-3 bienniums.
In regards to pay, the super for the the second largest district in the state is going to garner a commensurate salary given the competition there is for what it usually the pinnacle of one’s career in public education.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 01 at 10:28 a.m.
If one looks at what’s in the budget of the Levy…and for the district, the things asked for are just silly. NO school will close if not approved. NO teachers will lose their jobs. Nothing will happen but loss of a few FOO FOO ( Libby) programs.
It’s a big money grab. Vote NO! It’s just a big ripoff by the unions. No child will suffer. THIS is only about the money being smuggled from your pockets into the union fund. Again…wake up . VOTE NO! There is money enough to manage the schools right now! This is fat that needs to be cut. Vote NO!
I wish these unionists would quit hiding behind the kids and trying to “guilt” people into funding their pensions and raises.
johnclarke on February 01 at 10:29 a.m.
bradyc on February 01 at 9:46 a.m.
Again with the misinformation. House payments aren’t involved at all in this equation. That said, property taxes aren’t going up, period.
johnclarke, $60 million blank check…so you advocate for a system of private education then if you support no taxpayer $$ for education?
OMG, are you really trying to suck me into such a stupid argument? Who do you think pays for 100% of public education already? I am AGAINST the approach, which is “business as usual”. They should have scaled back the request to show that they are at least aware of current events. I have stated this many times.
Ashree_Simon on February 01 at 10:29 a.m.
I voted YES for our children and their future, and ours. Those who are nay-sayers, ignorant, or just plain paranoid, I hear Mississippi is a nice place to live and raise a family.
Al_Loysius on February 01 at 10:39 a.m.
There are frankly not many ways for the average citizen to let the school board that they are unhappy. Unfortunately sometimes you have to hit them over the head with a 2 by 4 to get their attention. If the levy passes, it is a signal to the 81 School Board to keep going on their merry way. If it does not pass, then they suddenly realize that they need to pay attention to their constituents. There is some public dissatisfaction with top-heavy administration and salaries for administration. There would then be another levy run, (you could run it with the primary to avoid extra costs) hopefully slimmed down.
I recognize that you have to pay a decent salary to get a good super, but come on, more than the Governor? Maybe about $175k would be OK. Cost of living is less here.
I will ask a question that my fellow sports fans can relate to. Ferris, LC, Rogers, and Shadle (Sorry, NC has a dungeon) have some amazing state-of the-art new gymnasiums that rival what some small colleges have (See Whitworth). It is hard to convince Joe Blow that the schools are hurting for money when you see that.
Al_Loysius on February 01 at 10:41 a.m.
Why do we have 15 school districts and 15 separate sets of administration? Why do we not look at a single unified district for Spokane County?
bradyc on February 01 at 10:41 a.m.
I love it when someone resorts to name calling to defend their position, clear sign of the weakness they based their original argument on…
clearly school districts have not been proceeding with “…business as usual..” over the last 4-6 years as their budgets have been cut dramatically by the state.
johnclarke on February 01 at 10:42 a.m.
Ashree_Simon on February 01 at 10:29 a.m.
I voted YES for our children and their future, and ours. Those who are nay-sayers, ignorant, or just plain paranoid
Oh, that’s a good response. Well done.
Al_Loysius on February 01 at 10:39 a.m.
Thank you for this post.
bradyc on February 01 at 10:48 a.m.
Al, interesting thought. I’m sure there would be both plusses and minuses if it were possible. It would definitely be an enormous undertaking. certainly some economies of scale would result. I would imagine there would be some other issues as the district became the largest educational system in the state, with what….likely 100,000+ students?
Middleman on February 01 at 10:51 a.m.
Dazzee……wow. Your ignorance of the issue is truly astounding.
“Nothing will happen but loss of a few FOO FOO ( Libby) programs.”
You absolutely have zero understanding of what a Levy does. Not one single penny goes to any union!! The district and the unions are totally separate entities. It’s why they have bargaining and pound out contracts. AGAIN….NOT ONE SINGLE DIME GOES TO ANY UNION!!
You are as bad as the Alton group with your lies.
“There is money enough to manage the schools right now!” Our Supreme Court disagrees with you on that as do millions in this state that actually have knowledge of this issue. 25% of school budgets are NOT FAT. You obviously didn’t read my post above. And, don’t take my word for it. Look it up, educate yourself and then try not to embarrass yourself.
I would meet you any time and any place to prove your facts are fabrications just like the Alton Group. My only reason for replying to your oblivious comments is that others would not agree without doing the research.
soccermomsusie on February 01 at 11:17 a.m.
OK. Voting YES does not raise my taxes. I get that. STOP SCREAMING AT ME!!!!
However, I don’t have any children so I won’t vote for it. Wanting to educate the state’s children is SOCIALISM - PURE AND SIMPLE!!! If kids want to go to school, they should get a job and pay for it themselves.
If we lowered the age that children could enlist, that would really help lower taxes, provide jobs, provide education and make kids more clean cut.
I just hope that they know this is called TOUGH LOVE, and when these kids grow up they don’t get all vengeancey and go after my social security, medicare and medicaide. GOVERNMENT AND CHILDREN, HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!!!
Lastly, the more uneducated the masses, the more likely they are to vote Republican. The reddest states are the most uneducated and this is A GOOD THING!!!
VOTE NO! LET”S MAKE MORE OF US REPUBLICANS!!!
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!
MrNatural on February 01 at 11:39 a.m.
LOL Susie…
I voted YES and I feel pretty good about it…that’s all
woamike on February 01 at 12:03 p.m.
I voted “NO” and I feel fastastic about it. I voted “NO” for the kids. Vote “yes” and NOTHING will change. Same old status quo crap - bloated administration/salaries, waste and fluff.
Vote “NO” and FORCE them to change their ways! School districts - change your ways and watch the money flow. People do not want to throw good money after bad. They will support cost effective, quality education.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 01 at 12:49 p.m.
Ok Middle…go see the budget..70% goes to Afmins and teachers…the union. No worries. Deny it all you want. It goes to the unions. EVery hear of “Teachers in Unions”? We have jobs son…just not union jobs and fat pensions.
VOTE NO!
The_Seer on February 01 at 12:51 p.m.
clarke: Education has taken the brunt of cuts in Washington for nearly four years now. I’ve seen my pay cut 1.9% this year while working more hours. I’ve watched my co-pays for medical insurance procedures skyrocket. The contributions matched in our retirement accounts has diminished? What world do you live in where those who work in education haven’t had to suck it up “like the rest of us?” No public sector employees have been more affected by the economic meltdown than teachers and we are done taking the blame and the cuts. Done. Over. Kaput.
Teachers in the region are finally getting fed up and organized politically. We’ll see how you like taking care of your brats all day when we go on strike later this year or at the beginning of next year. Statewide. Have fun with that!
wormlike: You’ll get the “change” your NO vote requires: Less educational services for area children. Mead has one of the best graduation rates in the state and manages to accomplish those numbers while spending about two grand less per student than District 81. They have establislhed a model for success and should be rewarded, no punished by selfish morons.
I still think we need a test system for establishing voting eligibility. It would cut the voting pool about in half while ridding us of morons who don’t understand what is in their best interests.
survivalguy on February 01 at 1:04 p.m.
@The_Seer:
Two things:
1. You are both right - and wrong;
- Teachers have taken the brunt of the cuts to education, not educators. Administrator pay and benefits have risen steadily, as have gross receipts for those providing “professional development” materials.
2. “I still think we need a test system for establishing voting eligibility. It would cut the voting pool about in half while ridding us of morons who don’t understand what is in their best interests.”
- I’ve plied my trade in countries that have such a system. You don’t want to go there, Not in real life…
smittysturn on February 01 at 1:07 p.m.
I love me some Cash Stone! That is a helluva man right there, folks.
johnclarke on February 01 at 1:37 p.m.
The_Seer on February 01 at 12:51 p.m.
clarke: Education has taken the brunt of cuts in Washington for nearly four years now. I’ve seen my pay cut 1.9% this year while working more hours. I’ve watched my co-pays for medical insurance procedures skyrocket. The contributions matched in our retirement accounts has diminished? What world do you live in where those who work in education haven’t had to suck it up “like the rest of us?” No public sector employees have been more affected by the economic meltdown than teachers and we are done taking the blame and the cuts. Done. Over. Kaput.
Teachers in the region are finally getting fed up and organized politically. We’ll see how you like taking care of your brats all day when we go on strike later this year or at the beginning of next year. Statewide. Have fun with that!
survival guy made my point for me rather well, and you have done a pretty good job yourself. If this levy hired teachers and improved my kid’s education I would be voting yes. Plain and simple. Also, my kid is not a brat thank you very much. I myself have grown a little tired of this attitude. You make it sound like you are trying to teach in Compton and there are bullets whizzing by your head. Are you sure you should be a teacher? You sound bitter and we all owe you something. I happen to have taught a little myself and hold the degree, and sorry - I simply don’t feel sorry for you. I note every time that my kid is out of school for your “meetings” and “resource days” or to “prep” for conferences. You have a fairly cushy job, and for the last time - they should have adjusted the amount they were asking for. That would have been the “educated” approach.
Go ahead and strike, I dare you.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 01 at 2:03 p.m.
If this insanity of rising salaries doesn’t stop NOW, When then?
Economy is shot, everyone must take a haircut. So why not the Admins?? …and these frivolous programs they’ve concocted???
Sorry Seer…poor baby…a whole 1.9% cut when you’re online all day??? Somehow I don’t feel sorry for you.
pseeger on February 01 at 2:04 p.m.
Let me summarize. Here’s what pisses you off: Obama, Stowell, Gregoire, taxes, unions, liberals, Democrats, the courts, and anyone who doesn’t see the world the way you do. What doesn’t piss you off? And, by the way, you can’t say you support teachers but condemn the union that looks after their interests. And you can’t say you love kids and then screw them over no matter how much of an anti-tax statement you think you’re making. I’m a retired, socially-liberal, retired public educator and I’m unapologetic about my political views.
Middleman on February 01 at 2:18 p.m.
Dazzee…….can’t believe I have to explain first grade stuff to you over and over. Just more evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about. Let me spell this out with crayons:
70% of the State budget for Bsic that the schools receive from the state goes to salaries. The State underfunds Public Schools (as found in a court of law). The schools have to pass levies to make up the short comings of our state and its PARAMOUNT DUTY to fund schools. The LEVY is collected to augment the programs that the STATE DOES NOT COVER. Are you following along???
You implied that the money goes to the union. Maybe I misunderstood your angle here, but you make it sound as if the Union gets money and then spends like a drunken sailor. You obviously are a union basher when you stated that the levy is all about giving money to the unions. If not, then please explain.
If you are a/an: Airline pilot, Asbestos Workers, Bakery Workers, Boilermaker, Cement mason, Bricklayer, work for the county or city, Teacher, Electrician, Fire Fighter, Policeman, Flight Attendant, Ironworker, Postal Carrier, Machinist, Nurse, Operating Engineer, Plumber, Sheet Metal Worker, Steel Worker, Transit Worker, and many other local professions, then I guess your are receiving money as a member of a “UNION”.
As I and others have explained here ad nauseum, the Levy money goes to PROGRAMS that the State will not fund. Yes, some of this money obviously goes to fund advisors/coaches. Otherwise, these programs wouldn’t exist. I hope this helps you on getting the facts straight.
This levy is NOT about teacher salaries. Never has been. It’s about programs, dear.
The_Seer on February 01 at 2:45 p.m.
dazedone: Democratically elected school boards approve salary schedules, not admins, teacher, custodians, et.al. I suggest you take your complaints to them, the source, rather than worrying your booze addled brain about teachers.
Washingtonian on February 01 at 3:58 p.m.
Folks, Take a look at the information from those for and against. Ask yourselves who the people peddling that information are.
The amount of disinformation that has been spewed by those who want to kill this measure is really unfortunate.
Do you see GSI backing liberal causes often? They are the Chamber! If you believe this is a give away to unions they tell us why the business community is pushing for it to pass???????
The fact is that failing to pass this will be bad for kids in school now and then for the community as a whole. Jobs go to locations with strong education systems and an educated workforce.
Do people really think that we will get better teachers by paying them less and making them handle more kids with fewer options? Where else does that work?
cdspokesreader on February 01 at 4:06 p.m.
I do have children in school and it costs more all the time to fund their extra curricular activities and buy all the school supplies. I understand that some funding is needed here and that a lot of the teachers in District 81 are amazing and do a good job. So you would think I would happily vote Yes. I am so conflicted by the crap from the administration building downtown though - the high salaries, the studies, the new programs to help our kids even though our kids are coming out of school less and less prepared and educated. I would feel a lot better about voting for this if the school district wouldn’t do this full on press push telling us how much our kids will suffer if we vote no! Kind of like the kid who won’t let you use his baseball equipment at the playground unless you let him decide what position everybody plays. I would also like them to say for once, that they realize that everybody is having a tough time right now and so they are doing some cuts from the top down and weeding out the unneccessary baggage from the admin offices. Maybe then I could vote yes.
greenlibertarian on February 01 at 5:33 p.m.
I voted for it specifically because Duane Alton and that crowd ARE PROVEN LIARS.
D Statler on February 01 at 6:34 p.m.
Once again I want to thank the voters in West Valley for their continued support. I strongly suggest everybody stop in and visit your local schools during the day. Walk thru and see what is happening and how your tax dollars are being spent. I truely understand your (and my) disapproval with over bloated administrative salaries. Voting no on a levy is not the right way to state your disapproval. Going to your school board meetings and running for a position is the right way. You really want to effect change. Get a group of your friends together that feel the same way and take a majority in the school board. It would be easy to make administrative changes. If nothing else,you would learn what really happens behind the scenes :^) I as an employee can not run. I as a retired employee might run someday. I voted YES :^)
DickAdams on February 01 at 8:28 p.m.
When I filled out my ballot, I remembered Roco Treppiedi and his ilk and voted NO!! My sub-conscience kicked in as well regarding the excessive bloat of administrators on the payroll. Is district 81 still calling taxi cabs to bring kids to school because the moronic logic is the officials in the district do not want the school buses to stop on Market street. Have you ever heard of anything so stupid??
loulou81 on February 01 at 8:40 p.m.
Thanks for this article Shawn- Mead parents appreciate the effort!
I was really shocked to see how many angry comments and “no” votes I saw on here… this is pretty scary.
I wonder if any of the angry commentators have actually been into a Mead school lately? Have you seen the amazing STEM programs, advanced placement classes, award winning art and music programs, and sports teams? Have you met the hard-working teachers and support staff who are helping to turn our kids into responsible, educated adults? All of these factors have helped make Mead a successful school district with a high number of students heading into college and a graduation rate of 91%.
If this levy fails all this will end. My daughter, who has worked hard for the last three years to get into advanced placement classes will be told, “sorry- no class for you!”. My son with special needs will be told, “sorry- no more extra therapy for you!” My kids and thousands of other students will suffer.
If you have a problem with school budgets take it up with our state legislature. Write letters to your local reps. leave angry phone messages for Gov. Gregoire, put your opinions to good use and try and force change from the TOP.
Hurting the kids at the bottom of the food chain will NOT fix school budgets. It will only lower our property values when our schools are horrible, kill our economy when no one wants to live or work in Spokane, and leave students wondering why their community chose to punish them.
Vote yes. Easy choice. Right choice.
flyerd1 on February 02 at 3:24 a.m.
1. Irt it not being a new tax:
Anything with an end date (like a “3yr” levy tax or a mortgage) has to have a “new” one started in order to “remain” in place so it’s perfectly accurate to say it’s a new tax. What if, after paying off your mortgage, the bank said “we don’t want you to pay a new mortgage, we’d just like you to pay on this replacement mortgage” for another mortgage term…? How would that go over?
2. Actual levy rates and Levy Equalization Funds (LEF):
The levy rate most often used by school districts is the smaller, LEF assisted one. However, with our current economy, this is a time when LEF funds could go away and people should plan accordingly (plan worst case scenario). That would cause the amount taken by this levy to be approximately 22% more than the school dist claims.
3. Irt A) It being 28% (mead) of their budget & B) What the levy $ is or is not used for:
A levy is meant to be a one time fill-gap revenue stream that may be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. It’s “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when they’ve gotten to the point of expecting levies as a never ending part of their budget.
It’s extremely disingenuous to say the money “is not” used for new buildings, repairs, pensions, etc. That’s a simple “shell game”. It’s like having a monthly budget (including $100 each for phone, power, alcohol, and gas) and saying “gee mom, I don’t have enough money to cover all my monthly bills; If you give me $100 I can pay my pwr bill”. There’s no way to realistically seperate that $100 out and stipulate it’s actually being used to pay “the pwr bill” as opposed to the gas, phone, alcohol, etc. budget items. Similarly, there is “no way to realistically separate” levy money such that it can be considered a “completely separate” (from all other budget items) funding amount. The exact part of the budget that the school dist “chooses to say” the levy money pays for is simply a matter of which shell they choose to say it goes towards… Again, its a simple shell game of distortions to say “a specific revenue stream” of any budget is only going to used “for select items” of that overall budget.
4. Despite how this may sound, I’m completely for education funding via a fair and equitable method. A much more equitable method of requesting additional funding would be to request it via a sales tax increase (whatever fraction of a penny required). That way, “everyone” casting a vote would actually be voting to increase “their own taxes” as well as other people’s taxes. If it’s going to be a property tax then either A) only property owners should have the levy on their ballots or B) it should be a supermajority vote. Right now many people vote who don’t even pay property taxes… Otherwise this type of a levy tax should require a super majority in order to be considered more of a fair vote (#5 below).
A cost cutting, as opposed to revenue generating, method of addressing the education budgets would be to address the underfunded TERS1 pensions and work to modify those pensions via negotiations and constitutional changes. The state already acknowledged that TERS1 (stopped in 1977) was unsustainable and a responsible re-negotiation could be done without undue harm to current pension beneficiaries. All other post TERS1 plans should be transitioned to 401K plans. Additionally, cost structures should be reviewed and compared to the charter schools that currently operate for less money while achieving better scholastic success rates.
See 5. below…
flyerd1 on February 02 at 3:26 a.m.
5. If it was a super majority vote this would at least be a fair vote. A super majority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that could be beneficial to them and that they are “not” directly impacted by (in a financially impacting way, i.e. they pay for it). For example (using property ownership rates of 60%), if 65% of “non-property owners” vote “YES”, a levy like this could pass with only 40% of property owners voting for it (even though the property owners pay it).
If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax by 2% you wouldn’t want people from Idaho to be allowed to vote because, as stated above, they would be a subset of voters that don’t have to pay for the tax but could actually benefit as their sales went up due to people going into Idaho to avoid the 2% increase.
The counter point of “renters pay these fees via rent” is ridiculous because only in a perfect system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can’t get a renter at a price that covers the levy costs he/she has to lower the rent in order to simply rent the unit out…
meyerlansky on February 02 at 6:56 a.m.
Soccermomsusie and Dazzeetrader, I love your brand of comedy and logic. We need people with your problem solving skills to further the distance between progressive, forward thinking cities and the quagmire that you two are part of.
soccermomsusie on February 02 at 7:43 a.m.
FLiarD, I like #5 the best! You are absolutely right that is unfair that a levy requires only 50% +1 to pass! What kind of democracy do we have that allows the majority to decide?!?! RIDICULOUS!!!
I know I am probably in the minority in voting NO on the school levy. But, my vote should count more than someone who is voting YES because, well, because, we Conservative, Anti-Tax Tea Partiers’ votes SHOULD COUNT MORE THAN OUR OPPOSITION. And that’s what a Supermajority for levies does. It makes our vote (the minority) count more than the majority’s.
AS LONG AS THE MINORITY IS COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF US ANTITAX TEA PARTIERS THAN THE MINORITY SHOULD RULE! IT’S IN THE BIBLE!!!!
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!
BarbChamberlain on February 02 at 11:05 a.m.
Thank you, Middleman, for your thoughtful comments.
I got my habit of voting yes for schools from my Republican father and mother. This isn’t and shouldn’t be seen as partisan.
As a taxpayer and as a parent who is facing my younger daughter’s college tuition bills starting this fall, I take vociferous exception to Dazzeetrader’s characterization of the Odyssey gifted and talented program at Libby.
My daughter already has at least 9 college credits in hand thanks to her AP test scores and will rack up another 9-12 credits—maybe a few more since her French class is a Running Start class. Her performance in AP classes is thanks to the incredible teachers she has had along the way at Roosevelt, Odyssey, and now LC, who have mentored and pushed her.
Why is it that a program that helps the best and brightest go farther, faster, is a frill? To me it’s the most cost-effective use of the overall education system you can imagine. It gives her a great high school education and saves money on her college. Gosh, sounds fiscally conservative to me.
Plenty of stats demonstrate that students who study music do better in math, students who engage in extracurriculars complete high school at higher rates than those who don’t, girls in sports have lower teen pregnancy rates—on and on. It’s the entire educational package, not just this class or that one, that makes a difference in our children’s lives.
This is what gives us our return as taxpayers who expect well-prepared doctors, pharmacists, airline pilots, electricians, computer programmers, and everyone else who makes our current quality of life possible.
It DOES demand levy dollars to make it happen. For those who think levies support only “extras” it would be great if that were true—if the state indeed carried out its constitutional duty—but it doesn’t. The levy is not an optional funding stream.
It’s unfortunate the budget sequence misaligns the setting of a levy amount, final state appropriations and levy equalization, and negotiation of contracts for the coming year. That is not the district’s fault and it complicates the levy discussion every time.
Those who pay close attention understand that calendar, so quit gaming it to make it look as if there’s some trick. You know better. You understand the complexities of levy equalization and the variables that have to put into the ballot question. You use the district’s provision of complete information as a weapon against them while you refuse to show up for a roundtable at Greater Spokane Incorporated and answer questions about where YOUR math skills came from.
The “new” language? As a shopper I understand “new”. A “new” sweater is one I don’t already own. If you come into my closet and take away a sweater—or make it a car—you have taken something I’m used to having around and something on which I rely.
This is a replacement levy, replacing essential funding to keep getting what we get now in the classroom. It’s not a new tax I’ve never seen before and am not paying now, so don’t tell me it is.
The rest of what I have to say about why I’m supporting the levy is in a blog post—I won’t take up further comment space (http://biketoworkbarb.blogspot.com/2012/01/paying-it-forward-why-i-vote-yes-for.html).
survivalguy on February 02 at 12:43 p.m.
“This levy is NOT about teacher salaries. Never has been. It’s about programs, dear.”
“Thank you, Middleman, for your thoughtful comments.”
@BarbChamberlain:
As the co-chair of Citizens for Spokane Public Schools, and a former member of the grossly overpaid staff at SPS, I’m not in the least bit shocked that you would stump for the levy here.
The budget sequence, calender, old sweater/car vs. new sweater/car - you are good at the PR obfuscation game, I must give you that…
Facts. That’s what the citizens need. And, I dare say, they appear to getting more of them here than they are from the paper, GSI, CFSPS, or the district…
Here are a few undisputables for you to try and spin:
The levy goes into the general fund to be used as the board sees fit (which, in reality, is as the administration tells the board they should see fit…). There is NO accounting difference once the district gets the money.
They could as easily say that the levy pays strictly for teacher’s salaries as they might say that it pays for toilet paper. They might say it pays for Odyssey, or they might say it does not. It is up to the administration how it is accounted for.
So, if the levy fails they COULD cut all those wonderful programs which have helped your daughter along, or they COULD cut overpaid and ineffectual administrators, area coordinators, redundant vice principals, instructional coaches, etc.
They could do a lot of things…
This is NOT about witholding education from children. This district could absorb the loss of 60-70 million without closing one program or laying off one teacher. I know the budget quite well…
What the school board does not want is to have to make these choices. Because they would have to justify those choices to a much better informed public than they have ever had to deal with. The blatant bloat at the district would become clear - and we can’t have that, can we?
I’m not anti-levy, I’m anti-THIS levy. The board is ineffectual, the administration is top heavy and ideologically married to a contructivist approach that is failing the children in the “regular schools” (and has in fact, begun to infect Odyssey), and they all refuse to listen, much less change.
So, the power of the purse is the last refuge for us folks that believe we must work for ALL of the children.
So, I say again, I’ll vote NO - FOR THE CHILDREN!
dougfresh on February 02 at 12:56 p.m.
I’m all for the kids, but am confused as to why this levy is an increase over the last one. Haven’t they been cutting teacher pay?
I’m happy to continue paying the same rate as the last levy, but I don’t see why there has to be the increase.
danne1 on February 02 at 1:01 p.m.
Mead graduate from 1972. Felt the pangs of the levy problems in 1971 as our programs were being cut left and right.
English, Math, Science and Social Studies were the only education classes available. No advanced learning programs, student counselors.
Athletes were without a program and some students could not enter other districts to try and obtain a scholarship. Same for Music, Art students. No music, debate, drama, or art program.
In fact there were no lab materials for our Science program which made it extremely difficult for studies.
Language programs required for students to enter college were offered by private contracted teachers set up by those parents who could afford it.
Some students had trouble getting to school on time without the bus transportation. Lots of student resentment and more inschool anxiety and lack of focus.
Senior year was left without any senior programs-none.
I resented this as it made it tough to admit to colleges of our choice and when we did we were behind other students. I am tired of hearing how these levies do not affect students.
survivalguy on February 02 at 1:44 p.m.
@danne1:
“I am tired of hearing how these levies do not affect students.”
I’ve not said they can’t affect students, I’ve said they don’t have to affect students. That is up to a school board…
What I’m tired of is hearing from the current administration and board that:
Everything is just fine, the children are learning everything they need to, we are doing great, we are raising the bar…
The only problems we have are Money, Money, and Money…
When the TRUTH is quite the opposite. The TRUTH is available in the un-spun numbers from the colleges, universities, community colleges, and trade apprenticeship programs across our region.
Specifically, Spokane Public Schools graduates require remediation in math and other subject at a rate that boggles the mind, at a rate that is far higher than the state average, that students who’ve recieved A’s in Honors Algebra in a SPS high school have test into remedial math - not algebra - at SCC or SFCC.
Levies DO affect students. Our levies have been used to sustain a failed approach to instruction, to pay the salaries of over-compensated administrators that insist on an approach to instruction and supporting curricula that are so ineffective as to be counterproductive.
Many parents & citizens have been to the board, been to the administration - asking that teachers be allowed to teach effectively and directly to their students.
They have been dismissed as unknowledgeable in child education. Dismissed as untrained. They have had the full gamut of eduspeak tossed at them, as if the mere words might convince them they are the only ones in the city with the problem they have, their child is the only one that is failing, that education is now done by professionals with their own language and how dare you suggest we don’t know what is good for your child!
People are taking the last measure of control they have and exerting it - the power of the purse - BECAUSE levies do affect children. Because by failing this levy the board will have to come to the table and say “What will get this passed?”
The answers will mostly be about how the district waste money, and accountablity to ensure it does so no more…
Again, Vote NO - For the Children!
David Bray on February 02 at 2:21 p.m.
The bottom line is two-fold:
1. school districts will never demand a decrease in money, as often as they’ll demand an increase or a continuance. When they get their hand in your pocket…it stays there.
2. people vote against school levy’s because they don’t help students get a better education….or least that’s how the numbers look. Go to washingtonpolicy.org/education and check the ratings for Spokane schools. As is usually the case….we aren’t doing so well. In the 22 years I’ve lived here and raised a family, the school district has always been performing poorly. We have too many fry cooks, who think they’re chefs, running the show….. and to few actual teachers.
survivalguy on February 02 at 2:35 p.m.
Many folks have not yet voted - which is unusual in our elections.
Most single issue ballots are in the mail shortly after they are recieved.
This vote is different, folks have not made up their minds.
They are, I think, struggling with the eternal tug-of-war that PR and media specialist hope for in a contested issue:
- The emotional appeal of the Yes 4 Kids! / Citizens For Spokane Schools / District media spinmaters
vs.
- The hard numbers showing a failing program that only fails worse as more money is thrown at it.
Emotion frequently wins out…
Hard times, however, tend to get people to focus on outcomes as a bottom line, on the value equation. SPS is failing there, the numbers and empirical evidence are what they are…
Failure of the levy would give the people a chance to demand some changes to intructional methods and curricula, to the poor treatment of their children’s teachers, and the termination of the bloat in administration.
I think the PR folks hope for an emotional appeal is working, but not quite the emotion they are usually looking for.
I hope to move folks in the direction of a NO vote - because I believe a NO vote is what is in the best interest of the kids.
loulou81 on February 02 at 2:52 p.m.
@survivalguy-
Voting No will not force changes to benefit the kids- changes like the ones you are suggesting need to be made at the TOP.
Do you really think that the administrators at these schools will choose to sacrifice themselves for the good of the students? Do you really think they will go over the budget with a fine-tooth comb and cut “the bloat” before they cut massive expenses like music and art programs? No.
You seem to be very passionate about school spending and if you really are “for the kids” then go run for the school board, start writing your local politicians and get the system fixed.
Cutting my kids AP classes and music programs won’t fix a damn thing. Shall I send you the bill when I have to pay out of pocket for these expenses? Then you can explain to my disabled son who will loose his therapy why you are all talk and no action. You want action- do something where it will count.
survivalguy on February 02 at 3:23 p.m.
@loulou81:
“Do you really think that the administrators at these schools will choose to sacrifice themselves for the good of the students?”
No, I don’t think the adminitrators will do anything that is not in their best personal financial interest. I DO think that the board has the responsibility to do so, to make the administration do so - and they are failing in that responsibility.
“Do you really think they will go over the budget with a fine-tooth comb and cut “the bloat” before they cut massive expenses like music and art programs? No.”
I think the people can force them to by voting NO on this levy, and NO to the re-do they will surely put on another expensive ballot.
“Then you can explain to my disabled son who will loose his therapy why you are all talk and no action.”
I would be happy to explain it to your son.
Perhaps, however, you should require your elected board member to explain “it”. “It” being their complete failure to objectively measure the sucess or failure of the programs they approve, the programs laid on them by their dogma-bound administration. Don’t believe me? The trustee of SFCC just said in this paper that SPS graduates come to college requiring serious remediation in math… The numbers are out there, but the district administration AND board spin their own numbers to look much better than reality.
I would also be happy to explain to your son how he can get A’s in school and then test into remedial courses in college - costing him & you more money than should be required for his education.
As for “…all talk and no action.” - You don’t know me, so you should not presume to know what action I have or have not undertaken with respect to the education of children in this city.
“…then go run for the school board, ”
Maybe I have, maybe I used to be on a board, maybe I find that the most effective use of my resources on this issue is to be a provider of information.
“…start writing your local politicians ”
My postage and e-mail budget is large and well used. How about yours?
“…and get the system fixed.”
Working on it - one vote at a time.
aussie73 on February 02 at 6:17 p.m.
I am disappointed when I see people posting ‘facts’ that are simply untrue.
1. Yes this levy (maintenance & operations) is an increase over the one that is retiring
2. Taxes are going to go down because the district is paying off debt (bonds)
3. Mead has the legal obligation to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, unlike the opposition.
4. People who have NO/ Little interest in our district should keep out of it or at the very least be held to the same legal requirements that the district is when sending out their information.
5. If citizens believe that districts are wasting their money I implore you to visit a nearby school and observe for yourself how many people play an active and loving role in educating students who, by the way, are future tax-paying, voting citizens.
6. If aged citizens are concerned about their taxes please speak with district personnel and find out the facts before letting scare tactics take root. I worry about my elderly family members’ finances as much as I worry about mine.
7. Yes, I have kids in public school (both k-12 & college) and due to budget issues in the schools have already been cut to part time (despite having an advanced degree) because librarians were cut.
8. It is hypocritical for some people to DEMAND that their Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare be left UNTOUCHED and then TELL everyone to vote no for kids. Need I remind you that some of these kids will be expected to pay for you for the rest of your life? How can they do that AND support themselves and their families without a quality education.
PLEASE, get the facts from sources that are REQUIRED to be truthful instead of from people who can say whatever they want and from behind the safety of their keyboard.
I WILL VOTE YES!!!! (this is what is right and fair and conscionable) I don’t want to pay any more than I have to, and yet there are some things that MUST be considered an investment.
aussie73 on February 02 at 6:27 p.m.
As for the anti-levy people who have said that levies pay for salaries this is untrue and these FACTS can be found at the state level. Levy monies do NOT fund community colleges, administration pay NOR do they go towards union dues (these dues come out of teacher pay!!) As a parent who has children in both club and school sponsored sports I can attest that parents are funding a portion of school sports out of our own pockets as do parents of students in other activities. Low income students are then placed at a disadvantage, again. My question is this: why are we more than happy to take out our misery, financial hardships on the very beings who are our future leaders, caretakers and stewards of this planet? If these levies do not pass I issue a challenge for every single person who votes No to look these very kids in their eyes and tell them why they don’t believe in them and tell them why they feel that the students are not worth this investment. Duane Alton & cronies my kids for one would like an answer. Any takers ?
gotcha on February 03 at 5:54 a.m.
I will vote for a school levy when our teachers give up Collective Bargaining. I am tired of the Public Sector running the political process in this state, expecially when they keep on bringing us the likes of A Gregoire and Lisa Brown. They got us into this mess. When I hear lack of revenue I call BS. You overspent period. Live with it.
The_Seer on February 03 at 7:51 a.m.
gotcha: Public sector employees make up less than 1% of the electorate. Claiming they influence elections to the point of “running the political process in this state” is delusional and demonstrates a disturbing lack of critical processes.
Are we organized? You betcha!
Got a problem with that? Get organized!
gotcha on February 03 at 8:51 a.m.
The Seer: In 2002, the state’s AFSCME affiliate and other unions persuaded the new Democratic majority in the state legislature to lift restrictions on collective bargaining. In the span of three years, the number of union members and the amount of union dollars flowing into the coffers of Democrats running in state elections doubled. A prime beneficiary was Gregoire, who became govenor in 2004 after one of the closest elections in the state’s history. AFSCME gave a quarter million dollars to the state Democratic party to help pay for the recount that won her the election. Once in office, Gregoire negotiated contracts that resulted in double-digit salary increases for thousands of state employees.
So please spare me the dribble about inocent Public Sector Unions. I will do everything in my power to yank their power which is money. Washington states tax payers are being screwed by the Public Sector. I am tired of getting the finger and seeing my tax dollars being used against me. Unions should never be allowed in goverment.
survivalguy on February 03 at 10:29 a.m.
ALCON:
I’m not a moderator here, but I would like to point out that this thread is about a story on how horrible it is whan a levy fails - an emotional appeal to get voters to say YES…
Unions, tax rates, etc. all deserve a crital examination and discussion, but the subject at hand is the attempt by the district and the paper to sway votes to say YES.
Please, for the kids and this community, vote NO.
Please, for the kids and this community, call at least one other person and convince them to consider a vote of NO.
If / when the levy fails, there will be an opportunity to take the board to the table and leverage the levy into some true accountability and educational achievement.
The_Seer on February 03 at 12:22 p.m.
gotcha: Good luck with ALL that… from the sounds of your whining your efforts will be Herculean, indeed, perhaps even Sysiphian!
The only reason there is a discussion about public sector employees is because the leaders of the private sector ruined the economy and they know they can use the droves of mindless simpletons in our midst to accomplish their goals. Dismantling unions isn’t anything new, it’s been ongoing since they were first formed. What is new about this phenomena is the number of class traitors those bent on destroying organized labor have recruited to their ranks.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
YOU HAVE ONLY YOUR CHAINS TO LOSE!
The_Seer on February 03 at 12:34 p.m.
gotcha: Do you REALLY want me to delineate all the PRIVATE sources of funding that end up influencing elections?
I won’t bother. Just wait for the elections this fall for literally thousands of great examples.
What you want to do is limit free speech. I suggest you move to a nation where that attitude is embraced and tolerated. Try Saudi Arabia or Somalia.
The monetary amounts you claim arrived from union sources would have violated the law of the land prior to the Citizens United ruling. Do you have a credible source to bulwark such a ludicrous claim?
I’d like to see the influence of money conerning elections done away with as well, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
gotcha on February 03 at 12:36 p.m.
The Seer: So now, I as a taxpayer am refered to as a “drove of mindless simpletons.”
I as a taxpayer will keep members like you in mind, and I am sure many others that read this will do the same. I would like to thank your assistance in proving my case. Disrespect me all you like, all I do is pay your salary.
flyerd1 on February 05 at 1:19 a.m.
soccermomsusie–
LOL, obviously you’re someone who does need more education because you have absolutely NO IDEA what you’re talking about. You rail that the minority (who you identify as “Conservative, Anti-Tax Tea Partiers”) votes should NOT be able to decide a vote for the majority and that’s the EXACT THING that supermajority votes prevent from happening. Therefore, based on your babbling, you should support supermajority votes because they prevent the minority (non-property owners) from voting for taxes on the majority (the property owners who have to pay the tax).
Apparently you wouldn’t have a problem letting other people vote to decide how much your mortgage (or rent if you don’t own), car payments, pwr bills, etc should be right? Let’s vote on that, I’m all set to vote yes for your bill increases. After all, that’s fair right?…
PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF. There are lots of books on basic math that can help you understand these very basic concepts. If you study really hard you may eventually understand why my explanations are completely correct.
flyerd1 on February 05 at 2:51 a.m.
aussie73—
Apparently, you still don’t understand the shell game surrounding what the levies do and don’t pay for.
For those who didn’t see the college kid’s budget example yet here it is again: Imagine being a college kid who looks at your $700/month budget and realizes you’re $100 short of having enough $ for all your bills (rent, pwr, gas, phone, food, dating, beer, etc). The pwr bill is $100 and you ask your mom if she can help with that bill. Her paying the pwr bill for you allows you to spend the $100 that would have gone to pay that bill on whatever other budget items you choose (like food or beer or dating).
It doesn’t matter what you choose to tell mom her $100 went to pay (pwr, rent, beer, whatever), the net result is EXACTLY THE SAME because your overall budget has simply gone up by $100 from $700 to $800.
It’s just a semantics game of money merry-go-round that tries to convince you that the levy money is “only” used for XYZ and NOT for ABC… PLEASE, don’t let them confuse you with the merry-go-round/shell game double speak…
Here’s another example (if you didn’t understand the previous one):
Imagine 10 buckets lined up that represent all the various budget items involved in the entire state education system. each bucket has money in it for their various line items. Buckets 1-9 costs have gone up (Administrative costs, salaries, retiree pensions, health care costs, etc., etc.). Money that would otherwise go into bucket 10 (like the pwr bill $ in above example) is instead diverted to buckets 1-9, but that leaves bucket 10 empty. So a levy is passed (like asking mom for $100 above) and we “say” the money is ONLY for bucket 10 (like pwr bill in above example), not for any of the other buckets. The shell game is that the end state is EXACTLY THE SAME because it’s all ONE BIG BUDGET.
In other words, there’s absolutely no net difference between:
1) using the levy money to replace bucket 10’s funds (funds that were made available to the other 9 buckets) &
2) Never taking any money from bucket 10’s fund’s and instead using the levy money to top off buckets 1-9.
dontspammebro on February 05 at 6:24 a.m.
Still waiting for the levy opponents to put forth SPECIFIC cuts they’d make. Even the “cut bloated administrator salaries” arguments don’t offer percentages, dollar amounts or positions/programs to cut and how much could be saved by the cuts.
The school districts put forth specific plans on what programs are going to be funded. The school board meetings are open to the public. If you don’t like the plans, you have a responsibility to put forth something better (or at least different). By simply saying “no” to any tax, you’re causing the school districts to guess at what’s acceptable. If they have to keep putting another guess on the ballot, it costs money (i.e., tax dollars) that could otherwise go toward educating our kids.
I don’t fault those who disagree with a levy. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a constructive alternative that can sustain (or is maybe even accompanied by) a basic, independent economic analysis.
gotcha on February 05 at 9:35 a.m.
Public Sector Unions have disrespected the generousity of the tax payers. They use the funds we have gave them in overly fair salarys, benifits, and pensions… In turn they take a portion of that money in dues and use it against us to gain an unfair advantage.
End Collective Bargaining.
Unions have done a very effective job in tying the tax payers hands thanks to attorneys and state law makers tying a nice little knot around taxpayers necks. Our hands are tied, but not our vote.
Until you End Collective Bargaining I vote out any and all tax increases, new taxes, levies, and bonds.
survivalguy on February 05 at 11:06 a.m.
@dontspammebro:
Many, many citizens and parents have done exactly as you have suggested - gone to the board and administration to suggest alternatives to the way the money in District 81 is utilized. All to no avail…
There is not sufficient space here, 4000 character limit, to detail the cuts that should be made to the budget, or the shifting of monies within the budget that would improve student outcomes.
Additionally, the Spokesman Review is in full support of the District administration and board, so they are not going to print a huge section of paper devoted soley to a school budget and modifications to that budget. It does not make sence for them to do so on two counts:
1. They couldn’t sell advertising on those pages.
2. They don’t want to see the district change its budget or approach to educating the children.
The budget is available online from the district. It is written in a fashion that makes it difficult for the layman to decipher. Difficult, however, is not impossible… I’ve been over the budget quite closely. It is significant for what is tells you, but more so for what it does not.
If you want a great eduaction for the children of this community, if you want your money managed by good stewards, if you want accountability for the money you spend on children’s eduaction in this district, if you want some transparency on how that money is spent - then you must demand it. As things stand, we the people, have no lever, no hammer, no method of causing those things to happen - except the money itself.
I am NOT anti-levy. I am anti-THIS levy.
I might support a levy after this one fails IF the board agrees to some measures of accountability and transparency.
Until then, the answer is no, and I would encourage you and others to do the same.
The district, its “close friends” at Citizens for Spokane Public Schools, GSI, Yes For Kids!, the Spokesman Review - they all want you to accept their emotional appeals: It’s for the Kids!, classes will be cut, Odyssey will go away, sports will cease…
Those are things that COULD happen, if the board chooses to protect administrators and pet programs (like the MILLIONS they are spending handing control of our children’s education over to the federal government). Those things could happen, but it is within the power of the board to make changes, reduce expenditures, change course, and return to the voters with a better plan.
I bet they won’t. If the levy fails, their pride and inherent personal financial interest will drive administrators to recommend to the board that teachers and programs are cut, then they will use that scare tactic to come back immediately and ask one more time “Is this REALLY what you want to do to your children?”
That is a false choice, it is not the only alternative they have, but they are NOT going to tell you that…
richardch on February 06 at 10:24 a.m.
I live and vote in Mead district. Last year my property value went down 7% and my property taxes went up 8%. I will vote no.
Hcklbery on February 06 at 6:11 p.m.
When they are no longer paying school superintendents OVER a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS SALARY WITH ALL THE FRINGE BENEFITS then and ONLY then can they talk to ME about a levy.
aussie73 on February 06 at 7:18 p.m.
Flyer d:
As a person who has worked in BOTH the private financial sector and the public education sector I FULLY understand the situation. In addition, I have publicly educated children and one in college and resent that you are having to resort to ‘shell games’. I am an active participant in politics and make an effort to look at BOTH sides BEFORE making a decision (yes I have voted no on bonds when I felt they were wasteful). However, to take our anger at political figures and their agendas out on innocent children just proves that we are not the civilized and advanced society that this planet needs to survive and thrive in this millennium. I am disheartened to read people twisting the numbers for their benefit. When did we stop caring for our fellow human? Time are tough but they won’t get any better with an uneducated workforce.
People please slow down, think and make an EDUCATED decision and not an emotional one.
survivalguy on February 06 at 7:52 p.m.
@aussie73:
“…take our anger at political figures and their agendas out on innocent children…”
It appears that the folks that are taking something out on innocent children are the board members and administration that steadfastly refuse to allow teachers to teach materials directly and effectively to those children. Shame on them.
“…people twisting the numbers for their benefit.”
Again, it appears that the folks twisting the numbers are the district board and administration, not these folks posting here, not the citizens that have taken the time to dig into the budget that District 81 puts out.
Here’s the facts, and I challenge anyone from District 81’s financial office to dispute this:
There are essentially two piles of money available to the district that the local public has any input on - Capital budget money & Operations and Maintainence money.
The levy goes to the O&M pile. Once the money departs the taxpayer’s wallet and goes into the O&M pile - it becomes O&M money. The district CAN say that the levy money is spent on children in the classroom, or they CAN say the money is spent on administrators, or they CAN say the money is spent on toilet paper. It comes out of the same pile and DOES NOT have a tag on that says “Legal Tender ONLY for Classroom Use”.
But asking the public to approve a 70 million dollar levy for administrator pay, purchase of a data system to support the federalization of our schools, or for lots of toilet paper has NO EMOTIONAL APPEAL.
Threatening classroom size, teacher’s jobs, educational opportunities - no wthat’s got EMOTIONAL APPEAL written all over it…
“When did we stop caring for our fellow human?”
Few people I know have stopped. In fact, I’d call it the height of caring when citizens get involved in how their children are being educated. I call it seriously uninvolved and uncaring to just trust that the folks we put in charge are doing the right thing, to NOT question, to just vote yes.
“Time are tough but they won’t get any better with an uneducated workforce.”
Could not agree more!
Better vote NO so you can get the district to come to the table and re-chart their course, because an uneducated workforce is what you are getting from them right now - today. Look at the remediation rates for math and english composition at the local colleges. The data those institutions will make available to you just for asking. (You’d think the administration would have done that already - likely they have - and re-charted course…)
“People please slow down, think and make an EDUCATED decision and not an emotional one.”
EXACTLY what I’m suggesting here when I say vote NO. Slow down, ignor the emotional appeal of the district and their shell organizations (Citizens for Spokane Public Schools and Yes! for Kids!), ignor the blatant lie; That they can tell you that the levy dollars support “X” part of the budget. Please, make an EDUCATED decision to bring the board to the table and demand changes before a levy is approved.
A “Yes” vote gives you three more years of the same failing leadership, three more years of administrators diciplining teachers for daring to teach directly to their students, three more years of grossly overpaid constructivist ideolouges shortchanging every child we sentence to a life of doubt about their own abilities.
A “NO” vote gives you a small window to demand accountability, transparency and change.
aussie73 on February 07 at 10:18 a.m.
I agree that administration is top heavy and over-paid. However, as a former employee of the private financial sector and now as a public sector employee who does work with the public daily I also know that the monies go where they are allocated. I rarely see a parent in the classroom observing how lessons are taught, they rarely help with homework and then blame the education staff. If you want to really see change go into a classroom and watch how wonderful a majority of educators are and how we stand on our heads DAILY to make things interesting and engage the learners. VOLUNTEER!!!! We only have these wonderful beings for a few short hours a day and cannot teach them the basics if they are not coming to school rested, loved, warm and supported (both with basic needs and with the resources to make them competitive later in life).
Funny, I don’t hear people blaming a doctor if a loved one dies, a fireman if their house burns down, a cop if they are robbed but a teacher is to blame if a kid a has no manners, doesn’t come to school, their work is missing, etc….Personal responsibility is something everyone needs a good dose of regardless of their viewpoint.
My point is this: if you want change go after the adults and politicians NOT the kids! These levies, regardless of the district, are RENEWAL which keeps teachers and kids moving forward in the classroom.
Please, think about all parties and not how mad you are at the leaders before ‘making a point’ on our children.
survivalguy on February 07 at 12:48 p.m.
@aussie73:
“I agree that administration is top heavy and over-paid.”
Good. What are going to do about it? What avenues do you have to effect immediate change other than fail the levy and bring the board to the table to make a change?
We get one shot every few years to elect a board member to a six-year term. The board, adminitration, and union (SEA) all get behind one candidate that won’t rock the boat and, wow, we get more of the same failed leadership…
“…blame the education staff…”
I don’t think I’ve ever blamed the teaching staff. We have, here in Spokane, some of the BEST teachers I’ve met - and I’ve met teachers on 4 continents.
“Blame the teacher” is what the administration & Superintendant do regularly. To paraphrase - I don’t have her quote handy - Nancy Stowell with respect to the atrocious outcomes in math here in Spokane;
We have a real problem with quality teachers here in this district.
That’s the Superintendant blaming teachers, not me.
Ask Tammy Campbell what the root of english composition or math deficiencies here in Spokane are and she will go on-and-on about poverty, parents, teachers - anybody & anything but the curricula and the Dept of Teaching and Learning’s hounding of teachers for approaching the task of education in any manner other than a contructivist / discovery manner. Pedigogy is king in her mind, and the mind of her department.
“…but a teacher is to blame…”
See above ^
“My point is this: if you want change go after the adults and politicians NOT the kids!”
No one here, that I see, is going after the kids. Merely trying to make the point that the emotional appeal “Yes! For the kids!” is an untruth.
This levy is FOR the adults - those who get too much pay for no added value AND those on the board who will once again avoid having to make the right (and hard) decisions.
This levy can fail and the board COULD get rid of the bloat, the failed ideology, and the Common Core money pit - and never touch a teacher or student with budget cuts.
Then I might support a supplement to funding (a levy) that goes DIRECTLY to the classroom.
“… before ‘making a point’ on our children.”
I think we are trying here to make a point FOR our kids, FOR our community - not “on” our kids.
knowledge_is_power on February 07 at 3:43 p.m.
If you are frustrated with district administrators or school board members, take your complaints to the specific people causing your frustration by emailing, phoning, sending a letter, or running against school board members when they are up for election. Voting no on a levy hurts everyone, including the students.
I am always amused when I see the phrase “my taxes pay teachers’ salaries”. Teachers are also taxpayers, so by this logic teachers pay their own salaries. Does this make teachers self-employed?
Those who berate both unions and administrators should keep in mind that unions help create a balance to the half-baked ideas of the administrators, and vice versa.
By the way, I voted yes for my district’s levy. And my taxes won’t be going up.
flyerd1 on February 07 at 7:43 p.m.
aussie- You say “I am disheartened to read people twisting the numbers for their benefit.” while doing that exact thing in your post when you “twist” and “change” what I said irt shell games. If you read the post again (or have your college child read it and explain it to you) you’ll see it is quite clear that I’m pointing out the shell games being done by “the school districts and the rest of the propaganda spinners who play accounting games to make it “sound like” funds are for x, y, z as opposed to a, b, and c.
I’ll re-post the explanation at the end of this post so you can have another opportunity to go over it with your college child and try to understand the shell game that the pro-levy propaganda machine is trying to play.
knowledge_is_pwr-
You apparently need more knowledge because there are only 2 ways your taxes won’t go up by voting yes. 1) The levy fails and your taxes go down by return to the non-levy amount. 2) You’re a renter.
Other than those two scenarios, you’re taxes will be going up if the levy passes because your baseline property tax level (accounting for the expiration of the current levy) will go up again with a new levy taking the place of the old one and once again raising your taxes (just like all levies do)…
––––––––––––—
Here’s the previous post for the benefit of aussie:
Apparently, you don’t understand the shell game surrounding what the levies do and don’t pay for. I would certainly hope you could understand at least one (if not both) of these very simple examples:
For those who didn’t see the college kid’s budget example yet here it is again: Imagine being a college kid who looks at your $700/month budget and realizes you’re $100 short of having enough $ for all your bills (rent, pwr, gas, phone, food, dating, beer, etc). The pwr bill is $100 and you ask your mom if she can help with that bill. Her paying the pwr bill for you allows you to spend the $100 that would have gone to pay that bill on whatever other budget items you choose (like food or beer or dating).
It doesn’t matter what you choose to tell mom her $100 went to pay the pwr, rent, beer, or whatever, the net result is EXACTLY THE SAME because your overall budget has simply gone up by $100 from $700 to $800. The same as a school dist’s budget going up from (X) to (X + EP&O Levy). It’s still one big budget of money with dollars designated at the whim of the district.
It’s just a semantics game of money merry-go-round that tries to convince you that the levy money is “only” used for XYZ and NOT for ABC… PLEASE, don’t let them confuse you with the merry-go-round/shell game double speak…
Here’s another example (if you didn’t understand the previous one):
Imagine 10 buckets lined up that represent all the various budget items involved in the entire state education system. each bucket has money in it for their various line items. Buckets 1-9 costs have gone up (Administrative costs, salaries, retiree pensions, health care costs, etc., etc.). Money that would otherwise go into bucket 10 (like the pwr bill $ in above example) is instead diverted to buckets 1-9, but that leaves bucket 10 empty. So a levy is passed (like asking mom for $100 above) and we “say” the money is ONLY for bucket 10 (like pwr bill in above example), not for any of the other buckets. The shell game is that the end state is EXACTLY THE SAME because it’s all ONE BIG BUDGET.
In other words, there’s absolutely no net difference between:
1) using the levy money to replace bucket 10’s EP&O funds (funds that were made available to the other 9 buckets) &
2) Never taking any money from bucket 10’s EP&O fund’s and instead using the levy money to top off buckets 1-9.
PROFINTOX on February 07 at 8:53 p.m.
flyerd1 — lets just concentrate on taxes. Your spin on things by your wording will confuse many. When someone tells me my property taxes will be going up or going down, I am generally thinking about the total amount that comes out of my wallet that year, not how that total amount is allocated amongst various fiscal items. The other thing is, most people will be comparing next year’s total property tax number to what they paid this (or last) year. The levy in question does not result in a rise in a persons TOTAL property tax burden if passed when compared to the previous year. The M and O portion of a person’s property tax certainly increases markedly but the total burden decreases because of the paying of of bond obligations. I am not arguing whether or not the levy is a good idea or not as there are several other factors involved and they have all been pretty much hacked to death on this thread. But when you say this would result in a person’s taxes going up, most people will interpret that as “I will pay more in total property tax this (or next) year than last (or this) year if this levy passes” and that is simply not true. Your statement fits if you are focusing on a portion of the total out-of-pocket but not if you consider total out-of-pocket. Put differently, if my grocery bill from last month was .50 for bread and .50 for milk for 1.00 total but this month I find it costs me .60 for bread and .35 for milk for .95 total, I would have a hard time telling people that my grocery bill went up (when it did not) even though I could certainly complain that the cost of bread went up considerably. Anyway, enough on all this.
flyerd1 on February 07 at 11:45 p.m.
Profintox-
I do understand what you’re trying to say. However, when you say “my spin on things” it comes across like you’re simply trying to make my comments appear less correct. Since my information is factually correct, and without any spin whatsoever, it calls into question the use of words that implies something that is not there.
You’re acting like it’s fine for people to not understand what they pay simply because they aren’t in control of their finances in the way that they should be (meaning they notice things like property taxes for how they APPEAR as opposed to what they ARE). Ignorance of one’s personal finances such that a person doesn’t realize the difference between their tax liability with and without an applied levy is just that, ignorance. Don’t we do better to educate people rather than foster that sort of ignorance? It follows the same basic premise of teaching financial literacy (being aware of and understanding your personal finances) that websites like bankrate, and people like Suze Orman try to do.
Per you grocery example:
To make it more related to this topic you’d have to say (for example) that the milk would be .30 but for a temporary .20 tax you have to pay for 3yrs. At the end of the 3 yrs (leaving base costs of the milk and bread static) your bill would be .50 for bread and .30 for milk = .80 total. However, if a new 3yr tax was passed the bill would go back up to the $1.00 level (the same as it was previously, but still a sizeable increase from the non tax level of .80).
If we paid levy taxes on a monthly basis, and there was a 1 month break between the old and new levy (meaning the tax would be gone for 1 month), would you agree that the new levy is a new tax? In other words, would you have to actually “See” at least 1 month of taxes “without” the levy to agree that the new levy is a new tax? Exactly what would be the difference between that scenario and having no 1 month gap (aside from the 1 month tax savings) in regard to it being a new levy? Just because these new levies take over with no break, as opposed to the 1 month break in the example, doesn’t change the fact that they’re a new levy/tax (it just makes it “less noticeable” than if there was a break period).
The less noticeable taxes may be easier to get people to accept but there’s no disputing that it also makes them the most hidden and therefore tricky/dangerous (ALL somewhat hidden taxes, not “specifically” school levies). Taxes should be extremely noticeable so as not to become forgotten…
One more thing:
Levies are meant to be one time fill-gap revenue streams that may be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. They’re “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when districts have gotten to the point of “expecting” levies as a never ending portion of their budgets…
survivalguy on February 08 at 10:25 a.m.
So, the district would like us to give them $70-ish million a year for the next three years, but apparently does not think we should be able to get records from them about how that money is spent, or the decision process behind the expenditure, or the “who” that money is being lavished on.
Spin Control, The news section of this paper, and the Seattle Times are all reporting the Lisa Brown introduced legislation, AT THE REQUEST OF OUR SCHOOL BOARD & ADMINISTRATION, that would effectively eliminate our access to public records from the board and district.
As if people needed another reason to distrust the school board and administration…
What do these folks fear?
It is being spun as a cost saving measure — I’m sure that’s right. It was much cheaper for Stalin when he did not have to respond to public records request from his citizens… Seriously, how blind do these folks think the public is?
Let’s see:
— District engages in activities that appear to violate the law.
— Citizen gets records about that issue and forwards same to responsible state agency.
— Responsible state agency decides there is sufficient cause, based on the records obtained BY A CITIZEN via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST to open a formal investigation.
— District gets together and says “How do we ensure this does not happen again?”
–— Answer, get the Senator to legislate away the public’s right to find out these things!
And these folks want $210-ish million in levy dollars from us over three years?
Call legislators, call the board, call the district and tell them that SB 6576 and the just-as-stifling SB 6351 are BAD – BAD – BAD.
aussie73 on February 08 at 8:39 p.m.
Flyer-d:
Wow, way to be condescending to someone you have never met. My college age child and his friends are quite angry at your level of ‘superiority’ and inability to understand basic concepts. As a homeowner and person who has a masters in mathematics and a financial background I can assure you I have a better grasp on this topic than you do. Please, try reading the information with an open mind.
Too bad people are more concerned with themselves than their fellow human and their ability to rise above their current situation. Education does that. I have forwarded on this link and ALL information to a local college and they feel that flyer-d is and I quote, “quite biased and out of touch while seemingly more concerned with him/herself than actually with the FACTS. The amounts of the local levies are spread over 3 years and a good investment in this community’s future.”
I pray this passes just to PROVE the naysayers/ scrooges WRONG!
I voted YES for ALL citizens regardless of age.
maitengr on February 09 at 2:43 p.m.
The “Citizens for Responsible Taxation” recently mailed me a flyer strongly urging Central Valley School District homeowners to vote against the upcoming school levy. Since the “Citizens” seem so sure of their convictions on this matter, let’s test what they really know. Close your books, it’s pop quiz time:
1. True or false: As the flyer states, “a ‘yes’ vote means new property taxes!”
FALSE. Central Valley’s levy would simply replace the levy already in place, which expires at the end of this year. It is NOT a new tax. The flyer further states “a ‘NO’ vote means NO NEW TAXES!” Something the flyer fails to mention is that a ‘yes’ vote means no new taxes; we are not voting on a new tax on this ballot. Approval of the levy will not hammer homeowners with “excess new taxes” as the flyer declares, but rather renew the levy already in place.
2. Short essay: The flyer states “your tax $$$ already fund 100% of our children’s education without requiring excess tax levies”. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Explain your answer.
I disagree. One must consider the definition of “education” and what education encompasses. In a stripped-down, bare-bones version it can be argued education is your basic old-fashioned 3 R’s concept of reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic. But CVSD schools offer their students so much more than basic classroom learning. Our current levy pays for programs for both struggling students and academically advanced students. It provides technology for classroom instruction and support. It allows CVSD to offer extra-curricular activities including sports, music, drama and debate. It covers other beyond-the-basics expenditures as well and overall makes up nearly 25 percent of our district’s annual budget. Some people may dismiss anything outside of traditional classroom learning as non-essential fluff or frills, but I believe such opportunities expand our children’s knowledge, make them more well-rounded individuals and help them become the people we want them to be.
Time’s up. Citzens, before you put your pencils down, make sure to put your names on your papers. I noticed that on your flyer you failed to do so. You obviously feel passionate about the upcoming levy vote and put considerable time, effort and money into producing your flyer; why not take credit for your effort?
I hope you learned something from this quiz. And I hope you do better on the real test on February 14.
survivalguy on February 09 at 7:10 p.m.
@maitengr:
“I hope you learned something from this quiz. And I hope you do better on the real test on February 14.”
I can’t speak to the CV levy, but if the CV board and administration operate in any way like the Spokane Public Schools do, I suggest you read this entire thread - perhaps you’ll learn something.
Here in Spokane, with District 81, the district and it shills spend a huge amount of effort, ink & dollars to make an emotional appeal THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. The ad campaign for District 81’s levy is a lie.
“It’s for the kids - If you vote NO you are damning your child to overcrowded classrooms, no arts, no music, no sports, lost teachers, etc, etc.”
The levy is for adults in the board and admnistration. The levy could fail and have NO impact on the classroom - if the board choses to cut the budget in other areas. There is LOTS of bloat and misguided money being spent, and it just happens to total about what the levy totals…
Many of us are NOT ant-levy. We are anti-THIS levy. A vote of NO in Spokane’s District 81 is an opportunity to force the board to the table and chart a course that will bring our community the education our children deserve to be getting.
THEN we could talk about a levy that goes TO THE CLASSROOM.
.
.
@aussie73:
“person who has a masters in mathematics and a financial background…”
If that’s you, then I am shocked that you fail to see through the obfuscation that the district practices.
I have challenged the Ditrict 81 financial staff to come here, to this thread, on more than one occasion and dispute what I’ve said about the budget and where the levy goes. That would be “providing factual information”, which they are legally allowed to do. They have not, and will not - because I’ve told the truth.
They CAN”T say that levy dollars go ONLY to place “X” or “Y”, because the district writes their budget to avoid being able to do that.
We pay administrators in excess of $100,000 (some $240 K, some 140 K, some $130 K, some $90 K - positions the state pays $50 - $60 K for. That is, the state gives the district $56 K for position “X” in the administration. That’s lots more than a tenured teacher gets. Why are we paying that person $130 K +? What is the “value added” that we get for that money?
What I see the community getting is a 30% drop out rate, a nearly 98% remediation rate in english comp & math for our graduates at the local colleges…
We, you and I and everyone else in District 81, are paying to have control of our childrens eduaction wrested from our hands. The board and administration have signed on to the Common Core foolishness, to the tune of MILLIONS of dollars - all of which we could just as easily decide to not participate in - and save those millions of dollars.
So, if you are a “person who has a masters in mathematics and a financial background…” and you agree with the counterproductive policies of the board and administration, if you can’t see that this money they are asking for is NOT earmarked for the classroom - perhaps you are a candidate for employment in Spokane Public Schools - you’re already aligned with their policy of failing the children while filling their own pockets.
aussie73 on February 09 at 8:06 p.m.
Survivalguy-
I never said that there wasn’t bloating in Admin. In fact I have said there is room for this to be looked at, IF you had bothered to read previous posts in their entirety. I certainly DO have the background I am stating so take great exception to your vicious dribble that I am falling for this smokescreen. I for one HAVE spoken to legislators in Olympia (who by the way are the very people that are forcing levies by NOT funding education in violation of our state constitution) and seeing as they are looking out for their pay and expense accounts (which they DO get) people need to be mad at them and not kids. For anyone with their eyes open and not clouded by a ‘stick it to anyone who needs funds’ this money certainly does have an impact on teachers, classrooms and kids. I only hope you never need pubic funds because karma is an exacting mistress.
By the way, use your spellchecker before posting as you have typos.
aussie73 on February 09 at 8:08 p.m.
Well said maitengr!!!!!!!
flyerd1 on February 10 at 1:13 a.m.
Oh Aussie…
1) “Wow, way to be condescending to someone you have never met.”
I’m sorry you took it that way but it’s not condescending when you’re simply pointing out the obvious.
2) “My college age child and his friends are quite angry at your level of ‘superiority’ and inability to understand basic concepts.”
You/they need to ask for a full refund for any/all college tuition you/they have paid. You should work on better arguments because repeating back the same (basically the same) comment is very weak.
3) “As a homeowner and person who has a masters in mathematics and a financial background I can assure you I have a better grasp on this topic than you do.”
Hopefully you have some of your old textbooks to review. My 13 yr old nephew can follow the simple examples you’ve demonstrated great difficulty with…
4) “Please, try reading the information with an open mind.”
I have and you obviously haven’t. Unfortunately, you don’t have the capability to look at things without having a predisposed conclusion in mind. You just see “it’s for the kids”…
5) “Too bad people are more concerned with themselves than their fellow human and their ability to rise above their current situation. Education does that.”
Finally, you seem to understand something. Now you just need to realize that the misguided path you’re following is the polar opposite of that. Good intention’s but extremely bad unintended consequences.
6) “I have forwarded on this link and ALL information to a local college and they feel that flyer-d is and I quote, “quite biased and out of touch while seemingly more concerned with him/herself than actually with the FACTS.”
Another college that needs to be refunding tuition (at least for people who attended the classes of those email recipients.
7) “The amounts of the local levies are spread over 3 years”
This has never been in question but it’s good to see you find an actual “fact”.
8) “…and a good investment in this community’s future.”
For someone claiming to have a “financial background” you have a very distorted view of a “good investment”…
9) “I pray this passes just to PROVE the naysayers/ scrooges WRONG!”
Passing has nothing to do with “proving” anything, it simply prevents any progress irt fiscal accountability. I’ve always expected these levies to pass. I’d expect someone with your proclaimed “extensive” mathematics background to expect the same. Why? Because a “very basic” mathematical relationship shows why a simple majority vote favors the passing of votes to raise taxes on “other people”. A supermajority takes this into account but apparently you didn’t quite get far enough in your “mastery” of mathematics to figure this out. The same flawed thinking would cause you to be in favor of allowing Idaho residents to participate in a vote to raise Wa’s sales tax by 2%…it’s the exact same concept. Get together with your children and college friends and see if your brain trust can grasp the concept.
10) “Well said maitengr!!!!!!!”
LOL… You may be too far gone to help.
Forget PeeWee’s playhouse, we have Aussie’s silly playhouse right here
brimjoh on February 10 at 1:53 p.m.
I am a teacher.
I hold a degree in Mathematics, a degree in Education, and a Masters in Education. I spent years in school so that I could have the pleasure of preparing young men and women for a rewarding life.
I am a member of the union, the SEA. I have to be a member if I want to work in my chosen profession in my chosen location. (I reality, there is a way for me to be an agency-fee-payer, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this posting.)
I’m putting my background out here so you have a basis to judge my comments from. I will not put my name out here, because I would like to keep my job, feed my family, pay my bills, and avoid the punitive measures that would surely come my way were my identity to become known.
The levy we will each vote on by the 14th is billed as a replacement for a stream of funding that is essential to keep our schools running. It is not.
As much as it pains me to air dirty laundry in public, there are some things the parents of Spokane should know.
I really mean, parents, you should know this stuff - already. You should be so engaged in the rearing of your children that knowledge of the place they spend most of the day ought to be second nature for you.
It is not, and that is partially your failure, but only partially. You are given such a glossy picture each and every day by the head office people in this district that it is reasonable that you accept much of it at face value. You would do yourself, and your children a huge service by digging a bit deeper.
Here’s some of what you might find:
You should know that your children are not getting the education you did. They spend a great deal of time having the principles of social justice and equity drilled into them - at every opportunity available and at the cost of real knowledge they should be acquiring.
You should know that they spend time in math class discussing the plight of Manatee populations, ostensibly as a vehicle for learning the use of graphs. They should be practicing their math skills during that time, yet they, and their teacher, are bound to a discussion of environmental pressures and irresponsible human activities…
You should know that If we, the teachers, complain that this method of teaching waste time and fails children - we are marked as Cain. You should know that here in Spokane if you are a teacher, but you are NOT a constructivist style teacher - you have no future in this district. That means your children, the vast majority of them, have a rough future ahead of them…
You should know that we, as teachers, must commit time to promoting the levy. We, as teachers, must get your kids to promote the levy, and we must try and get you to promote the levy, and we must certainly commit time to getting you to vote YES on the levy.
You should know that this levy does little that directly translates into better education for your children. This levy provides money for the district’s administration to throw at curricula they have never seen. This levy provides for salaries at the district offices that are obscene compared to the salary of a 20+ year teacher.
You should know that many of us that belong to the SEA do so because the union has a lock on employment here - period. We don’t agree with their position on most things, really abhor the way our “dues” are spent in our name for everything from local school board races to national elections, and detest the stewards that sell out those of us who speak out on these and other issues.
You should know that if you vote NO on the levy the world will not come to an end.
You should know that this is one opportunity, one chance you get to have some say in your child’s education.
You should know better than to take the word of the cat when discussing the health of the bird in the cage.
I am a teacher.
I know.
I NO!
survivalguy on February 10 at 8:17 p.m.
@brimjoh:
Bless you.
I have no doubt that the central office folks and the union folks and the others bellied up to the public education money trough will be working overtime to identify you and see that you don’t infect your co-workers.
We need administrators and board members worthy of your work ethic and honesty.
sju on February 12 at 11:05 a.m.
@brimjoh:
Wow, just wow.
You take the time and effort to lay it out, and nobody, NOBODY, from the Yes! campaign has a word to say.
What can they say?
As Joe Friday was quick to state: “Just the facts, just the facts…”
I wish you well, keep your eyes peeled - as survivalguy suggested, they’ll be looking for you.
flyerd1 on February 13 at 1:39 a.m.
brimjoh- Thanks for the honesty.
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of most levy supporters that people in opposition are sinister child haters, there are many anti-levy citizens with no ulterior motives. I, for one, simply appreciate having actual truths presented (rather than fear invoking commentary and distortions I’ve read/heard). Making it appear that 3yrs of levy costs will be paid in a single yr is an example of distortion on the anti-levy side. Similarly, there are many examples distortions & less than true statements from the pro-levy side. Here’s one irt what levy $ will actually be used for:
It’s extremely disingenuous to say “specific funds” are for “specific items” of an overall budget. Basic accounting shows that the net impact of a levy is simply to increase the “overall budget” (even if presented as paying for specific items). Here’s an explanation of why (please try to understand that this simply explains the shell game of saying “where” certain $ goes (regardless of your opinion as to the need for the $) and is applicable in many other situations you may encounter besides this one:
Imagine an $8M budget spread into 10 buckets. If someone decided $8M wasn’t enough and wanted to request more $ they could simply put the entire $8M into buckets 1-8 and say “we need $2M (levy $) but it’s only for buckets 9 & 10” (maintenance & operations, or whatever your specific levy indicates). The net result of the additional $2M would simply be that the new budget is $10M instead of $8M. The shell game here is that they could just as easily have said the $2M is for buckets 1 & 2 or 3 & 5 or 4 & 7 etc. In other words, the “exact” place they “choose” to say the $ goes to is absolutely irrelevant because it’s all part of “one overall budget” that is being spent.
Regardless of your stance irt the actual need for the $ it’s a complete shell game when they say “don’t worry, the money is only for this bucket or that one”. It raises the Q of why do they need to use shell games to sell a levy; shouldn’t the actual need be strong enough so as not to require moving shells around?Could it be because they need to distract you from looking in some of the other buckets?..
Being “civic-minded” includes being “fiscally aware” of where/how the community spends ii’s money. Too many people fall into the word manipulation traps employed by pro-levy supporters as well as the exploitative “heart string” tactics of “it’s for the children”…
aussie73 on February 15 at 6:28 p.m.
THANK YOU to all of the people who looked at the true facts, did their homework and voted YES!!! The kids in all of these school districts will benefit because you decided to fill the gap the state leaves by not fully funding education.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!!!