Voters could lop off as much as 25 percent of the budget from local schools on Feb. 14. Yet, those same school districts are legally banned from officially asking voters to, please, keep that funding.
This time, 13 school districts in the Spokane area — including Spokane Public Schools, Mead, Deer Park, Central Valley and East Valley — are attempting to renew their maintenance and operation levy that funds sports, art, music and an increasing chunk of general education funding. To do that, voters need to be willing to renew — and, in most areas, slightly increase — part of their property taxes.
Last year, voters rejected nearly every school bond request in the state. Passing a levy is easier — levies only require a simple majority to pass, while bonds have a 60 percent threshold. But the stakes are far higher for levies. Bonds allow districts to go in debt for large-scale renovations or constructing new buildings. Levies pay for the day-to-day.
Losing the levy would mean a $73 million cut for the district, says Mark Anderson, associate superintendent for Spokane Public Schools. To put that in perspective, Anderson says the painful cuts over the last decades have only totaled $45 million. That could mean the loss of sports, after-school programs, counselors, many teachers and administrators, and an increase in class sizes.
“It could be close to 200 positions. We’d reduce our bus services down to 30 percent,” says Tom Rockefeller, Mead’s superintendent. “Our activities and athletics would be gone.”
Losing the levy would mean a $73 million cut for Spokane Public Schools.
From their offices, neither Rockefeller nor Anderson can tell voters to vote for the levy.
Teachers and administrators can use district time and resources to inform voters about the levy. But legally they can’t use district time and resources — taxpayer-funded time and resources — to advocate for or against the levy. Education and advocacy can be a narrow line. Teachers can donate on their own time or talk about it in the staff lounge, but in the rest of the building, they’re banned from levy advocacy. Anderson says he passes out state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) guidelines to make sure everything remains proper.
Last year, Laurie Rogers, a longtime critic of the education system in Spokane, filed a complaint with the PDC, citing emails to argue the district violated state law by using school facilities to advocate for school board candidate Deanna Brower and the 2009 bond and levy measures. (Anderson doesn’t believe any rules were broken.) The PDC is now investigating.
While Rogers has been interviewed in the past, she declined to be interviewed for this article. She did point to her blog and offered one quote: “You have failed to properly inform the public.” She wouldn’t say whether she’s working with the anti-levy campaign.
Meanwhile, questions loom around Citizens for Responsible Taxation, the group publicly opposing the levy. Their website quotes the Bible, Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell to argue against any new taxes that levies could pose — saying the district should live within their current budget. The site features reprinted articles from Rogers and the conservative Washington Policy Center alleging poor budgetary practices by area school districts.
But on the PDC website, only two donations make up the $55,500 in the group’s war chest: One is from former tire store owner Duane Alton, and the other from his son, Matt Alton. When contacted, Duane declined to comment. As of press time, Matt had not returned phone calls.
In 2011, the group filed as both a continuing and a single-year committee. One $1,800 donor on the single-year committee for 2011 is identified only as “Anonymous Donor” from “Unknown WA.”
According to Lori Anderson, a PDC spokeswoman, that’s illegal.
The maximum limit for anonymous donations from such a group is either $300 or 1 percent of the total donations. The group fulfills neither.
In an e-mail sent after press time, Duane Alton wrote:
The PDC has not launched an investigation into the group. For the PDC to investigate any violation, of course, someone has to complain.
Journalism 101: The onus is not on private citizens to confirm or deny stray rumors. The onus is on the reporter to determine whether the rumor has any substance, and if not (or, if the reporter cannot confirm it), to not include the stray rumor in the finished article. My, but how far our media have wandered from Journalism 101.
Just for the record, I HAVE said -- repeatedly, publicly, and on my blog, most notably in my Jan. 31 article. A certain anti-levy group also has said -- repeatedly, publicly, and on its Web site. I offered my entire blog to Daniel for quoting, in the same way I offer it to anyone who wants to quote it with attribution. Clearly, Daniel and his editor either declined to read my Jan. 31 article, or they read it and dismissed it.
In our conversation, I told Daniel that -- rather than make the levy discussion about the people, -- he should do a little investigating of the district and its claims. Instead, in this "news" article, he appears to be openly advocating for an investigation of private citizens.
This isn´t journalism, not where I come from. This piece is embarrassing. It probably delights the district, however, which perhaps is the point. And the 99% of the citizens in this city, who would like to have the truth about the 1% who run things around here, are betrayed yet again.
For some facts and questions about the school district and its claims, please visit my blog, "Betrayed."
Laurie Rogers
http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
Feb 09, 2012 | Reply to this comment
"That could mean the loss of sports, after-school programs, counselors, many teachers and administrators, and an increase in class sizes."
This quote from your story COULD be an accurate statement, but it is not THE TRUTH. It is one possible option that the Spokane Public Schools could exercise in the event of a levy failure. It is a COULD-BE truth.
I, and many folks I know, are not anti-levy. We are anti-THIS levy.
(And, NO, I´m not part of Mr. Alton´s group. I don´t know the man.)
What we are frustrated with 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 subjects at a rate that boggles the mind, at a rate that is far higher than the state average, that students (who’ve received A’s in Honors Algebra in a SPS high school) test into remedial math - not algebra - at SCC or SFCC.
Just this week a trustee of Spokane Community Colleges stated, with respect to the search for a new Superintendant for SPS, that a primary goal should be to find someone that can deal with the extraordinarily high remediation required of Spokane Public Schools graduates in math.
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, to fund a data system to support the federalization of education - removing our local control over what and how our children are taught - to fund curricula that has even been seen yet, much less tested... MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars that never get to a classroom.
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, asking that the Common Core foolishness be scrapped (and we DON"T have to participate).
They have been dismissed as unknowledgeable in child education and dismissed as “untrained”. They have had the full gamut of eduspeak tossed at them, as if the 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 fails to educate our children by focusing on a failed instructional methodology, about the administrative bloat and waste of money, and about accountability to ensure these issues remain open to review…
@LaurieRogers1:
"In our conversation, I told Daniel that -- rather than make the levy discussion about the people, -- he should do a little investigating of the district and its claims."
I would not hold my breath there Ms. Rogers. The Inlander - like the Spokesman review, GSI, Citizens for Spokane Public Schools, Yes! for Kids! - all have to much to lose by an actual investigation of the district, its educational outcomes, and how it spends the citizen´s money.
They all MUST focus on people. People are easy to demonize. As long as the focus is on the boogyman that wants to steal the children´s teachers and art and smaller classes and sports - it is NOT on the realities of the levy and the budget shenanigans required to support the bloated administration and poor outcomes.
I looked over your blog Ms. Rogers. I must say that what I found, while passionate, was informative. I found NEWS - information that has import for me, and my community.
I´d would have labled you an advocate, rather than a critic...
Feb 09, 2012 | Reply to this comment
I hold a degree in Mathematics, a degree in Education, and a Master’s 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 SEA, the union. 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 from which to judge my comments. 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 supposedly 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.
In many cases this is not so, and that is partially your failure --- but only partially. You are given such a glossy picture each and every day by the head office of Spokane Public Schools that it is reasonable that you accept much of it at face value. You would do yourselves, and your children, a huge service by digging a bit deeper.
Here’s some of what you should 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 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. This levy funds a cradle-to-grave data system that the federal government wants on you and your children. This levy funds much that is extraneous to well-rounded education.
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 we 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 can vote this levy down and demand that your school board fund what is needed --- rather than what will further some administrator’s agenda.
You should know that this is the one opportunity, the one chance you will 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!
Feb 10, 2012 | Reply to this comment
--- I agree that a publication is better when employee´s editorial based comments (specifically if they claim "factual" data) should be done in a neutral way. For example, the Spokesman bias irt publishing letters to the editor concerning the levies was sickening and went like this:
33 Pro Levy (including numerous "editorials" and "Guest Opinion" columns with NO 200 word limits)...
vs.
3 Anti-Levy (with none of the aforementioned "extra long" columns). Additionally, 2 of the 3 were posted 2 days before the voting deadline (after most people would have already voted)...
11x more pro levy and multiple allowed to be greater than the 200 word limit. "News" Bias? The answer is obvious...
2) "levies are less an option and more a requirement to fully fund some of our most important public institutions. In a longstanding arrangement, public education requires local support for as much as a quarter of its funds. Keeping our public schools strong has never been "controversial".
--- Keeping schools strong is still not being argued. Many people believe funding is already sufficient (especially if the underfunded budget items and overpaid administrator pay issues were addressed). Does anyone think if SPS´s advertised various administrator jobs for 60-100K that we wouldn´t get a lot of highly qualified candidates??? I´d put money down that we´d get "many" replies from people very good credentials... Many (obviously not all) private schools currently operate for less money while achieving better scholastic success rates; adopting many of their policies should be an extremely high priority. Competition provided by charter schools and vouchers would also help.
--- 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 (1/4) of their budgets.
Anything with an expected 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?
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 or simply seen as replacements, continuations, etc...
3) 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”… Feb 13, 2012 | Reply to this comment
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. If you´re thinking "levy $ doesn´t pay for those things", please review the previous post´s bucket example. Additionally, cost structures should be reviewed and compared to the private & charter schools that currently operate for less money while achieving better scholastic success rates.
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 the Idaho/Oregon borders allowed to vote (if they were "you´d want a super majority vote") on it 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 in Washington.
The counter point of “renters pay levy taxes via rent” is "ridiculously simplistic" because only in a perfectly linked 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 costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent in order "to simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy…" Feb 13, 2012 | Reply to this comment