Sound Politics: It's in the P-I

August 19, 2004

It's in the P-I

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board has endorsed the Families and Education Levy. As I wrote the other day, fellow levy opponent Andy MacDonald and I went in front of the P-I ed board last week to debate the issue against two levy supporters.

I can't say I'm surprised by the P-I's endorsement of the levy. I am, however, astonished by the hyperbole that the P-I used to praise the levy. With the headline "Seattle's best investment", the P-I writes:

We believe the measure is affordable, worthwhile and even indispensable when schools face many challenges with limited resources. The spending plan covers a host of valuable services, including pre-school programs, school nursing services and support for high-risk middle- and high-school students.

Granted, they also give a nod to the concerns that Andy and I raised:

This year's levy renewal has met legitimate questions from thoughtful critics over the spending increase, whether programs are adequately focused on academic results and the lack of widespread citizen participation in planning. Seattle needs more such healthy probing.

The P-I's recommendation is even more enthusiastic than that of the two levy advocates who were in the room with us. Both levy supporters acknowledged that the previous 14 years and $138 million of levy spending have not only not been very effective, but that there's nobody in city government who can give a complete answer as to where all that money went and what it has accomplished.

At one point in the discussion I mentioned that in my review of the city's evaluation reports of levy programs from 1990-2003, I found that only 3 out of 25 programs demonstrated any measurable improvements in academic achievement. The ensuing discussion went like this:

Mayor's representative, advocating for the levy: Earlier levy programs weren't as focused on academic achievement. The goals were to make our children safe, healthy and ready to learn.

P-I ed board member: Have the programs been successful at doing that?

Mayor's representative: In some of the programs we think they have been.

I responded that if "in some of the programs we think they have been" is the best that the Mayor's office can say about an expenditure of $138 million, then that's just not enough success to justify increasing the amount by 69%. At that point, Editorial Page Editor Mark Trahant, who seemed to be the most predisposed of his colleagues to supporting the levy, interrupted me and changed the subject.

In light of the levy's long track record of poor results, it would be one thing to acknowledge the few important gains and endorse the levy with reservations while demanding that the people who run the thing do a much better job of spending the money this time. But to lavish such glowing praise on an unsuccessful program while ignoring its failures is foolish, irresponsible and unlikely to motivate any of the funding recipients to improve their performance.