Seattle school parent and education activist

On Feb. 6, voters of Seattle will be asked by the Seattle School district to support our schools. Proposition 2 supports the operations of our district and is almost a quarter of our district's budget. It is vital to every single student in this district to pass this measure.

I wish it were as easy to throw my support to Proposition 1, the Building Excellence III (BEX) Capital Bond measure. This is the measure for school renovations, rebuilds and additions. But I believe it is a list that contains major errors in judgment and should be firmly rejected.

First, a little history and background. Seattle, after San Francisco, has the smallest child population of the 100 major cities in the country. Currently, our school measures must have a 60 percent supermajority to pass. (Note; there will be legislation introduced in the current session of the Washington State Legislature to amend this supermajority to a regular majority.)

In the past, Seattle school levies have passed by much more than 60 percent and it is a credit to all the citizens of Seattle that they so firmly believe in education. As part of the district's 10-year levy plan, there is also the Buildings, Technology and Academics levy, which is voted on every 3 years. It funds maintenance like roofs, carpeting and life safety issues, technology like computers and scanners and academics to upgrade literacy, arts and science as well as upgrades to athletic fields and playgrounds.

None of the schools on the current capitol list align with closures and consolidations. The district claims it wants community support and acceptance for this process and yet this list of projects does nothing for schools that will be receiving students from schools that are closing.

In southwest Seattle, the district proposes to spend $125 million on a joint campus for Denny Middle School and Chief Sealth High School. That's a big sum of money. Sealth has already had $3.8 million spent on a new commons, 9th grade classrooms and a science lab. But Denny and Sealth have poor scores on the building survey and the district says it will save money and have more design cohesion by doing them both.

However, for the New School project, which is in a building co-owned by the city and the district, they are proceeding with their project without waiting for the city to rebuild its portion. Why wouldn't the district--if it's cost-effective and design-smart to do Denny and Sealth together--do the same for the South Shore building?

Before the School Board approved this list, one suggestion that I made to the district was that they should renovate Genesee Hill, home to the Pathfinder K-8 program. Pathfinder is the only alternative school AND the only K-8 in all of the southwest area.

Their building, built in 1948, is, according to a district-paid survey of buildings, in very poor condition with the entire middle school in old portables. Pathfinder was buffeted around by the closure and consolidation process with no viable outcome for their relocation. Pathfinder would have the ability to serve more students well academically if their building was better.

The district claims that it wants to lower the average age of school buildings and yet has selected buildings built in the 1960s and 1970s, instead of buildings still in use built in the 1940s and 1950s (not to mention a building built in 1904 that is still in use today by Nova High School).

The district claims that it builds to a 50-year lifespan but wants to renovate Nathan Hale High School at a cost of $77 million (not to mention the $10 million previously spent on a new performing arts hall) with an expected lifespan of only 25 years. Hale was built on pilings on a bog with a creek running through it and cannot ever be rebuilt because of new city permit restrictions.

There is a solution sitting right across the street from Hale, the Jane Addams building which currently houses the alternative school, Summit K-12. That school is willing to be moved to a more central location. This would allow the district to rebuild Hale on an acceptable site and build to a 50-year cycle.

Worst of all, the district has chosen to build a new building (during the time when they are closing buildings) for a 4-year-old school that receives major support from a private foundation, the New School in southeast Seattle. I support public/private partnerships but New School is not in the worst building and has not waited as long for renovation/rebuild as other school communities.

From a taxpayer point of view, this is the most unacceptable project. If built, there will be a new preK-8 (New School) next to a new re-entry high school (South Lake) with an elementary school in their backyard (Dunlap) and Rainier Beach High School down the street. Another K-8 (African-American Academy, chronically under-enrolled and with erratic Washington Assessment of Student Learning scores) is also located nearby. That's five schools in just over a one-mile area.

How can that make sense either financially or for academic programming?

It is a reflex for most parents in our district to vote yes for school measures because we believe "it's for the kids." However, doing the wrong thing for the right reason doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Voters turned down both the latte tax and, more recently, I-88. Both measures would have supported academic programs for children. Voters decided they were not the best ideas and said no.

This list of projects does not align with the time our district sits in as we face school closures and consolidations. It doesn't address the schools that are in the very worst buildings and/or those school communities who have been patiently waiting the longest for renovations. In short, it's unfair and inequitable and does not use taxpayers' money in the best possible way.