Municipal League of King County

TAKES NO POSITION ON

Seattle School District Proposition 2 - Technology Levy

1996 February Election Ballot Measure

SUMMARY
Proposition No. 2, the Seattle School District's technology levy, asks Seattle voters to authorize the levy of excess property taxes to be collected over a four-year period, from 1997 through 2000, to raise $75 million for technology. Passage of the levy requires both (1) validation, or a voter turnout of at least 40 percent of the District voters voting at the last State general election (the November 1995 election), and (2) a 60 percent affirmative vote.

NOTE: Proposition No. 2, the technology levy, is to be voted on separately from the District's Proposition No. 1, a maintenance and operations levy also on the February 6 ballot.

The levy is the second phase of the District's technology program, begun in 1991 with the one-year, voter-approved levy of $21.7 million. All but $277,000 of the 1991 levy proceeds have been spent by the District. The first phase of the technology program placed more than 5,000 computers and large amounts of other equipment in the schools; created an educational TV studio; funded 37 technology grants to schools; computerized all District library records; provided administrative and staff training in the use of computer technologies; and provided 1,570 take-home computers for teachers.

Of the $75 million to be raised by this levy, the District plans to allocate the proceeds as follows:

The average annual cost to a District taxpayer of the levy, if approved, is estimated by the District at $64 for the owner of a $150,000 home, beginning in 1997. However, the amount proposed to be levied by the District varies from year to year over the four-year period, with actual cost in each collection year projected as follows:

Arguments For

Supporters see the Seattle School District's proposed $75 million technology levy as a logical second phase in the technology program begun five years ago when voters approved the first technology levy of $21.7 million, which successfully placed thousands of computers and other types of technology in Seattle schools. Proponents cite six main arguments in support of making an additional investment in technology infrastructure.

Improved student learning. Educators believe that computers will soon become as important as pencils and paper as instructional tools in the classroom. While the first phase of the District's technology plan helped close the hardware gap between Seattle schools and those in other districts, it fell short of what experts believe is needed to provide effective classroom instruction.

The computer-to-student ratio in Seattle schools today is one for each eight students, but the computers are located predominately in computer labs. The proposed technology levy would provide the infrastructure necessary to integrate computers into every classroom, so that all students could become continual, active learners. It would enable connections among classrooms, between districts, and with the World Wide Web. It would also bring the computer-to-student ratio closer to one to five.

Educators say experience has already shown that students with access to computers write better. Ease of access to such sources as the Internet helps stimulate the thirst for knowledge, teaches students to think and research, and improves overall academic performance.

Job training. Supporters also consider the levy essential to providing Seattle's school children with knowledge and experience they will need in the not-far-off future, when technology skills will be required of nearly everyone in the workplace. With only 30 percent of Seattle schoolchildren now going on to college, it is imperative that we give students the job training they require. This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest, which demands technical competence of its employees.

Equity. While this need for computer skills is important for all children who seek to be educated for the 21st Century, supporters of the technology levy believe it is especially critical for Seattle schoolchildren. Many students today are fortunate enough to receive computer training and experience at home. However, an alarming 70 per cent of Seattle school children do not have access to home computers. Thus, the District argues that we must even the odds for our large disadvantaged student population and that we must make the investment in technology immediately.

Future savings. Another argument in support of the levy is that the Seattle levy is designed to produce long-term savings in administrative costs through modernization of the District's communications systems.

Planning. The District says it has proven it can manage the investment of technology funds well. Despite some admitted early problems, supporters claim that Phase I has been a real success story, and that they have carefully evaluated the real costs of Phase II. They defend against criticisms of lack of management and accountability (mostly surrounding the $330 million capital levy) by arguing that Superintendent John Stanford inherited these problems, and should be given the support he needs in order to fulfill his primary goal of improving student achievement.

Lack of options for funding. A final argument is that the District has no other sources of funding for technological improvements. The levy lid has been lowered from 32 to 28 percent, which means that the District will have fewer operating funds. In addition, the District faces high levels of deferred maintenance, totaling about $200 million. While the District will continue to rely on donations of hardware and software from the community, there are no other sources of funds for building the District's technological infrastructure.

Opponents cite five principal arguments against the Seattle School District's proposed $75 million technology levy.

Lack of accountability. The main argument is that difficulties in managing other capital levies have caused the District to lose credibility about its capacity for administering this levy. For example, opponents argue that the District failed to buy and install new technology equipment in all 100 of its schools simultaneously under the 1991 levy. With respect to the 1995 construction levy, a number of facts support conclusions that the District's capital needs were not well estimated and are not being well implemented.

Too expensive. Second, it can be argued that the proposed second phase of the District's technology program is too ambitious and too expensive. The District justifies the levy partly on a desire to "lessen the gap" or to achieve "parity" between its technology and that of local suburban school districts. Its 1991 technology levy has reduced the computer-to-student ratio from 1:38 to 1:8. The proposed levy will further reduce the ratio only to 1:5. The majority of funds in the new levy are allocated not to reducing the computer-to-student ratio, but on wiring for local- and wide-area networks and a "state-of-the-art" district-wide network for administrative information.

Arguably, technological "parity" directly affecting the District's students can be achieved with a substantially reduced proposal and at a substantially lower cost to taxpayers.

Other priorities. A third opposition argument is that over 57 percent ($42,900,000) of the proposed levy proceeds will be used to wire buildings that are also in need of substantial repair and maintenance. The District estimates that it has over $200 million of deferred maintenance on its existing buildings, including repairs to roofs and boilers. In addition, there has been talk of closing 20 to 25 school buildings in a worst-case scenario if funding for schools does not improve.

The extent of deferred maintenance and uncertainty with respect to building closures suggests the technology levy should not be the highest priority of the District or its taxpayers.

Questionable educational impact. Fourth, conclusive data documenting the educational impact of computer technology on overall academic performance is not readily available and the Seattle School District has no targets against which it can measure the educational outcomes of either its 1991 technology levy or this year's technology measure. With the 1991 levy, each school determined how to spend its share of the proceeds and each school was responsible for evaluating its progress. A similar plan is intended to be used by the District for the proposed $75 million levy.

High operating costs. Finally, acquisition and installation of the technology improvements through the proposed levy is estimated to create additional operational costs of $6 to $10 million annually, to be paid out of the general fund. Given current demands on the District's general fund and its history of levying at the statutory maximum for maintenance and operation, opponents say it is unwise to impose additional burdens on the general fund.