Agreed

Sent in my ballot with 1 and 1A Yes

Fact check: Bill Gates *supported* 1098 (http://seattletimes.com/html/politicsnor…).

@3 uh huh, there's more to that essay than what you see as "the strongest argument".

and here's more for ya:
http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com…

1b would just add to the litany of flaws of our already dysfunctional education system in Washington. It's such a shame that we have such good industries in the area but our education system is so underfunded that our own Supreme Court is holding the state in contempt. Education isn't for the rich and privileged. In this state, it's a constitutional right and 1b just moves good education further away from the 99% of us and closer to the 1%.

While Bill Gates, Sr. Was one of the biggest advocates of 1098, Bill Gates, Jr. didn't take a strong position, despite his father pushing hard for him to do so. And this article was some of the only genuine coverage about his support. That said, Steve Ballmer was he single biggest donor AGAINST 1098, at $425,000, and Microsoft donated an additional $75,000 while Bill Gates was President of the Board. Actions speak louder than words.

I'm sorry this is a hot mess from beginning to end. As one of the unregistered comments pointed out, you know your campaign is in trouble when most of your argument is about the other guy. God forbid some of the folks who supported charter schools (gasp) support this measure too. I for one will not stand for watching conservatives and progressives come together for a common cause. Who will think about the children!?

Also, if I'm not mistaken, aren't the Gates major funders for the background check initiative? And didn't Bezos give quite a bit of $$ to marriage equality last election cycle? Not saying these people are perfect but not supporting something because someone you don't like likes it comes off as contrarian and petty.

And 1B is funded and 1A is not.

@3, it's a who, what and why argument, and perfectly stated. It's your rebuttal that is sophomoric.

I don't want to give over my tax money for your crotch-fruit's daycare. If we're going to associate preK with education, by god I want instruction I help pay for to be from state certified early childhood educators with standardized education (not some certification ruled by the daycare unions) .

I voted No, with prop 1B as the result I'd prefer.

@9 0ne thing that gets left out? The City has the ability to levy a tax to pay for their proposal. 1A, obviously, cannot.

It makes it a lot easier to say "it's funded" when you get to decide that.

As well, there is $30M sitting in the Families and Education levy that could easily support 1A.

Don't forget, our City DOES already support preschool - 26% of the Families and Education levy ($61M) goes to preschool services. Seattle Schools ALREADY has over 35 preschool classrooms.

What the City and the unions have given us is confusion and division when we need clarity and unity.

Vote no to send this back to the table so that governance and labor can bring ONE clear proposition to voters. (And they could bring another one next fall.)

No Child Left Behind was funded. So was Race to the Top, which brought us a lot more standardized tests.

Here's the truth about public policy: money is fleeting. Policy is forever. So don't accept bad policy just for the sake of a few bucks. If 1B goes down, that just means we get the chance to come back next year with a good plan, that is also funded, that has everyone on board, that isn't a gigantic clusterfuck spawned by the enormous egos of Tim Burgess and Ed Murray.

Don't forget Publicola picks 1B.

The big problem with Prop 1A is the task force element—which turned into catch-all answer (and kind of a metaphor for its shortcomings) when we asked the proponents to explain precisely how the measure would improve preschool for kids. Prop 1A is ultimately a mystery option: It might yield low-cost, common-sense reforms that benefit workers and thus children, but it could also turn out to be a massively expensive exercise in scatter-shot policy making. Oh, and it's not funded. And there's no agreement on how much it will cost in the first place.

Then there's Proposition 1B—which actually does something. Specific.

Proposition 1B establishes a four-year, $60 million pilot program for accessible preschool in Seattle. It’s free to families making less than 300 percent of the federal poverty line ($71,000 for a family of four), and aims to serve 2,000 kids by 2018.

Unlike 1A, it’s (unambiguously) funded by a property tax of about $43 per year for a family living in a typical $400,000 home.

1B throws out all the key words/dog whistles meant to shame people into voting for it.
It also throws in the usual ed-deform vagueness that makes it sound good to the less-informed.
There's "research-based" (though no idea whose research? Gates Foundation fake "research" or actual peer reviewed research from decades of early childhood studies - no details given.)
"University of Washington" - as if being associated with the UW lends credibility. CRPE, anyone?
"evaluation of results" (code for test the hell out of the preschoolers, and probably hang the teachers out to dry if test scores aren't what they want).
"Support, training, and certification for teachers" without describing what that means - sounds just like a TFA program.
"Tuition support" - meaning what? Poor families get $100 off a month in tuition, the same as rich families?

1A has some issues as well, but not like 1B, which deliberately sidesteps the biggest issue of WHERE THE HELL WILL THESE KIDS GO WHEN SEATTLE SCHOOL BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY OVERCROWDED?
But hey, don't let little details like that get in the way. If Bill Gates wants his experimental group of preschoolers, so be it. Perhaps there's room at Lakeside to house them all. Or at the Gates Foundation, where they can have have those poor kids on camera all day, record input/output, even try out their little experimental. engagement monitors, all without leaving the comfort of their swanky office building.

Don't blame me, I voted for the option that pays childcare workers a somewhat more livable wage.

Ha!

Just got a push poll lying about how 1A won't cost anything and will deliver all kinds of good things. And 1B is bad because it costs something. And pretending it's all coming from Republicans.

Funny how you can pretend your vague wishlist doesn't cost anything when you haven't actually paid for it. The push poll said the money comes out of existing budgets -- but WHAT are you guys going to cut, huh?

Paid for by Chisolm Strategies, PO Box 15870, Washington DC.

You know why they're resorting to push polls? Desperation. Sad.

Actually, 1B is not completely funded and is relying on a promise that maybe the state or Fed's will provide the $20M to cover the shortfall.



1A, if passed. would rely on the same funding as 1B, the levy and Federal grants. The statement that 1B is fully funded is a lie.



Dora Taylor

1B is not fully funded. That is a lie.

They are still short $20M as per the 1B campaign manager as stated at a community meeting in Squire Park two weekends ago.

He said that they are relying on money from a state or Federal grant to fill the gap.

Funding for 1A will come from the same sources, the levy and grants. The city will have an obligation to fund 1A if that is what the voters want.

Dora Taylor

There is so much more to this 1B campaign behind the scenes so stay tuned. I don't think Seattle is going to like it.

Check out seattleducation2010.wordpress.com this Sunday morning.

I was leaning toward 1B and was just robo-dialed with the most ludicrous push poll ever. Did you know 1A will cost nothing? While 1B will cost tens of millions of dollars? And yet, for some reason, Republican henchmen favor 1B, whereas 1A will immediately raise all child care worker salaries to $15 an hour?

Folks, we're WILLING to spend tens of millions if that's what it takes to improve education for the disadvantaged in this city. And if Republicans are for it, well, that's why we live in Seattle. Because even the Republicans here, unlike almost everywhere else in the country, favor certain progressive measures. Welcome aboard!

Here's the official explanation of 1A: Proposition 1A (Initiative 107) would establish a $15 minimum wage for childcare workers (phased in over three years for employers with under 250 employees); seek to reduce childcare costs to 10% or less of family income; prohibit violent felons from providing professional childcare; require enhanced training and certification through a training institute; create a workforce board and establish a fund to help providers meet standards; and hire an organization to facilitate communication between the City and childcare workers.

Seek to reduce costs? (How? by increasing worker wages?!) Create a board? Hire an organization to facilitate communication? Are you fucking kidding me? This is how we're supposed to help our poor kids close the education gap? Is there money there to actually get anything done? No? Well, WHAT THE FUCK?

And this post was no more coherent, attacking 1B proponents for using "scare tactics"--really? have you seen any 1B proponents that use "scare tactics"? I think it's fair to ask how, exactly, we all get a free cheeseburger when no new taxes are proposed. Meanwhile. the post discusses how "worrisome" the supporters of 1B are. Well, I guess they know their scare tactics. Most of us don't find rich people or corporations "worrisome" if they're supporting funding for preschool programs. Why are 1A proponents so opposed to funding preschool?

As far as I can tell, 1A is a complete nothingburger. All it does is mandate a one-year hurry-up on the minimum wage for child care workers. Who's going to pay for that? Well, the poor parents. How many new seats does it create? None. What do 1A supporters bitch about? That Seattle Public Schools will have more kids in elementary school? Huh? State funding follows additional enrollment. Do the 1A supporters prefer that we have FEWER kids in Seattle Public Schools? Is Sally Soriano drunk? or high on crack? And her solution to an affordability crisis, rather than imposing a tax to raise funds, is to convene a task force? Good holy God almighty. I'm getting the feeling that we've been punk'd and that this post was actually written by the ghost of Ellen Craswell (she even calls the YMCA a "for-profit entity"). Happy Halloween!

Well, this post is even more odious than I first thought. From the first sentence:

The Seattle League of Women Voters, the NAACP of Seattle/King County, Working Washington, and the Economic Opportunity Institute say we should vote for Prop 1A

And here's the actual statement from the League of Women Voters:

The League recommends that the voters reject both proposals and encourage the proponents to start over and work together.

My mother was a proud member of the LWV. Blatantly lying about their position is inexcusable. I'm repulsed that Sally Soriano was ever elected to a position of trust involving the education of my children.

You're the one full of shit, kk. She didn't lie. You can't read.
From the LWV website:

"Current Action
The Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of Seattle-King County voted to take the following positions on the ballot measures in Seattle:

Seattle Prop 1A and 1B
On question 1: "Should either of these measures be enacted into law?" the League recommends a No vote.
On question 2: "Regardless of whether you voted yes or no above, if one of these measures is enacted, which one should it be? The League prefers 1A.
For an explanation of this decision, click here."

http://seattlelwv.org/advocacy

The YMCA is a non-profit.

I am voting No and 1A as the lesser of two evils. There is no room in Seattle Public Schools for pre-schools. The schools are overcrowded. Also, before we fund this, why aren't we funding all day Kindergarten? So we will have 4 year olds going to school for 6 hours a day and then when they go to Kindergarten they only go to school for 3.5 hours a day? Makes no sense.





1B will also dictate what type of pre-school. No Waldorf, No Montessori, No anything but what the reformers believe to be high-quality.

Seattle's kids are already hurt by a nearly 40% annual turnover rate among staff, but Prop 1B would drive out hundreds more experienced teachers by requiring specialized degrees, causing even more kids to lose their teachers.

I love when people mention "wealthy Conservative donors", as though they are evil. What about the "wealthy Liberal donors"? I guess they only fund things like unicorns and rainbows.

If you want to know who the dondors are for Prop 1B, check out The Proposition 1B “Preschool for All” Wheel of Fortune: Same players, new game, http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com….