(This guest Slog post is by Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn. The state voters’ guide has more information on Referendum 52 here.)
Too many kids in Seattle sit in uncomfortable classrooms, schools with poor ventilation, leaking roofs, flickering lights and poor air quality. And these problems don’t just lead to discomfort—they inhibit learning ability. A student who is too cold, or breathes in too much CO2 can’t learn. Classrooms without proper ventilation spread germs, sending more kids home ill. You don’t need a school nurse to tell you that sick kids can’t learn, and that absenteeism is the number one reason that students fail classes.
But with more budget cuts to schools and education looming, it’s hard to see a path to tackling these problems. However, there is one quick and easy way to start tackling these problems in Seattle Schools—and statewide: Approve Referendum 52.
Remember getting sleepy in the afternoon as you struggled through your last few classes? It may not have been your fault. A 2001 assessment of 156 schools in Washington State the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) found that 88 percent of school buildings had at least one classroom with carbon dioxide levels greater than three times the normal atmospheric level. That means classrooms right here in Seattle need improvements—now. High levels of CO2 in the air can lead to lethargy and attention problems.
R-52 creates $505 million in grants for school districts to upgrade their buildings with new energy efficient systems—and tackle ventilation problems like those that cause high CO2 levels. Every district in the state would be eligible to receive the funds created by R-52, including Seattle Public Schools. With a more than $500 million dollar backlog in maintenance needs facing SPS right now—we know that we need these funds right here in Seattle.
And R-52 goes beyond just making our classrooms safer and healthier places for kids to learn and teachers to teach. The projects that tackled by R-52 are required to be energy efficient, meaning we can stop dumping money and energy into old systems that heat the outdoors, rather than classrooms. R-52 would allow the Seattle School district to save money by reducing their carbon footprint—the same we put in new appliances to save money in our own homes. And money we save in wasteful, environmentally damaging energy costs is money we can reinvest in the schools on things we need—books, new computers, even more teachers.
Providing schools where kids are safe, and can learn is the paramount duty of government. Here in Seattle, we know we need to invest in public education so our kids are prepared for the global economy that they step into the day they graduate. Join me in supporting Referendum 52. It’s a simple equation: Less money spent + improved learning ability x huge environmental benefit = Win, win, win.
Done and done!
We have to start weaning kids off oxygen sooner or later anyway.
Seattle loves our Mayor and I’ve already voted Yes for R-52.
Great article!
@4, meds can be adjusted, you know, and so subtly that there’s little risk you’ll veer so far in the other direction you end up like Will.
Thanks, gg. Another day, another convert.
Brains.
Hear, hear. My senior year of high school was full of great memories (mostly, “Hell yeah, I’m almost out of this place!”), but marred by 1) lead in the pipes (they gave us water coolers), 2) black mold in the ceilings, and 3) the creek flooding most of the first floor (actually, that one was kind of fun).
mayor mcginn,
if you are really interested in making healthy and extremely energy efficient schools, please push for passive house standards to be implemented.
otherwise, there’s no point and it’s a ginormous waste of time and money.
@8, you are wrong. Tightening building standards for new construction is great, but doesn’t achieve anything near what is necessary, simply due to the fact that the vast majority of energy use occurs in buildings THAT ALREADY EXIST. Retrofitting them can make a tremendous difference, and if structured correctly, can be paid for from the savings – thus requiring no additional long term outlay at all, and potentially actually saving money. Unless you’re suggesting that schools should be rebuilt to be passive, in which case your grasp of “ginormous waste of time and money” is questionable.