Seattle Mayor Ed Murray released a 22-page proposal (pdf) today for implementing high-quality universal preschool in Seattle, starting with a four-year demonstration project that would serve 2,000 three- and four-year-olds in 100 classrooms by 2018. If approved by the city council, a $58 million property tax levy ($14.5 million a year) that would add about $43 a year to the average Seattle homeowner’s property tax bill would be put before voters on the November, 2014 ballot.
(FYI, while the document is boldly labeled “Mayor Murray’s Proposal,” it is largely the result of an effort led by city council member Tim Burgess long before Murray was sworn in as mayor. So credit where credit is due.)
I’ve only just skimmed the proposal, so you’ll have to wait for a more detailed analysis, but my initial response is that it is very thorough, very promising, and not quite as ambitious as I had hoped for.
During the demonstration period, enrollment would be open to all 4-year-olds, and all 3-year-olds from families earning less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($71,550 for a family of four). Tuition would be free for students below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($47,700 for a family of four), and subsidized on a sliding scale based on income. Families up to 600 percent of poverty ($143,100) would pay no more than 40 percent of the project $10,700 per student costs.
That’s a bargain. So of course demand will far outstrip supply. Enrollment will be prioritized to children already in the program (the previous year’s three-year-olds), children with siblings concurrently in the program, and geographic proximity to the classroom. The plan calls for prioritizing the initial placement of classrooms in neighborhoods with the lowest levels of academic achievement. These enrollment and location priorities will tilt demonstration project access to Seattle’s neediest families.
The stated 15- to 20-year goal is to serve 80 percent of of all three- and four-year-olds from families under 300 percent of poverty by 2035. Which like I said, could be more ambitious. But considering the existing constraints on both classroom infrastructure and trained teachers, the demonstration program looks like a very good start.
Again, this is a very thorough proposal, so a more thorough analysis will have to wait. But with both $15 minimum wage and universal preschool proposals working their way through council, 2014 is shaping up to be a very exciting year.
I like the proposal thus far and, you’re right, 2014 is shaping up as a very productive year for the City.
For good measure, I think it should be noted that, contrary to Danny Westneat’s assertions, this would not bring us up to 8 special taxes in 2015. Rather, of the five levies currently operating, two are set to expire and not be replaced (Parks & Green Spaces and Pike Place Market). Parks will be ‘replaced’ with a new, permanent funding mechanism (which will start collections in 2016). This seems like a nice replacement for Pike Place. And will keep us at 6.
Of course, Westneat doesn’t seem to give a shit about what Seattleites want, and how we make those wants realities with the structure we have been given by Olympia. Thankfully, he does not appear to carry much influence over the vast majority of Seattle voters.
Murray’s trying to get all the property taxes done before the new (if you vote for it) Metropolitan Park District decides to start raising their share of property taxes (no vote needed). The property tax levy to start the MPD would already be twice the existing one.
Government funded pre-school, what a crock. They really do want you from cradle to grave.
I’m sorry but wasting $58 million dollars on the “education” of three year olds is just plain stupid.
@3 I know, right!? What’s with the gubmit trying to “educate” children? What a load of BS!! I don’t attempt to stimulate my toddler at all. Nope. I just stick him in a darkened basement 24/7 until it’s time to go to kindergarten. Because really, why would a 3-year-old need to “learn”?
@4 Parents. Its not the governments job to take care of toddlers ands its not your neighbors job to pay for that care.
I have to wonder where those 100 new preschool classrooms are going to come from. They can “partner” with the Seattle School District, but the district doesn’t have the spare classrooms. Is there a capital side to this project, something they aren’t telling us about…yet?
@3 “I’m sorry but wasting $58 million dollars on the “education” of three year olds is just plain stupid.”
I dunno. There might still be hope for you, if we can get to you before you turn four.
@5 Don’t you know that staying home to raise your toddlers is an upper-middle-class luxury that many people can’t afford?
At four years old aren’t kids supposed to be playing with their food and watching cartoons? Why are we trying to teach them calculus?
@8 Correct me if I am wrong but I’m fairly certain that daycare/preschools already exist…so why do we need the government to create its own toddler indoctrination camps?
“2014 is shaping up to be a very exciting year.”
If you are a “money grows on trees” Socialist.
@10 I was mistaken @7. You’re beyond hope.
@11 What the hell, let’s tax you for this (and a bunch of other stuff), and let you call it “socialist” if that makes you happy.
I see no reason why upper-income families should be included in this program. They can and already do pay for high-quality daycare for their kids, or one of the partners stays home with the kids.
Gotta love the lib attitude, even if you can’t afford it…we will give to you for free (free meaning we will take the money from someone else of course)
And yet, there’s still no word on Ed-castic Murray’s plan for municipal internet….
Bellevue/MI keeps looking better if you are a high earner. My kids childcare already costs too much. And now I’m paying for yours too?
High earner @16 – If you could afford to live in Bellevue or Mercer Island you’d already be there.
If socialism is good enough for Boeing, it’s good enough for preschoolers, too.
$57,000,000 spread across 2000 kids is $28,500 each. It’s a four year program so that pencils to $7,125 a year per child. Is that a realistic amount?
Wow…apparently, that’s on the low end.
“[Washington State,] In the 2009-10 school year, that had grown to $9,497 in inflation-adjusted dollars.
In comparison, the six top states spent $15,000 or more per pupil.”
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/.....-the-west/
The arguments against seem to boil down to….
“I don’t want to pay for other kids eduction, especially poor kids education.”
I don’t know if …
it’s just greed,
or if they are afraid that educated poor kids would challenge their perceived position of privilege,
or if they are afraid that educated poor kids will compete with their kids of jobs,
or they are afraid that educated kids will more likely vote for liberals or
or they are afraid to divert a dime to things that don’t benefit them directly since they have to fund their retirement and the republicans are hellbent on destroying the social safety nets.
@16 “My kids childcare already costs too much. ”
Costs too much how? The child care providers make enough not to qualify for food stamps?
@19 We are talking about three and four year olds, you make it sound like we should be teaching them mechanical engineering or law in preschool.
Pre-k is just a tarted up name for daycare, the “classrooms” don’t need a tenured professor and a bunch of high tech equipment.
It’s cost effective for society in the long term. If you are a conservative who supports with people with jobs and less crime, you would want to support this.
Childcare centers are generally an option for working parents who need their children to be taken care of during the day. Preschool refers to an early-childhood educational class for 3- and 4-year-olds.
It appears the taxes wasted on one basketball arena would pay for preschool for 2,000 kids for 40 years. But an arena would create 20 part-time peanut vendor jobs! That’s why the arena will be built and the preschools won’t be.
@23 Sounds good to me.
@21 “Pre-k is just a tarted up name for daycare, the “classrooms” don’t need a tenured professor and a bunch of high tech equipment.”
As @22 has already pointed out, that’s a really cynical and inaccurate view of early childhood education. @22 forgot the shame though. Shame on you @21. Shame I say!