Tuesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

JB said…
I'm wondering if anyone went to DeBell's Saturday meeting and what was said? I wanted to go but had a conflict.

Wondering
1/22/13, 9:31 AM
Anonymous said…
It's pretty clear after watching the Senate Ways and Means committee meeting yesterday that they're going to go out of their way to scrap the GET program.

In related news, when Rodney Tom decided to show his true colors, he didn't go half-way with it. What a jackass.

--Ryan--
1/22/13, 10:50 AM
Melissa Westbrook said…
That got moved to this Saturday so you missed nothing.

Rodney Tom's day of political reckoning will be quite interesting to watch.
1/22/13, 10:54 AM
Anonymous said…
DeBell canceled his meeting last Saturday. I believe he's going to holds a make up meeting. Not sure when though.
magnolia mama
1/22/13, 12:06 PM
Eric B said…
The attempts to kill GET are so symptomatic of the problem at the Legislature. The problem with GET is that tuition has risen too quickly, and that investment income didn't meet expectations. There's not much to be done about the former, but a simple solution to the latter. If you actually fund state universities so that they can have a lower tuition, much of the problem goes away.

Instead, they're looking at increasing tuition and eliminating a program that helps kids go to college. Good choice, there!

I agree that many (and probably most) kids who benefit from GET are likely from families that can afford college anyway. But there's additional hardships, loans, etc. on those families if they don't have something like GET.
1/22/13, 1:01 PM
Anonymous said…
What happens to the money we've already put into GET? Will those units be frozen and we just can't buy more?
Ugh. Guess. Need to start emailing legislators.

-SPS mom
1/22/13, 3:21 PM
Anonymous said…
If you actually fund state universities so that they can have a lower tuition, much of the problem goes away.

I'm sure it costs WAY MORE to reduce tuition than to pay off existing GET obligations. The fact is, GET is a deal that probably should never have been made. I favor honoring existing GET obligations but we should probably increase substantially the GET-tuition surcharge to much higher than it is.

-parent
1/22/13, 4:37 PM
Patrick said…
Parent, GET is the only remaining way a middle-class family can pay for college without leaving the new grad deep in debt. I'm not sure what the point is of having state colleges if they're priced just like private schools.
1/22/13, 4:50 PM
Jan said…
--parent, I agree with you that they probably made the benefit "too rich" (highest tuition at any of the big state universities) in order to attract the dollars. That said -- I think it is typical political shortsightedness (what is the fastest way to make this money problem go away) to just kill the program. If the legislature worries that THEY cannot afford to educate GET kids at the higher tuition rates -- how and why is it that they do not see that it is AT LEAST as difficult for an individual family to afford those same increases. It doesn't make the problem of jacking the tuition to astronomical levels go away -- it just transfers the problem to students and their parents. It is much like the idea that moving the medicare age by 2 to 5 years "solves" the medicare funding problem. Well, I guess it solves it for the government -- but only by putting it back on people who have way fewer resources and WAY WAY less bargaining power in terms of pricing and access -- to solve it for themselves. These are "solutions" only in the shallowest, most craven sense.

Frankly, it was probably priced too low. But now that tuition is through the roof, if they price it too high, it will be a "tuition insurance" plan ONLY for the wealthy, and we should probably just get rid of it altogether.
1/22/13, 4:54 PM
Anonymous said…
"GET is the only remaining way a middle-class family can pay for college."

I disagree. We are paying our students college education with combination of savings bonds, Coverdale and a 529.

Signed No GET
1/22/13, 5:22 PM
Anonymous said…
School budgets packages will be coming to schools soon. Do any of you know what the proposed changes are to the weighted staffing standard (WSS)for '13-'14?

jw
1/22/13, 6:54 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
JW, there is a Work Session on the budget coming up soon. Your question may be answered there.
1/22/13, 7:36 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
JW, there is a Work Session on the budget coming up soon. Your question may be answered there.
1/22/13, 7:36 PM
Josh Hayes said…
parent writes:

"I'm sure it costs WAY MORE to reduce tuition than to pay off existing GET obligations."

I'm not at all sure this is true, or rather, that the cost to the state of eliminating GET is less than the cost of maintaining it for a while. David Goldstein over at SLOG has written about this - like here, for instance - and he suggests that the state takes a 1.7 billion dollar hit over 11 years to close GET, while it faces a potential 631 million dollar shortfall (not clear over what period). If we expect the economy to bounce back and the need for giant tuition increases every year to diminish, GET returns to being solvent. We just have to weather the intervening years.

Unless, of course, the plan is to price a college education out of the reach of the hoi polloi, in which case, by all means, do away with GET, and jack up that tuition! The fellows in Rodney Tom's neighborhood can certainly afford it regardless.
1/22/13, 10:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, gr...
Read more

Nepotism in Seattle Schools

Update: Following a scandal at Aki Kurose Middle School, apparently the district has pulled the principal, Caine Lowery who leaves Aki for a promotion to Central Office to support/train/guide principals. Hmm. I also note that former Rainier View Elementary principal Anitra Jones, who was removed from that school, still doesn't show up on the staff roster at Rainier Beach High School where it was stated she would be. Where is she? Who knows?  end of update   This is going to be a difficult post to write because it is sad to see what looks like a norm now at JSCEE. The norm I speak of is largely an occurrence with principals as well as JSCEE senior staff. I also know that this is not going to surprise most who works at JSCEE. The norm I'm referring to is the one where some personnel have personal connections within the district that sees them moving between jobs and even getting promoted based on those relationships. In short, nepotism.  This district is risk-adverse wh...
Read more