1351: The Engine That Is Nearly at the Top of the Hill

Update:  the I-1351 campaign has declared victory.

My latest tweet:

 Yes to lower class sizes in WA continues its winning ways, up 18K votes. Biggest counties trend Yes; should be able to call by Monday eve.

After today's ballot drops, Yes on 1351 is up by 18,205 votes (nearly 1%).  

Pierce County had 9,000 ballots - they are down to 1500 (at 51.65% Yes)
King had 121,000 ballots - they are down to 88,000 (at 54% Yes)
Snohomish had 58,000 ballots - they are down to 27,000 (at 50.5% Yes)
Spokane has 13,500 ballots outstanding (at 50.23% Yes)

So while some counties are just hanging in there, King has, by far, the largest number of ballots and they continue to trend Yes.

Biggest approval?  Jefferson County with 60%.
Lowest approval?  Colombia County with nearly 65%.

I readily admit that, like other measures, voters may have been confused by this measure.  But again, if we all agree to vote Yes to everything for kids, then we will have a very long list of measures passed.

From all the legislators that I read about/heard from, I don't think there will be much joy in the Legislature.  I also perceive that the Times, given their recent editorial, will be very unhappy about this outcome.  But just as the charter measure was close, so is this one.

Comments

Anonymous said…
So, remember all that business-like talk about "customers" of the district and such by those Broad/Gates/LEV coalition members a few years back when they pitched the "class size doesn't matter" stuff?

Well, how about this business analogy: Your "customers" are DEMANDING smaller class sizes, for the second time, by popular vote. So, will the biz-heads listen this time? Or go back to ignoring what we want, and telling us what we need, instead?

I can't wait to hear the echo-chamber logic from legislators and the Ed Reformers wining and dining them in Olympia about what we can and can't afford, and that Singapore has huge classes and kick our butts in math, etc., etc., etc.

So much for what the "customer" wants. This will be interesting to watch play out.

WSDWG

11/10/14, 2:15 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, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more