SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 - Proposition No. 1 · Spokane County

Labels are based on a detector's reading of the text and are not a claim about the author.

The statements in this pamphlet are printed exactly as submitted. No spelling, grammatical, or other corrections have been made.

Hide highlighting appears humanappears AI-editedappears AI

Statement For · Carol Wendle

statement likely AI

Committee: "For" Statement Committee

Spokane Public Schools has a proven record of delivering results for students while being a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. The district has earned exemplary ratings on annual independent financial audits and has responded to historic inflation through innovative efficiencies and careful financial management. Over the past several years, SPS has reduced staffing by more than 200 positions to maintain a balanced budget while protecting student services. That responsible stewardship is producing meaningful results. With free preschool offerings and a focused commitment to ensuring every student is reading proficiently by the end of third grade, SPS is making significant gains in early literacy,. Those investments are helping students succeed throughout their educational journey. SPS is graduating more students than ever before, more students are completing Advanced Placement coursework, and more graduates are entering high-where demand career and technical education pathways. SPS is also opening a new Trades High School in partnership with Spokane Community College, expanding opportunities for students to graduate prepared for college, apprenticeships, military service, or family-wage careers. The Educational Programs and Operations (EP&O) Levy is a replacement levy that provides essential local funding for programs and services not fully supported by the state. Representing approximately 14% of the district’s operating budget, this investment supports smaller class sizes, special education, school safety, mental health services, nurses, counselors, technology, career and technical education, advanced learning, arts, athletics, and extracurricular activities.

Rebuttal of argument against

SPS has reduced 200 positions in recent years to address inflation and balance the budget. Without the replacement levy, SPS would face cuts to another 700 positions providing direct services to students. It is false to suggest levy dollars fund extra salaries, they fund basic positions serving students, including nurses, counselors, coaches, and safety staff. Facts and outcomes matter: Over 70% of SPS students were proficient in literacy (ELA) on state assessments last spring.

Statement Against · Russell Neff

statement likely AI

Committee: "Against" Statement Committee

We all want great schools Wanting great schools and approving this levy are two different things. Spokane families are already stretched. With a poverty rate near 20% and unemployment at 5.2%, a continued $1,000 tax per year on a typical home’s property tax bill is not a small ask. This levy requests the maximum rate allowed by law, $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed value, for three straight years. That’s on top of rising grocery, housing, insurance, and utility costs that are already squeezing household budgets. Here’s what the levy money actually pays for Roughly 97% of last year’s levy went to extra salaries and benefits not covered by state funding. Washington’s Constitution is clear; the State is responsible for funding basic education. That includes staff compensation. Local homeowners should not be the backstop for the State’s funding obligations. And the results don’t justify the request Currently 40% of Spokane students don’t meet math standards, 32% fall short in English, and nearly one in three are chronically absent. More money is not the answer. The problem isn’t funding, it’s what’s happening in the classroom. Students will still be educated if this levy fails The State guarantees it and funds it. Extracurricular activities will still exist, and schools will still fully function. Voting No is not a vote against students or teachers. It is a vote for fiscal reflection, taxpayer relief, and placing the burden of funding education exactly where the State Constitution says it belongs, with the State.

Rebuttal of argument for

Cutting 200+ positions proves the district can work with less, yet this levy asks taxpayers to fund “extra” staff beyond basic education guaranteed by state constitution. Inflation burdens taxpayers too, not just schools. Requesting the maximum levy rate ($2.50 per $1,000 assessed home value) shifts costs onto homeowners, hurting fixed- and low-income families hardest. Amid record state and local tax increases, how much “extra” staffing, mostly funding salaries, can taxpayers truly afford right now?