Being a parent is nonstop hard work, which makes it hard to stay on top of news that impacts families locally. This Hits Home is your weekly round-up of news, commentary, and, occasionally, opinion from our writers here at Seattle’s Child and news sources like The Seattle Times, Washington State Standard, KUOW, Cascade PBS and others. Want to have a say? Look for the “Take action” prompts. Here’s the update for the week of Sept. 28-Oct. 4.
Flu has arrived early in Washington state
Fall has brought more than colorful leaves, a bit more damp, and a return to classrooms. It has also brought the flu to Washington state earlier than usual. This year’s flu strain is expected to cause moderate to severe illness, although predictions are fraught. But, with its early arrival, now’s the time to get your kids’ flu vaccines, especially if they are especially vulnerable to flu complications or around grandparents and other older people at higher risk. Read more on this story.
LISTEN: Less recess, more learning?
Seattle Public Schools started the new school year with a change to recess: Elementary students will now receive 30 minutes of recess each day. For some students, that means less outdoor break time than in previous years, and the change is drawing criticism from some parents. KUOW education reporter Noel Gasca explains the new policy and the concerns surrounding it.
Rising family expenses: PSE proposes new rate hike
Food costs are up. Gas costs are up. Housing costs are up. Families certainly aren’t catching a cost-of-living break this year. And they won’t get one from Puget Sound Energy if regulators approve a proposal to hike its rates by 30 percent. You can bet residents were up in arms at a recent meeting, urging state regulators to toss out the proposal from Washington’s biggest utility. PSE provides gas and electricity to 850,000 homes in King County. Read more on this story.
What does Washington get for its education spending?
Washington state provides about $16 billion a year in state funding for K–12 public schools. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal is asking lawmakers for nearly $2 billion in additional K–12 funding for the 2027–29 biennium, including about $1.2 billion aimed at what he says are gaps in funding the state’s constitutionally required program of basic education. So what are our students getting for all that money? The Seattle Times Education Lab looked at the question this week, and you may be surprised by what reporters found. Read the story
Ferguson joins Murray in urging voters to say no on I-638
Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has joined the line of people and politicians urging voters to vote no on Initiative 638, which would ban trans girls from participating in girls’ school sports in Washington. The initiative would also, in effect, require girls who want to participate in sports to prove their gender.
“Washingtonians should know that I-638 won’t create opportunities for girls, but it will force them into invasive sex verification exams in order to participate in sports,” Ferguson said. “That’s why I’m urging Washingtonians to vote no.”
Senator Patty Murray joined the governor last week in speaking out against I-638 and Initiative 001, which would revert Washington’s “parental rights” law to original 2025 language. Opponents like Ferguson and Murray argue that the initiative weakens child abuse protections, creates conflicts with existing laws, removes crucial safety exceptions for vulnerable students, and could compromise student privacy or safety in unsafe home environments:
“I-001, sold as ‘parental rights,’ would actually weaken the requirement that schools notify parents about crimes against their kids at school,” said Murray. “These initiatives won’t make a single kid safer or a single game fairer. Before I was a Senator, I was a PTA mom. I know when something is being sold to parents under a false label, and that’s exactly what these initiatives are: a cynical political project being bankrolled by a single far-right mega-donor.”
Feds release guidance on new federal K-12 scholarship tax credit program
The federal government has released new rules for the Education Freedom Tax Credit, a program launching in January that will give taxpayers a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for donations to approved scholarship organizations. Those organizations can use the money for private-school tuition as well as tutoring, books, supplies and other education expenses for eligible students. Thirty states have signed on so far, and states have until Jan. 1 to decide whether to participate. Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has not yet announced his decision on whether our state wil participate in the program or not, and has until the end of December to do so, although he has voiced misgivings. Read more on this story.
Number of opioid overdoses has declined for Washington youth
Washington youth opioid overdoses and related emergency-room visits have fallen sharply from their 2023 peak and are approaching levels seen before the pandemic, according to state health data. Suspected overdoses among young people are down 62%, ER visits are down 52%, and opioid deaths among children dropped from 31 in 2022 to 12 in 2024. Health experts point to greater awareness of fentanyl, wider access to naloxone and addiction treatment as possible factors, but caution that youth opioid use remains a serious concern and prevention and treatment efforts need to continue. Read more on this story.
Parents, consider these five things when it comes to your kids and AI
Last week, The Seattle Times hosted an expert panel discussion on how parents can help kids navigate AI, especially as chatbots begin to feel less like tools and more like companions. In simple terms, the event offered five takeaways to parents:
- Pay attention to how your child is using AI. Using it for homework or information is different from relying on a chatbot as a friend, adviser or confidant.
- Watch for signs of unhealthy attachment. Be concerned if a child increasingly turns to AI instead of people, hides conversations or feels the chatbot understands them better than anyone else.
- Remember that chatbots tend to agree with users. That can reinforce a child’s point of view instead of helping them work through conflicts, consider other perspectives or solve problems themselves.
- Keep talking with your kids about AI. Ask what they’re using, what they like about it and what kinds of conversations they’re having, rather than simply banning the technology.
- Make sure kids know people—not AI—are the place to turn in a crisis. Parents should make it clear that a chatbot isn’t a therapist or substitute for a trusted adult or mental health professional.
Thank you Seattle City Council, because stores shouldn’t know what I’ll feed my family | Op-Ed
As parents trying to get by on a budget, what we don’t need is more surveillance. Especially in our grocery stores.
Especially when that surveillance could be used against us; for example, making us pay more for milk, bread, diapers — name your family staple — than the person standing behind us in the checkout line.
Especially when that surveillance has the potential to further the inequities between families with means and those without, the haves and the have-nots.
What surveillance am I talking about? Surveillance pricing. The Federal Trade Commission describes personalized pricing as the use of personal data to set prices based on what a company believes an individual shopper is willing to spend.
In plain English: A store can potentially use what it knows about you and your family to help decide what you pay.
But before I go on, I forgot at least one “especially”: Surveillance pricing is especially concerning when the information being collected is personal — what you buy, how often you buy it, where you live, where you work, what race you are, your browsing and shopping history, even what you leave sitting in an online shopping cart.
Let’s say, for example, there’s no other shopping option nearby where you live. Or you walk to the same grocery store to collect food for your family because it’s the nearest one and you don’t drive. Or you shop there because you need to save on gas. And why wouldn’t you? The average price of regular gas in the Seattle area right now, according to AAA, is about $5.71 per gallon.
By virtue of your location and need, you could become a sitting duck for higher prices.
Individualized pricing gets more troubling if an algorithm concludes that you regularly buy a product and are unlikely to go elsewhere. Why offer you the lower price? In fact, why not charge you more?
That’s not just a dystopian grocery-store scenario. The Federal Trade Commission has been investigating surveillance pricing since 2024, including its use in the grocery industry. Its initial findings show that pricing technology companies can draw on a wide range of information — even mouse movements on a webpage — to tailor prices and promotions to individual shoppers.
The FTC has also found that companies selling these technologies pitch them to retailers as tools that can increase sales, revenue and profits. In other words, the goal isn’t necessarily to make groceries more affordable for working families.
What we do need are strong consumer protections around how our personal information can be used to determine the price of basic necessities.
And on that count, thank goodness we live in Seattle.
On Sept. 22, the Seattle City Council voted 7–2 to approve Seattle’s Fair and Transparent Pricing policy, legislation aimed at protecting residents’ privacy and keeping grocery pricing transparent. Seattle’s ordinance uses a better, unflinching definition of surveillance pricing: “algorithmic-based price discrimination.” It is the first city-led consumer protection measure against surveillance pricing in the nation, according to city officials.
Seattle’s new rules put restrictions on what large grocery retailers and certain other covered businesses can do with shoppers’ personal information when setting prices. Seattle’s legislation specifically points to the possibility that companies could use personal data to determine things like a shopper’s “urgency of need” and “geographic constraints” — exactly the kind of situation I described above.
Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, a sponsor of the legislation, hit the nail on the head:
“Groceries are getting more expensive for everyday Seattleites, while the buying, selling, and leveraging of our private information to manipulate prices is making big national grocery corporations millions in profits.” Read my full opinion.
