By now you should have received your ballot in the mail for the February Special Election. Ballots must be mailed or put in a special ballot box by 8 p.m. February 11. The ballot includes two school levies initiatives. This is an Op Ed for voting No on one. You can find an Op Ed from an advocate on voting Yes, here — as well as one from our Editorial Board on why we’re encouraging readers to vote Yes on both levies, here.
Next week, Seattle voters will decide on Seattle Public Schools’ (SPS) proposed operations and capital levies. These levies have consistently passed for thirty years. As a parent of an SPS elementary school student, I was inclined to continue this trend. However, SPS’s mismanagement of levy funds and lack of transparency changed my mind. While I support voting “yes” on the Operations Levy (Prop 1) to fund essential school needs, I urge voters to reject the Capital (BEX VI) Levy (Prop 2).
The $1.8 billion BEX VI Levy, funded by Seattle homeowners over five years, is presented as a means to support “school building improvements” and 90% of the district’s technology operations. However, it also allocates $150 million to replace an unnamed Northeast Seattle elementary school with a 650-student mega-school. The levy’s resolution obscures this significant capacity and provides no details on the school’s name, boundaries, or impact on neighboring schools. While other levy construction projects specify school names and involve “additions” or “modernizations,” this project—one of the most expensive—remains undefined.
Why the evasion? First, levy funds and elementary school closures are intertwined. SPS replaces smaller schools with mega-schools, then justifies closing nearby schools to fill them. Earlier this school year, three of the four schools slated for closure in 2025 were to be consolidated into mega-schools built with BEX V funds. Northeast Seattle now faces uncertainty over which elementary school will be “replaced” and which will be closed to accommodate it. The District’s original closure proposals suggest Laurelhurst Elementary could close in favor of Sandpoint Elementary. If the levy passes, SPS may proceed with this plan under the guise of voter approval.
Second, the District knows school closures are unpopular. Rather than address them directly, they obscure details, hoping voters will approve the levy without question. This was evident at the Northeast Levy information session in January, where SPS Chief Operations Officer Fred Podesta and Head of Capital and Facilities Richard Best provided vague answers to fundamental questions, such as when and how the replacement school would be chosen. They promised community engagement to determine the replaced school but did not outline a clear process. Given the District’s previous hollow community meetings on school closures, skepticism is warranted.
SPS is asking voters to approve a blank check—trust them now, and they’ll provide details later. But they haven’t earned that trust. While they backed off school closures earlier this year, the budget gap remains, and school board members continue to consider closures. Moreover, if declining enrollment makes closures necessary, why propose spending $150 million on a new 650-student school? The only logical explanation is that it paves the way for future closures, causing disruption for students, families, and communities.
The District is forcing families into a false choice: approve the levy and accept potential school closures or risk outdated facilities and inadequate technology infrastructure. This approach highlights SPS’s poor planning. Essential expenses like cybersecurity and backend information technology should be part of the operating budget rather than voter-approved levies. Furthermore, the District should provide specific construction plans rather than vaguely stating it will “replace an aging elementary school.” Families deserve to understand the full impact before voting.
A “no” vote on the BEX Levy conveys that SPS’s mismanagement and lack of transparency won’t be tolerated. Instead, the District should present a revised levy that identifies the school to be replaced, the criteria for its selection, and the effect on neighboring schools. They must also conduct meaningful community engagement before finalizing such a proposal. The District has time to introduce a new levy in the summer, ensuring students and families aren’t unfairly burdened by withheld funds.
I support public schools and want the best for Seattle’s children. However, I firmly believe SPS must improve its communication and community involvement before making irreversible decisions affecting students’ education. Voters should critically evaluate SPS’s record and vote no on the Capital levy.
Read more:
