During Eastmont’s operating levy debate, opponents of the levy argued that more fiscal support would not solve public education’s problems, but voting for parental power and financial support to decide their child’s place of education would. That argument is wrong for two reasons. First school revenues would still need voter approval under a voucher system. Second choice is not a magic solution for our educational problems.   
    Nathan Scott declared education is not a shared responsibility. Instead, “Education of the child has always been and always will be the responsibility of the parents. Shared responsibility only applies to parents who place their children in a public education environment.” 
Wrong. Voters have approved compulsory education, meaning the community shares responsibility with parents. I support compulsory education because frankly I do not have confidence in the ability, interest or resources of every parent in this community to adequately educate their child as a citizen.  
    I have no children in this system, but supported the local levy. My individual local revenue contributes 25 cents per student per year for the 5,450 students in Eastmont. My share of other state tax revenue that flows from property and sales taxes pays $1.25 per student, which is a bargain. 
    For that money, youth learn language, computing, music, cooperation, obedience and other skills that improve social, physical and mental wellbeing. Students are assessed for special education and health needs, and participate in cultural, academic and athletic activities. And we know where they are because unexplained absences are less than one-half-of-one-percent. I couldn’t keep track of my kids that well.   
    Advocates of choice say control of the money gives parents power equal to school system and teachers’ unions. But our current system gives voters control over education. Elected board members supervise the school, which must ask for levy and bond approvals, and are responsible to elected officials including the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, legislators and governor.
    When parents do not like a child’s special education plan, they can demand an administrative hearing held by the independent Office of Administrative Hearings. Parents have forced school districts to pay for private education because their child’s education plan was inadequate.
Choice advocates believe competition would drive up quality in a competitive system. I found no proof that is true. At the US Department of Education website, there is valid evidence public and private education are equivalent.
    I am not arguing against voucher systems, which have been adopted in other states and nations. But do advocates honestly believe parents would have all the control if they want to use my tax money to choose private schools?  Do supporters of school choice believe I would no longer have a vote on which schools would be supported in a choice system? 
    Education in our community is a shared responsibility for every citizen, not just parents. We need to work on real issues, not false conflicts of levies versus choice. We need money and cooperative leadership to get good education.