Families & Education Levy: A Boondoggle For Meddlers

H. L. MENCKEN once complained that "every third American devotes himself to improving and uplifting his fellow citizen, usually by force." Today, it seems that every third Seattleite devotes himself to the same meddlesome endeavor, usually with taxpayer dollars.

In 1990, voters forked over $69 million for the Families and Education levy proposed by Mayor Norm Rice. Like ants swarming over a piece of bread, sex educators, crisis interventionists, family support workers, and countless other experts pounced on levy money that now funds everything from city-subsidized child care to teen health centers to aerobics to counseling for toddlers and grandparents alike.

This insatiable army of government helpers, committed to the selfless task of minding other people's business, is back for more. In two weeks, citizens will be asked to renew their fiscal commitment to putting the Families and Education levy first (before the streets, a new library and school maintenance, but after the Mariners, Seahawks and RTA, of course).

Have the programs funded by the F&E levy been effective in improving academic achievement? Campaign literature acknowledges that it is "very difficult" to "gage (sic) the success" of those programs, but there's a feeling that higher student test scores can be connected to levy spending. By the pseudo-scientific standards used by proponents of the levy, feeling is believing. And believing is iron-clad proof.

In general, the evidence cited by levy supporters does not include a comparison group, so there is no way of knowing whether a given percentage is high or low. One survey of parents whose children participate in a levy-funded, after-school program found that "62 percent reported a change in attitude or behavior." Compared to what and whom? And why should we assume that "a change in attitude or behavior" is always a good thing?

One quantifiable outcome cheered by levy supporters is condom distribution. The 1990 levy paid for 10 high-school teen health centers, which, according to boastful campaign literature on the levy's "effectiveness," do a dandy job of handing out condoms to kids. "Half of all sexually active students have gotten condoms from school," the report reads, "since they became available through teen health centers or vending machines." Well, give the teen health center directors a few gold stars. Or perhaps a fistful of gold-wrapped Trojans will do.

The availability of condoms is such a critical benchmark of the levy's success that the campaign's effectiveness evaluation cites another striking accomplishment: "Sexually active students were far more likely to get condoms from teen health centers than from vending machines (emphasis in the original)." Yes, and given a choice between a public drinking fountain and paying for bottled water, thirsty students are "far more likely" to get their water from the source that offers a free, limitless supply.

It never seems to occur to well-intentioned interventionists that the government programs they advocate - say, aggressive sex education - might actually have helped cause the problems - say, increased sexual activity among teens - that the programs are supposed to fix. Nevertheless, the teen health centers are so "successful" that the new levy proposal would subsidize up to five new centers in middle schools to "improve access" to "basic" health services.

We're not just talking more free Mickey Mouse Band-Aids here.

Not surprisingly, the existing teen health centers are a hit among Seattle's youth. "The teen health center have (sic) helped me a lot in many different ways," wrote one student in the Yes campaign's promotional materials. "When I was injured from sports at school, I am (sic) always welcome and accepted at the health center. I couldn't go to hospitals because I don't have insurance." The student's ignorance (never mind his writing skills) is astounding given the amount spent educating clients about their health options. Under the existing Basic Health Plan, any teen from a low-income family can easily obtain state-subsidized health insurance at no cost to the student.

Of course, there should be a basic safety net for those who can't help themselves. The city, county, state and federal governments already provide several. Of course, schools should "meet student needs." That's what we pay the school district $350 million a year to do. So why do we need a $69 million spending program on top of everything else?

Those who refuse to acknowledge this fantastic boondoggle are, to borrow the modern meddler's pet phrase, in serious denial. If we're going to tax ourselves to improve education, why not invest $9.8 million a year for seven years directly in the classroom? Let's pay for 100 of the best public school teachers that money can buy and hold them accountable for the results.

Instead, the Families and Education levy has given rise to an unchecked industry of municipal meddlers who view the world as one big waiting room of at-risk patients. This is malpractice in the name of improving education. A collective license revocation is in order.

Michelle Malkin's column appears Tuesday on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is: malkin1@ix.netcom.com.