The Schoolhouse That Wasn't: Seattle’s Bureaucratic Battle Over Public Education

THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

An article published in Tuesday evening's Tribune, after making some criticism on what it alleges to be the plan of the School Directors, closes in the following language: "Before any further step is taken by the directors in the building of the proposed house, we hope they will consider the matter in all its light and bearing, and will do the right thing for the school children and taxpayers without regard to their own peculiar notions or prejudices."

The writer seems to think the directors have indulged their hopes and prejudices on the subject under consideration. Perhaps they have, but there are but few that have found it out, and many more ignorant of it than themselves.

Let us state a few notorious facts: Last year when the special tax was voted, the directors were ordered, or required, to buy block forty-nine—the block referred to in the article under review—and to build a school house on it. They were also directed by the same meeting (which was duly called for the purpose), to buy certain lots and build a school house of a certain description at Helltown.

The kind of a house to be built on block 49 was not designated by the meeting. The directors did buy the lots designated at Helltown, and the said block 49, and did build the school house at Helltown, and then, on account of the slowness of paying the special tax, the directors have waited until now to get money enough in the treasury to proceed to do what they were directed to do by the only authority having a right to speak in the premises; and now the directors are only prospecting in order to ascertain whether they can get a serviceable and suitable building put up for the money in hand.

So far as the writer is informed, there has never been an idea entertained by any director, or any one else, that such house, if built, was only intended to last two or three years; but it has been suggested that the house ought not to be expensive, as possibly in five or six years the city might be wealthy enough to put up a building that would be a credit to the city.

So much for that part of the article. Now as to the new departure—the University project. The plan suggested by the article is not very plain or distinct. If it looks to the blending of two authorities—the Regents and Directors—we do not see how it is likely to work smoothly or well, especially without some law to authorize and regulate it, and if it is intended to take money from the district, to be used for educating students, under the control and management of the regents, we think the plan cannot succeed without a change in the school law.

But one thing is plain to our mind these questions should not be agitated or discussed in a way to produce ill feelings. The very best that can be done ought to be done. Early in June there is to be a Territorial teachers' meeting to be held in Seattle, at which time it is in contemplation to have present a draft of a new school law, when and where the friends of education ought, if practicable, to be present.

The contemplated new school house will be useful to the district if built, and the money could not be used for other purposes without further action, either by the voters or Legislature, and it is even doubtful how far the voters could now control its expenditure, it having been voted and paid in for a special purpose.

CONTRIBUTOR.