Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, July 11, 2012
Education / Politics / Money The Best Direct Democracy Money Can Buy
Posted by Goldy on Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Because who better to tell us how to efficiently spend our K-12 education dollars than the billionaires who just spent an astounding $6 a signature to get a charter schools initiative onto the ballot?
1
Privatization has worked out so well for banking, medical insurance and booze. I can't just wait to see how the magical hand of the market saves education. I'm just glad I don't have children.
3
@1 Privatization also did wonders for Russia in the 1990's. But that's distant and irrelevant history.
4
The more money you have, the more successful you are; the more successful you are, the better a human being you are; the better a human being you are, the more weight your decisions, wants and needs should carry. I don't know why you all don't understand this yet.
5
Millionaires clearly know what is best for Washington's children - much better than parents and the lowly teachers who have more education than most of the millionaires. Their money gives them increased IQs, and they feel obligated to do something for the lower class in the easiest way possible - by tossing some money at it - and going for the mirage of a quick fix.
They do this in the hopes of 1) assuaging any guilt for having tons of money 2) garnering power and favors from those of their social class, and 3) to get handouts and $$ for their buddies and their own private enterprises.
Pearson now has a large stake in charter schools - not to mention high stakes testing and the new common-crap core curriculum. But there's no conflict of interest there, I'm sure.
Nor is there any conflict of interest in the fact that KIPP schools use lots of TeachForAwhile candidates and TFA head Wendy Kopp is married to the head of KIPP and they got lots of money from Arne - idiot - Duncan and his Race To The Bottom fiasco that has created even more chaos in public Ed than No Child Left Untested. Privatization is a good thing - right? It'll put state tax dollars in the hands of national for-profit corporations with questionable spending habits and no oversight save for a rubber stamping committee. Sounds like a winner. For everyone BUT kids.
They do this in the hopes of 1) assuaging any guilt for having tons of money 2) garnering power and favors from those of their social class, and 3) to get handouts and $$ for their buddies and their own private enterprises.
Pearson now has a large stake in charter schools - not to mention high stakes testing and the new common-crap core curriculum. But there's no conflict of interest there, I'm sure.
Nor is there any conflict of interest in the fact that KIPP schools use lots of TeachForAwhile candidates and TFA head Wendy Kopp is married to the head of KIPP and they got lots of money from Arne - idiot - Duncan and his Race To The Bottom fiasco that has created even more chaos in public Ed than No Child Left Untested. Privatization is a good thing - right? It'll put state tax dollars in the hands of national for-profit corporations with questionable spending habits and no oversight save for a rubber stamping committee. Sounds like a winner. For everyone BUT kids.
6
@1 - Charter schools aren't private. Apparently the controversy is simply that they take public money but don't have to deal with all the same bureaucracy that state schools do.
7
Good thing that none of the existing schools, homeless shelters, or animal shelters need any munnies.
8
@ 1 The state has an obligation to be involved in health care and schools, it has no business being in the booze business.
9
@6 Charter schools are private; they are publicly funded private schools that can exclude kids in any number of ways, both overtly and covertly.
Don't want poor kids in your charter? Great - don't offer transportation or serve lunch.
Want to make sure they all speak English? Make your application process too much trouble for all but the truly motivated and/or racist.
Want to make sure your kid gets in despite the "lottery"? Make a $mall "donation" to the charter school and watch your number magically come up in the lottery.
Want to make sure there are no special Ed kids? Make sure you admit them, then after the state head count, explain that the parents need to find someplace else to go to better meet their child's needs.
Don't want to deal with kids with any behavior issues at all? Kick 'em out.
If you think this won't happen here, then you've been sniffing too much glue lately. I-1240 is so poorly written that everyone of these things can and will happen if 1240 passes.
Don't want poor kids in your charter? Great - don't offer transportation or serve lunch.
Want to make sure they all speak English? Make your application process too much trouble for all but the truly motivated and/or racist.
Want to make sure your kid gets in despite the "lottery"? Make a $mall "donation" to the charter school and watch your number magically come up in the lottery.
Want to make sure there are no special Ed kids? Make sure you admit them, then after the state head count, explain that the parents need to find someplace else to go to better meet their child's needs.
Don't want to deal with kids with any behavior issues at all? Kick 'em out.
If you think this won't happen here, then you've been sniffing too much glue lately. I-1240 is so poorly written that everyone of these things can and will happen if 1240 passes.
11
I can only feel sorry for someone who votes for a bill written by a corporation thinking that it's supposed to benefit 'us', the only reason you write a law as a corporation is to gain more money. If you want a private experience take it up yourself, my money will not go to your religious school. I'm not interested in the cherry picking of students, I'm interested in giving every kid the best education possible regardless of income as I thought we put into our constitution. I doubt anyone willing to pay $6 a signature + the propaganda campaign they're running to get this passed has the best interest of the state at heart. Nice try.
12
The theory behind charter schools is that someone can go and invent a better wheel by cutting through the bureaucracy of the public school system, and thus be more innovative.
There are several problems with this theory:
- There is significant variance: some charter schools can show better performance than public schools (but see further points below) and others show worse performance. Nobody is enrolling their child into a charter school thinking they're going to get one of the worse ones, but somebody has to.
- Depending on the specific system, charter schools may be able to cherry pick students, and thus of course show better results than the average public school.
- Charter schools often raise funds from businesses and individual donors, which can allow them to engage in what would be very expensive programs. They can do this because they're small compared to the public schools. Thus, the innovations you get may have no chance of scaling to the entire school system, and if your innovation can't scale to all students in the system, what good is it?
- Charter schools can circumvent unions, whether the intent is to reduce the teachers salaries or avoid labor disputes (probably both). Many see this as a good thing, but there's a reason the teachers unionized in the first place. If you expand that model to the entire school system (that is, bust the teachers unions) do you suspect you'll end up with better teachers overall or worse teachers? Does paying someone less for the same work on average result in higher quality or lower quality?
- To make up for the point above, charter school teachers may be more motivated than average (and thus, willing to work for less), since they're dealing with a smaller system and may feel like they are agents of change. But how long can that be kept up? You can't have a system in which all teachers are more motivated than average. Also, the teachers may not be as accredited if the charter schools are allowed to circumvent the normal qualification requirements. Note: there are charter schools that hire unionized teachers; in fact in NY I think there are charter schools operated by the teachers union (I may be wrong about that though).
I like what some high profile charter schools, like the Harlem Children's Zone, have done. But I question how well their models scale. There are only so many corporations and millionaires ready to dole out money, and the more students you try to expand a model to, the more expensive it gets. Also, will the labor relations hold out in the long run, or will they just end up refighting all the same labor battles?
Nobody likes needless bureaucracy, but much bureaucracy exists for a legitimate reason, or at least there was a legitimate reason when it was put into place. When you find aspects that almost everyone agrees are needless, then it's just a matter of getting past the entrenched interests of the bureaucracy itself. But charter schools don't do that. They take a small subset of children and leave the rest for the public schools.
I believe we can reform public schools to be more innovative, more experimental, and to offer more control to school administrators and teachers, without basically handing everything off to private corporations. Those charter schools that do exist and do good work are only useful to society at large if their innovations can be expanded for the majority of students. That's the only reason that public funding should go to them. Anything else is discriminatory toward those few students lucky enough to win a lotto.
More...
There are several problems with this theory:
- There is significant variance: some charter schools can show better performance than public schools (but see further points below) and others show worse performance. Nobody is enrolling their child into a charter school thinking they're going to get one of the worse ones, but somebody has to.
- Depending on the specific system, charter schools may be able to cherry pick students, and thus of course show better results than the average public school.
- Charter schools often raise funds from businesses and individual donors, which can allow them to engage in what would be very expensive programs. They can do this because they're small compared to the public schools. Thus, the innovations you get may have no chance of scaling to the entire school system, and if your innovation can't scale to all students in the system, what good is it?
- Charter schools can circumvent unions, whether the intent is to reduce the teachers salaries or avoid labor disputes (probably both). Many see this as a good thing, but there's a reason the teachers unionized in the first place. If you expand that model to the entire school system (that is, bust the teachers unions) do you suspect you'll end up with better teachers overall or worse teachers? Does paying someone less for the same work on average result in higher quality or lower quality?
- To make up for the point above, charter school teachers may be more motivated than average (and thus, willing to work for less), since they're dealing with a smaller system and may feel like they are agents of change. But how long can that be kept up? You can't have a system in which all teachers are more motivated than average. Also, the teachers may not be as accredited if the charter schools are allowed to circumvent the normal qualification requirements. Note: there are charter schools that hire unionized teachers; in fact in NY I think there are charter schools operated by the teachers union (I may be wrong about that though).
I like what some high profile charter schools, like the Harlem Children's Zone, have done. But I question how well their models scale. There are only so many corporations and millionaires ready to dole out money, and the more students you try to expand a model to, the more expensive it gets. Also, will the labor relations hold out in the long run, or will they just end up refighting all the same labor battles?
Nobody likes needless bureaucracy, but much bureaucracy exists for a legitimate reason, or at least there was a legitimate reason when it was put into place. When you find aspects that almost everyone agrees are needless, then it's just a matter of getting past the entrenched interests of the bureaucracy itself. But charter schools don't do that. They take a small subset of children and leave the rest for the public schools.
I believe we can reform public schools to be more innovative, more experimental, and to offer more control to school administrators and teachers, without basically handing everything off to private corporations. Those charter schools that do exist and do good work are only useful to society at large if their innovations can be expanded for the majority of students. That's the only reason that public funding should go to them. Anything else is discriminatory toward those few students lucky enough to win a lotto.
13
@ 11 has it totally correct. This initiative was NOT written locally and has the most harsh "trigger" law embedded in it in the country.
A charter applicant can circulate a petition at ANY school, failing or not, and if a majority of parents OR teachers sign it, that school is gone, baby , gone.
Say you have an elementary school with 30 teachers, 16 sign the petition and Poof! 16 people have changed an entire community. It's craziness and it's not done ANYWHERE else in the country.
That's just the start.
Apparently the controversy is simply that they take public money but don't have to deal with all the same bureaucracy that state schools do.
No, the controversy is that the initiative, whether you like charters in theory or not, is crap. It is terrible and will hurt districts and taxpayers (read: you) alike.
Do not vote for this thing. It's a beast.
A charter applicant can circulate a petition at ANY school, failing or not, and if a majority of parents OR teachers sign it, that school is gone, baby , gone.
Say you have an elementary school with 30 teachers, 16 sign the petition and Poof! 16 people have changed an entire community. It's craziness and it's not done ANYWHERE else in the country.
That's just the start.
Apparently the controversy is simply that they take public money but don't have to deal with all the same bureaucracy that state schools do.
No, the controversy is that the initiative, whether you like charters in theory or not, is crap. It is terrible and will hurt districts and taxpayers (read: you) alike.
Do not vote for this thing. It's a beast.
14
Billionaires boys club import from ALEC the "best" thinking and puts up millions to buy an election. Same group of consultants killed the soda tax, promoted liquor privatization and now charter schools. What's not to love? If you've got money, you know best. If you don't have money, shut up!
15
@13 The initiative was modeled on legislation that was discussed in Olympia this past year but did not make it past the Stonewall Caucus.
16
@9 No, charter schools are not private and it's really slick of you to state that as a fact when it's very untrue. They're funded with public money from the same revenue sources as traditional public schools, based on enrollment--just like traditional schools. Money follows the kids. I'm not really sure why this is even controversial. Read the initiative--it allows 40 charters schools. Anyone know how many traditional schools there are? Almost 2,400. We're supposed to be in favor of diversity and choice. Education should not be any different.
17
@16 God, another PR-spewing sock-puppet account created in the last hour. Not only is your pablum annoying and deceptive, so are your tactics. Piss off already.
18
@15, is the "Stonewall Caucus" to blame for charter schools being turned down over and over and over again? Interesting that we haven't heard that before.
19
@17 The truth isn't "PR," and your quick dismissal isn't really a response to the point. I never come on this site (gosh, I can't figure out why), but this issue is going to bring a lot of people out for a debate. Free your mind.
20
@8, if the state wasn't involved in the booze business, do you have any idea the number of impurities and chemicals designed to make you more addicted to booze that would be present in your Mike's Hard Lemonade (I can only assume that this is your drink of choice)?
The state has every reason to be in the booze business. They might not have any reason to make it illegal, but they have an obligation to heavily regulate it to keep the public safe from the alcohol manufacturers, if nothing else.
Also, now that they're out of the booze sales business here in WA, booze is more expensive, if also more widely available.
It wasn't that hard to get drunk before the new laws were enacted, and having the state make a few bucks off of booze sales to keep taxes lower benefited everyone.
Just for fun, you might want to think about some stuff before blurting other stuff out.
Yeah, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're also entitled to jam your head up your ass. Give the latter a try next time in lieu of the former. Who knows? You might even like it better.
You're half way there already and you seem pretty proud of yourself, what can it hurt to go all the way?
The state has every reason to be in the booze business. They might not have any reason to make it illegal, but they have an obligation to heavily regulate it to keep the public safe from the alcohol manufacturers, if nothing else.
Also, now that they're out of the booze sales business here in WA, booze is more expensive, if also more widely available.
It wasn't that hard to get drunk before the new laws were enacted, and having the state make a few bucks off of booze sales to keep taxes lower benefited everyone.
Just for fun, you might want to think about some stuff before blurting other stuff out.
Yeah, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're also entitled to jam your head up your ass. Give the latter a try next time in lieu of the former. Who knows? You might even like it better.
You're half way there already and you seem pretty proud of yourself, what can it hurt to go all the way?
21
@1
I've heard rumors of private institutions of learning that use government money which are highly successful.
If I recall correctly, there are IV of them...no, that's not right. There used to be IV of them, but now there are XIII of them...maybe even more.
I don't know if charter schools are the answer, but saying that it's stupid to have private institutions of learning that are allowed to take in tax dollars?
Seems like just a small bit of effort to look at the other side of the issue could have prevented you from tripping over your tongue there.
I've heard rumors of private institutions of learning that use government money which are highly successful.
If I recall correctly, there are IV of them...no, that's not right. There used to be IV of them, but now there are XIII of them...maybe even more.
I don't know if charter schools are the answer, but saying that it's stupid to have private institutions of learning that are allowed to take in tax dollars?
Seems like just a small bit of effort to look at the other side of the issue could have prevented you from tripping over your tongue there.
22
@16 & 17 You ARE a PR hack who just created an account to comment on this.
Charter schools ARE NOT public schools, despite the fact that part of their revenue comes from public tax dollars (and they don't have to disclose where the rest of their revenue comes from).
Public schools are required to take ALL kids. Charters are not. Furthermore, charters can - and do - find a myriad of ways to rid themselves of kids who are difficult to teach for whatever reason. Ever look at the numbers for the KIPP schools? They may start with 150 kids in 5th grade, but by 6th and 7th grade, that original cohort of kids could be down in the 50's and 60's - and most of that is not self-selected removal. And those kids who are gone? End up back at the public schools, while the charter crows about their test scores, which really aren't all that remarkable.
Charters have had 20 years in other states to prove that they are SO much better than public schools. Funny thing - they're not. In fact about the only time they outperform public schools is when it becomes a prestigious rich kid schools (see Reed Hastinga' Pacific Collegiate school in CA where parents are "encouraged" to "donate" $5000 to get their kid in) or when they dump a shitload of money in, as they do with Harlem Children's Zone.
I lived (and still do part-time) in a state with charters. They are the "white flight" schools, where the Utah Mo's can get their kids away from the brown kids, and where teachers can be hired on the cheap because they don't have to be certified for their first few years of teaching. There are all kinds of shenanigans there - legislators OK charters, a relative gets the charter and has another relative sell the land for a charter school to be built, relative 3 owns the construction company to build the charter school, relative 1 hires all the family members to work in the charter, the administrator hires a bunch of "teachers" for $15,000 less than a public school who can be fired at-will so they won't speak up and pockets the difference - it's a great scheme to put public monies into private hands. Then there's the Gulen schools, which funnel money back to a Turkish religious sect and play all kinds of games with employees and visas and such, and the out-of-state corporations that claim to be non-profits and run the charter schools while pocketing all kinds of state money.
1240 as written is a horrible initiative. You are the one that needs to free your mind and do some critical thinking and research. Unless, of course, you're making money off this initiative because you've been paid off by Bill Gates and the Waltons.
More...
Charter schools ARE NOT public schools, despite the fact that part of their revenue comes from public tax dollars (and they don't have to disclose where the rest of their revenue comes from).
Public schools are required to take ALL kids. Charters are not. Furthermore, charters can - and do - find a myriad of ways to rid themselves of kids who are difficult to teach for whatever reason. Ever look at the numbers for the KIPP schools? They may start with 150 kids in 5th grade, but by 6th and 7th grade, that original cohort of kids could be down in the 50's and 60's - and most of that is not self-selected removal. And those kids who are gone? End up back at the public schools, while the charter crows about their test scores, which really aren't all that remarkable.
Charters have had 20 years in other states to prove that they are SO much better than public schools. Funny thing - they're not. In fact about the only time they outperform public schools is when it becomes a prestigious rich kid schools (see Reed Hastinga' Pacific Collegiate school in CA where parents are "encouraged" to "donate" $5000 to get their kid in) or when they dump a shitload of money in, as they do with Harlem Children's Zone.
I lived (and still do part-time) in a state with charters. They are the "white flight" schools, where the Utah Mo's can get their kids away from the brown kids, and where teachers can be hired on the cheap because they don't have to be certified for their first few years of teaching. There are all kinds of shenanigans there - legislators OK charters, a relative gets the charter and has another relative sell the land for a charter school to be built, relative 3 owns the construction company to build the charter school, relative 1 hires all the family members to work in the charter, the administrator hires a bunch of "teachers" for $15,000 less than a public school who can be fired at-will so they won't speak up and pockets the difference - it's a great scheme to put public monies into private hands. Then there's the Gulen schools, which funnel money back to a Turkish religious sect and play all kinds of games with employees and visas and such, and the out-of-state corporations that claim to be non-profits and run the charter schools while pocketing all kinds of state money.
1240 as written is a horrible initiative. You are the one that needs to free your mind and do some critical thinking and research. Unless, of course, you're making money off this initiative because you've been paid off by Bill Gates and the Waltons.
23
Barack Obama spent $10.50 on each vote he got in the 2008 election.
Spending money to get people to agree with you is how every political measure works in this country. Just because you do not agree with the proposal does not mean it was "bought" any more than Obama "bought" the 2008 election.
Spending money to get people to agree with you is how every political measure works in this country. Just because you do not agree with the proposal does not mean it was "bought" any more than Obama "bought" the 2008 election.
24
Run for president of the entire country and get an intiative on the ballot in washington are very different ball games. It seems to me that being able get the teachers unions under their thumb is main point of this intiative.
25
Dammit, @23, if that's true, somebody else pocketed my $10.50! I voted for Obama, so WHERE'S MY MONEY?
That apple of yours seems mighty citrus-y to me.
That apple of yours seems mighty citrus-y to me.
26
@23 the difference being that only a few big spending people bought these votes.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99824493/YES-O…
Obama had millions of dollars from millions of people.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99824493/YES-O…
Obama had millions of dollars from millions of people.
27
And suddenly, sanity struck and they all decided to vote for Dr. Jill Stein in 2012 from the Green Party.
Obviously, sanity will never strike....
Obviously, sanity will never strike....
28
All I am saying is that paying people to go around and collect signatures and airing ads to convince them to sign is not buying signatures anymore than a person running for president buys votes.
I am not making any statement about the initiative itself, or speculating on the motives at all, I just think that Goldy's headlines about this issue are misleading. Journalists should not be deliberately misleading to push their own agenda.
Is there any evidence that the people trying to get these signatures bribed anyone?
I am not making any statement about the initiative itself, or speculating on the motives at all, I just think that Goldy's headlines about this issue are misleading. Journalists should not be deliberately misleading to push their own agenda.
Is there any evidence that the people trying to get these signatures bribed anyone?
29
Also, I think we can all agree that if this was a measure for marriage equality, and $6 per signature was spent, neither Goldy nor The Stranger would have called that "buying democracy."
I mean, let's be real.
I mean, let's be real.
30
Some charter schools take all kids, some don't. Some public schools take all kids, some don't. I spent years working with kids the public schools wouldn't/couldn't deal with.
There are lots and lots of poor people whose only local school is too violent or otherwise unsatisfactory to them. And there are lots and lots of poor people who are very, very grateful to have charter schools as an alternative.
It's strange that so many here seem to think that only rich people should have educational choices for their kids.
There are lots and lots of poor people whose only local school is too violent or otherwise unsatisfactory to them. And there are lots and lots of poor people who are very, very grateful to have charter schools as an alternative.
It's strange that so many here seem to think that only rich people should have educational choices for their kids.
31
@16 Charter schools are not public; they are private. Their revenue may come from the government, but they are privately owned. They are as public as Lockheed.
The question of public or private turns on ownership, not revenue source.
And it's really slick of you to state that as a fact when it's very untrue.
The question of public or private turns on ownership, not revenue source.
And it's really slick of you to state that as a fact when it's very untrue.
32
Here in Washington State every school district has some process that allows families to move their children to another school if they don't like their assigned school.
Also, families have the option of enrolling their children in another district. People do it all the time.
And here in Seattle school choice is not a problem at all.
People have choice, even poor people have choice. If they didn't, Rainier Beach High School would be full.
Also, families have the option of enrolling their children in another district. People do it all the time.
And here in Seattle school choice is not a problem at all.
People have choice, even poor people have choice. If they didn't, Rainier Beach High School would be full.
33
This entire campaign has been financed by nine rich guys.
Nine rich guys paid to get it on the ballot and nine rich guys will buy enough media to convince the un-informed to vote their way.
When democracy is for sale, don't be surprised when someone buys it. We sold our democracy and we didn't even get anything for it. Just another common resource abused by the powerful. It's no different from when 1%'ers pollute our air, our water, or our soil for their profit. Now they have polluted our democracy. What next?
Nine rich guys paid to get it on the ballot and nine rich guys will buy enough media to convince the un-informed to vote their way.
When democracy is for sale, don't be surprised when someone buys it. We sold our democracy and we didn't even get anything for it. Just another common resource abused by the powerful. It's no different from when 1%'ers pollute our air, our water, or our soil for their profit. Now they have polluted our democracy. What next?
34
@32 So if the only school that a student and/or parents are happy with is on the other side of town, that's plenty of choice?
This is from the "Middle School Choice Form" at seattleschools.org:
All students start with an assignment. Complete this School Choice Form only if you would prefer a different school assignment. You keep the original school assignment unless your child is assigned to one of your choices. If you are not assigned to one of your choices, your student will be placed on the waiting list for your first choice school.
So, obviously, the choices are limited.
There's no reason whatsoever that people shouldn't be allowed to vote on what kind of education system they want for their kids. If the charter schools don't satisfy the parents, they'll go elsewhere. That's the cool thing about choice.
And imagine if you were lower class and unhappy with your local school and on a waiting list for a school that's on the other side of town. You might be happy to have another choice in your neighborhood. And you probably wouldn't appreciate it if someone with a larger political agenda accused you of being "un-informed."
This is from the "Middle School Choice Form" at seattleschools.org:
All students start with an assignment. Complete this School Choice Form only if you would prefer a different school assignment. You keep the original school assignment unless your child is assigned to one of your choices. If you are not assigned to one of your choices, your student will be placed on the waiting list for your first choice school.
So, obviously, the choices are limited.
There's no reason whatsoever that people shouldn't be allowed to vote on what kind of education system they want for their kids. If the charter schools don't satisfy the parents, they'll go elsewhere. That's the cool thing about choice.
And imagine if you were lower class and unhappy with your local school and on a waiting list for a school that's on the other side of town. You might be happy to have another choice in your neighborhood. And you probably wouldn't appreciate it if someone with a larger political agenda accused you of being "un-informed."
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS