Vancouver resident Justin Forsman exposes what he claims is ‘propaganda designed to guilt the public into approving another school levy, even when the system has done little to earn the public’s trust’
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
Every election cycle, we see the same thing: yard signs, emotional ads, and carefully worded articles telling us to “vote yes for the kids.” But voters in Battle Ground and across Clark County are starting to see through it. And right on cue, The Columbian published a piece in February titled “Voters split on Clark County school funding measures”—which was less journalism and more pressure campaign.

Let’s call it what it is: propaganda designed to guilt the public into approving another school levy, even when the system has done little to earn the public’s trust.
The article claims voters are “split,” but it conveniently avoids a serious discussion about why so many people are voting no. Here’s the truth: Washington already spends more money on public education than ever before—over $17,000 per student per year. That’s not speculation—that’s state budget data following the McCleary reforms.
So if we’re spending this much and still seeing under-resourced classrooms, stressed-out teachers, and declining outcomes, the problem isn’t lack of funding—it’s how the funding is being misused.
In district after district, money is being absorbed by top-heavy administrations, inflated salaries, and union-driven spending priorities. Some superintendents are making over $250,000 per year while basic classroom needs go unmet. Millions of dollars are lost in bureaucracy—not invested in student success.
Meanwhile, major unions aggressively back these levies—not because they benefit the average student, but because they grow institutional power and preserve the status quo. What’s missing? Oversight, transparency, and real reform.
Yet The Columbian article barely touches any of this. It frames opposition as ignorance or selfishness—as if the only reason someone would vote “no” is because they don’t care. That’s not just wrong—it’s disrespectful to voters who are simply asking a fair question: Where is the money going?
Let’s be absolutely clear—voting no on a levy isn’t anti-education. It’s pro-accountability. And I recommend Battle Ground residents and others think hard before automatically voting yes.
If school officials and political allies want support, they should first:
Publish detailed audits showing where the money goes
Cap administrative growth and salaries
Ensure funding goes directly to teachers and classrooms
Tie new funding to actual student outcomes, not feel-good promises
Until that happens, it’s reasonable—even necessary—for voters to withhold support. This isn’t about gambling with the future. It’s about stopping the cycle of waste and forcing the system to change. That’s how we actually help students—not by blindly throwing more money into a leaky bucket.
The kids deserve better. The taxpayers deserve better. And the voters deserve to hear the whole truth—not another emotional campaign dressed up as journalism.
Justin M. Forsman
Vancouver
Also read:
- Letter: Public school visionClark County resident Larry Roe urges a deeper community discussion about public school priorities, levy funding, and the long-term affordability of education for local families.
- Opinion: House Bill 1834 would create a regulatory nightmare and restricts parental control on social mediaMark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 1834 would undermine parental authority and create sweeping regulatory and legal risks under the guise of protecting minors online.
- Opinion: HB 2100 – Tax employers for paying people well? It’s for the needy, sortaElizabeth New (Hovde) argues House Bill 2100 would raise costs, discourage job growth, and expand state spending power under the banner of helping people in need.
- Opinion: IBR’s evasive, misleading and dishonest excuses for higher costJoe Cortright argues the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program has withheld detailed cost estimates while offering contradictory explanations for rising costs tied to the I-5 Bridge project.
- Opinion: The limits for drug-impaired drivingTarget Zero Manager Doug Dahl explains how Washington law defines drug-impaired driving and how officers are trained to recognize impairment beyond alcohol limits.







