1. K-12 Instruction
2. Preschool (because it requires dedicated space and licensing)
3. Before and After Care (because it is more flexible in utilizing multi-use space)
4. Other Youth Activities
5. All other Activities
Currently, it looks like most of the impact will happen at the elementary level of buildings, but this space prioritization is applicable to all buildings. Additionally, an evaluation of space needs will happen on an annual basis and any impact to an organization or partner would be communicated as soon as possible to allow time transition. Just because you are receiving this letter, does not mean that you are losing space that is currently being used. This is a general notification. In the event that the space currently being used by your organization needs to be prioritized for K-12 instruction, a specific letter referring to the applicable lease would be sent with a timeline attached.
You see that? Pre-K BEFORE other before/after school care.
Budget Items from the Work Session:
Budget presentation (scroll down in document to see it). Really interesting page 6 which is the Current Year Enrollment by Grade Band (prior three years plus a 10 year previous). The growth has been largely in grades 1-5 and high school enrollment has decreased since 2006.
Upside: potential prior year carryover support, teacher reassignments for adjusted enrollment and possible decrease in transportation expenditures.
Downside: acutal enrollment budget variance ($4.3M) and SEA labor contract above anticipated budget ($3.5M)
So the staffing adjustments are both a good and bad thing for the district's budget. Interesting.
As well they are still waiting for find out about the OSPI/DoE SPED funding holdback of $3M. The other unresolved issue is "unfunded needs" at $71M. They identify these as:
- add 5 minutes to lunch/recess
- bell time shift
- African-American Initiative (which I believe only applies to boys)
- Close Opportunity GAP (sic)
- Sped/ELL program expansion
- start of school process improvements
- IB funding
- School funding model enhancements
- Restoration of pre-recession central operations support
Speaking of enrollment, here are the latest numbers as reported at the Work Session yesterday (which I only picked up the handouts and did not hear the discussion.)
2014-2015 Oct 1 headcount 52,060
Projected 2015-2016 headcount 53,090 (a difference of 1,030 students)
Actual 2015-2116 headcount 52,324 (a difference of 766 student under)
So the actual growth for this year is only 264 students which is down from the 411 figure that Superintendent Nyland gave at Board meetings in the last month. (See page 6.)
On staffing cuts, I want to point out the plight at Lowell. They are serving a number of homeless students (last year, adding 20 children in kindergarten with 10-15 additional students who are homeless/transitional, in grades 1-5.) Lowell also serves kids with life-threatening medical issues. They have about 31 children in this category. Even though these children are high-risk, very few have 1:1 support so all teachers/staff have to work to support them. Adding to that, this is year three of the district encouraging families children with vision needs (including blindness) to attend Lowell. The WSS adds weighting for deaf/hard of hearing students but not those with vision impairments.
That's a lot for one school to take on AND to see their staffing cut.
I am hearing about other schools with higher numbers of homeless students. I am told by Garfield PTSA that they have at least 200 students.
Also, a reader sent me this link to Board Policy 6010, School Funding Model. As the reader said, this almost seems like a "parallel universe" considering the lack of transparency in the school funding model and difficult in understanding it.
I also want to do an update on some capital issues, specifically at Loyal Heights, Cedar Park/John Rogers/Olympic Hills but that will be a separate thread.