The Cost of Central Administration
When I was running for the Board this year I often heard myself saying things that no one else was saying. That's not too surprising since I was running an issues-based campaign and the two other candidates for the position are running issues-free campaigns. Really. Check their web sites. You will find them scrubbed clean of any issues.
One of the things I was saying is that we need to re-define the mission and duties of the central administration and we need to re-define them more narrowly. The State Auditor is right; we don't need so many people working there - particularly in teaching and learning. Let's remember that there is no teaching and learning taking place at the JSCEE. That department needs a few curriculum experts - just a few since we are not developing our own curriculum but adopting either the State Standards and GLEs or adopting the college-readiness standards (when are we going to see a Board vote on that?). They also need some coaches, but not nearly as many as they have. A few coaches who are circulating among all of the schools and a few who are circulating only among the struggling schools or are assigned to specific schools as part of a turn-around plan. Seriously, what else do they need? Their mission is to support what happens in the schools and review it for quality - not to control it.
So when our friend Meg Diaz, who did some amazing analytical work on the absurdity of the recent closures, sent me a link to her blog post about the cost of the central administration, I knew that I had to tell everyone about it. READ THIS and know.
There is something very unusual going on. The Central Administration is growing at the same time that the District leadership is trying to tell us that it is shrinking.
One of the things I was saying is that we need to re-define the mission and duties of the central administration and we need to re-define them more narrowly. The State Auditor is right; we don't need so many people working there - particularly in teaching and learning. Let's remember that there is no teaching and learning taking place at the JSCEE. That department needs a few curriculum experts - just a few since we are not developing our own curriculum but adopting either the State Standards and GLEs or adopting the college-readiness standards (when are we going to see a Board vote on that?). They also need some coaches, but not nearly as many as they have. A few coaches who are circulating among all of the schools and a few who are circulating only among the struggling schools or are assigned to specific schools as part of a turn-around plan. Seriously, what else do they need? Their mission is to support what happens in the schools and review it for quality - not to control it.
So when our friend Meg Diaz, who did some amazing analytical work on the absurdity of the recent closures, sent me a link to her blog post about the cost of the central administration, I knew that I had to tell everyone about it. READ THIS and know.
There is something very unusual going on. The Central Administration is growing at the same time that the District leadership is trying to tell us that it is shrinking.
Comments
Well, I guess I only saw the tip of the iceberg with the Broad folks. (And Communications? Who knew with how slowly things make it to the website?) I had seen they had laid off the guy who fixes blind as well. Just seems unfair but I guess in this economy, life is unfair. Except for the fact that our Backlogged Maintenance stands at roughly $450M and our total budget is $550.
So let's recap; we have major growth in central office staff at a time when we have more demands on teachers and staff (those in the trenches so to speak) AND the rooms they teach in, the buildings these people make careers in are slowly crumbling beneath them.
Once again, I go to the words of Scarlett O'Hara (who really isn't my hero but is a pithy gal like Meg), "Oooh, what I wouldn't say if I wasn't a lady!"
IMHO, the disaster-level stuff that happens in this District keeps happening because far too many people are thinking about the need to be ladies and gentlemen in this.... no-one's calling it for what it is, loudly, clearly, unambiguously... our observations/complaints are all wrapped up in 'fluff', so we can appear to be kind, calm, non-threatening, reasonable, rational, co-operative individuals...
Have been watching the debate on 'civil discourse' that's been going on.... been embroiled in such a debate on my own behalf....
What is so wrong with being 'real', with calling a spade a spade, rather than 'a metal implement used for digging a hole and turning over the soil'?
Speaking about something that happened in my life in the past four weeks and not about Obama - what is wrong with calling a lie a lie, and saying the person who uttered the non-truth lied, especially when they made a conscious choice to speak/write the untruth?
I dont go so far as to label that person a liar, but I do call out the action that they performed - they lied (to have me silenced)...
"Seattle Nice" is a farce that gets in the way of moving things forward.
Did you know that in other countries, Americans have a reputation for being only superficial? That they will speak nicely and appear (by their words) to be friendly, welcoming and interested (they make all the right noises, say all the right things), but in reality they are insular and critical and unaccepting. They have a reputation for not following their words with actions.
I remember reading an article in the Seattle Weekly or The Stranger several years ago, about what it was like for newcomers to the city. Firstly, African Americans coming to the city found it very hard to break into communities and many soon left to return to their previous locations, where they felt more accepted. And people commented on the Scandinavian 'chill' here - the prevalence of very small, tight, exclusionary cliques, people hibernating at home all winter, people offering to spend time with newcomers, but the offer rarely manifesting into actual invitations/confirmed get-togethers...
What has this to do with cost over-runs, top heavy administration?
Well, someone in SPS is LYING about cutting central admin staff... call it for what it is...
Its very hard to put spin on plain, bald facts.... Call it for what it is and see what happens...
Some of us think that postponing the alt schools audit is a response to our actions in exposing Broad influence (and the link to charters) and in pointing out the lack of preparedness by the District and the lack of knowledge, understanding and experience on the part of the auditors, and the inappropriate format (for alt communities) the audit was supposed to take, and the fact that we were asking for input into the raw data, to check for accuracy before a final report and recommendations were published....
I used to hang out with a women's group in Australia... we had as a core philosophy that we would be 'real' with each other... no 'nothing' language... you couldnt say you were FINE... you had to be specific about what was going on in your life... we joked that FINE was an acronym for "F***ed Up, Insecure, Neurotic and Emotional...
And we also had an adage: "Its none of my business what other people think of me"... which is about speaking the truth as each of us sees it.... what greater gift can you give to yourself and others, than to honour yourself and them with the respect of saying and doing what is authentically you?
(Passionately) call it for what it is in plain English, using simple words of two syllables or less, and then see what happens... you wont win any popularity contests, you will probably be castigated, but you will have an impact and help initiate change...
Let it rip, Melissa - I wont think any the worse of you....
Its with the call for civil discourse when people are doing uncivil/uncivilised things in the first place... and asking/expecting that they will be let slide/get away with it under the presumption that civil discourse will not allow for them to be called out...
And then the whole 'go along to get along' spineless palaver that's dressed up in the guise of "civil discourse" and the other side of that coin, where peoples' opinions are put down/discounted because they're expressed in a too 'raw' manner....
BTW.. I'm greatly entertained by the writing style. Did anyone check this though? Is it for real? If it is I'm with MW; holy toledo!
Her work would make a heck of a front page article on the Seattle Times...just sayin'.
Maybe Real Change would like a two-angled education story....
On the OSPI link, I used the pull-down for whichever district I wanted, and then the budget for each year.
Last year, when Meg Diaz presented her information for the APP closure hearings, it was the first time I actually thought that the APP Closure/Split could be stopped. Her fact-based presentation, using the district's own numbers and data to refute so many of their claims, was the single most important reason why I knew the board would vote to reject the plan.
It's difficult not to get your hopes up when you read her reports and, unfortunately, it's her work that has completely reinforced my complete lack of trust in this board's ability to make decisions.
Numbers can be interpreted many different ways but, presented cleanly and honestly, numbers don't lie. Too bad people do.
stu
The money is being mismanaged at a time when every penny counts. Seattle's children deserve better than this.
Melissa -- maybe Meg's data could also be used in your levy petition. I would guess that most Seattle voters would not want to see funding for schools used to further fatten the ranks of admin types in John Stanford Center's bloated bureaucracy, but would rather the money go toward smaller class sizes, more teachers, better maintained buildings.
I realize the Feb. levy may have nothing to do with admin funding, but the data Meg presents is a good example of the fact that SPS does not manage resources well -- and may even be somewhat corrupt. So we could then ask: Why should voters hand SPS another blank check?
It's a legitimate question.
Maybe one of the demands in the petition should be for an immediate and meaningful cut in central admin staff before the levy vote comes up. In other words, we should demand an upfront, good faith and real demonstration from SPS that they will manage funds responsibly, in order to earn the trust and funds from voters.
The media is a for-profit enterprise that is supported by advertising dollars. In short, the job of the for-profit media is to capture eyeballs for their advertisers. Towards that end, their "news" elements report on the stories that offer the highest potential for gathering eyeballs. They don't have a liberal bias or a conservative bias but a bias towards sensationalism and the lowest common denominator. To attract and retain the broadest possible audience, they must pitch their stories at about the 40th percentile for education, intelligence and attention-span. Get a picture in your mind of their target audience - the people who voted for George Bush because they would rather have a beer with him than with John Kerry.
This story does not qualify for use by the for-profit mainstream media because too few people would be interested in reading it, it is too complicated and nuanced, and it has too many numbers. Math is hard. Reasoning is hard. Their audience just wants to know sports scores, celebrity gossip, and political stories no more complicated than a bumper sticker.
Also, this is not a story for TV because there are no good visuals - a bunch of people rabbitting away in cubicles isn't good television.
I can't see KUOW carrying the story, because this is not a story for radio either.
Real Change? A shorter long-shot, but a long shot none the less. They know their audience and would know best if this is their kind of story. The Medium might also be interested if you could extend the story one more line to "and therefore there is less money for targeted class-size reduction in the south-end and schools in the south-end must be closed."
The place to start is with the Board and the Board candidates. Make it an issue for them first.