What Will Happen the First Day of School? (Part Two)

CFO Bob Boesche sent Dorothy Neville a reply and a follow-up to her questions about understaffing and its ramifications on the first day of school.  I personally was a bit confused by some of his answers and I guess the only answer at this point is to wait and see.  But, keep in mind, the Board and the staff knew that any poor outcomes were entirely possible and did nothing to protect the most likely to be overenrolled schools.

His first e-mail said this (and I edited it down):

The attached document should provide additional specifics, but I want to clarify that this is not a "hiring freeze" in the traditional sense.

Hiring freezes are often long-term in nature. In this case, we will be making key adjustments within the first two weeks of the school year. Decisions will be based upon actual enrollment, addressing schools which are under, as well as over, in staffing.

In the past, SPS often did not take away staff at schools which were under-enrolled. We can no longer afford to over-staff. We will need to transfer staff from under-enrolled schools to fill similar positions in those schools which are growing. If we aggressively fill positions, we will have little flexibility to address these transfers.

This is a fine line which the district wishes it did not have to walk. However, with the high likelihood of mid-year legislative cuts and only one year of experience with the current Student Assignment Plan, cautionary steps are prudent.

Dorothy writes back thanking him for the info. She says:

While there are some unknowns, there should also be strong indications for at least some schools that they will absolutely meet expected enrollment and beyond. The situation at Garfield last Fall left a lot of people in the city angry. So I would have expected this hiring slow-down to be site specific, in areas of the city where there is the most concern about enrollment predictions. Since transportation hasn't changed for high schools, you should have better predictors for high school enrollment. Your explanation does not point to any such differentiation between schools with more iffy predictions of enrollment vs those with more solid predictions. You can believe the citizens who have been keeping track of demographics will cry foul if this affects the schools with which citizen data analysis has been more accurate than district data analysis.

So, I would have thought a more fair approach would be to protect the schools most likely to be crowded, least likely to have enrollment shortfalls, whereas your department decided the most fair thing to do would be to halt the hiring process across the board in a gradual way, allowing for those advanced in the pipeline, no matter what school, to be hired. I can imagine arguing that your process makes sense, for practicality. Reasonable people will disagree with either definition of fair or practical. I suggest that more parents, teachers and citizens would have considered my definition over yours a better course. It seems like using my definition of fair would have impacted fewer students overall.

You state that there were 580 positions open due to resignations, RIFs and retirements. Well, I would not expect a RIF to lead to an open position. The approved budget predicts enrollment growth and the need for about 110 more FTEs. Are those 110 included in that 580 figure?

Substitutes are screened and qualified for their positions? I would have to say that's debatable and not what I heard last year at Garfield. However, you do what you have to do. One question: will there be non certified teachers working under emergency substitute certifications in the substitute pool? Ie, TfA novices who still need board approval for their conditional certification?

Both of these are well-reasoned arguments. Any thoughts?