Disqus

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Seattle Schools This Week

Monday, June 18th
Continuing high school graduations.  Go get 'em, kids.


Tuesday, June 19th 
Continuing high school graduations.  But don't forget the sunscreen.


Wednesday, June 20th
Last Board meeting of this school year.  Agenda.  There appear to be a number of interesting items including the contract between LEV and the district for South Shore (and it looks more like a newish contract than a renewal because of the passage of time since the old MOU was created), vote on the Advertising and Commercial activities policy,and renewal of NWEA contract.

Intro items include policy 2200, Program Placement (now called "Equitable Access to Services & Programs).  I haven't read this yet but Charlie tweeted that it did not appear to make understanding program placement any better.  Also, there is intro of the 2012-2013 Operations and Capital budgets which I really haven't looked at yet. 

There's also always an odd item like the increase in spending for ASB by $225k.  There is more explanation of why they are legally able to do this than why it is happening.  I must have missed this discussion but apparently:

Expenditures for the ASB fund for 2011-2012 were estimated in April-May of 2011 and
approved by the Board in July of 2011.  Expenditures are now at a higher percentage of the total
annual expenditures than in any previous year, and may exceed the original estimate (adopted
budget)
.   

Okay, I'll bite - how did this happen?  Anyone?

Thursday, June 21st 
(Summer Solistice - supposed to be a good weather day for the longest day of the year). 
Operations Committee Meeting from 4-6 p.m.  No agenda available yet.

Friday, June 22nd
Happy to say for all, the last day of school for 2011-2012. 

9 comments:

Jan said...

Sorry to be slow, Melissa, but what is ASB? At universities, it is usually something like the "associated student body" funds -- that funds extracurricular stuff, etc. But that seems unlikely here.

Michael H said...

Yes, Jan. It is Associated Student Body. Each school has one. At elementary schools the principal runs the ASB. At middle schools and high schools the students elect a board and they run the ASB with a faculty advisor. So no it is not unlikely. That is exactly what it is. But there are limits on what they can spend their money on. Its all in state laws and rules.

To answer your question Melissa - How could that happen? Because people are not paying attention to the money they are spending. They don't realize - or don't care - that there are limited funds available. They don't care where the money comes from (taxpayers) as long as it makes the students feel better. What better way to teach a lesson to youngsters than to let them know there are limits and that they can't have everything they want? Instead, nobody reigns in their spending.

Anonymous said...

Could be the buses for field trips. Too expensive and getting worse by the minute.

SavvyVoter

Anonymous said...

Several years ago the School Board voted to remove beverage machines from the high schools. These had been big money makers for the ASBs. There was a promise that the money lost by removing the machines would somehow be made up to the schools, but of course, it was not. The bigger 4A high schools find themselves in quite a bit of debt because the money to pay for the athletic buses, which comes from ASB money, is not sufficiently collected from the already exhorbitant "pay to play" fees. The bigger schools have more teams and have to travel farther for games, resulting in higher transportation costs. It's a mess, not the students' fault. The responsible kids on the ASBs feel terrible about the debt, but have no control over the escalating expenses for athletic transportation.

10 more months plus this week to go

Brita Butler-Wall said...

Actually, the policy did not remove vending machines, but prohibited sale of beverages that did not meet nutritional requirements. The policy required the district to replace the ASB revenues for a semester, to give ASBs time to review and develop alternate fundraising strategies (and perhaps set budget priorities). District-wide 'pay to play' was set up to pool sports fees to level the playing field. Note that the ad policy had been passed years earlier with no impact on ASB fees, contrary to the claims made with the policy change up for a vote this Wednesday. Brita Butler-Wall

Anonymous said...

With all due respect to Brita Butler Wall and the board who allowed its passage- that nanny-state policy adoption has caused nothing but financial harm to schools since it was enacted.

Sign me

"Thanks for nothing"

Anonymous said...

Was the Board really expecting 16 and 17 year old students on ASBs to become overnight entrepreneurs and figure out (in 4 months) how to fund the difference between what ASB is now raising with "pay to play" and ASB stickers only and what they raised with the beverage machines? These kids who already have heavy academic loads, leadership positions in their schools, probably a sport and or music, and all the stress that comes with being a high achieving college bound student? The amount of money they need to raise is no where near the bake sale/car wash category. We are talking tens of thousands of dollars. It was not fair to take away revenue and give them one semester to figure it out. The proof is in the situation the ASBs find themselves in today. The ASBs need our support, not a crash course in fundraising unreasonable amounts of money, each school unto itself. A waste of time and energy these kids should be putting into important things in their lives, not raising money for athletic transportation.

10 more months and 3 days!

Charlie Mas said...

@10 more months and 3 days!

Bake sale? Not during school hours. That would be a violation of the competitive foods policy.

Brita Butler-Wall said...

If the district deems these student activities a valuable part of student development, they can fund them out of general funds. Asking students to drink sugarwater to fund student activities seems like an odd solution. In any case, the ad policy was passed before I joined the board and the ad policy did not result in any loss of revenues to ASBs. The motion to amend the ad policy is a distraction from the real issue.