Looking at the Seattle Schools' 2015-2016 Budget
The Board is having a multi-topic Work Session today with an update on the Families and Education levy, more Board policies and a presentation
to the Board on the 2025-2016 Budget.
I don't know if it's because I don't read many budgets but I am finding this presentation documentation hard to understand.
It appears - on page 10 - that the district is trying to pay for "strategic initiatives/grant backfill" to about $5M. Seems like a lot given that's money that is NOT going to the classroom.
What is also troubling on that same page - if I am reading it correctly - is that the district says the "materials, supplies, operating costs" are at $20.3M. And yet, they will get $16.5M from the Operations levy. Obviously the two numbers are not equal but the problem for me is that the district gets money from the state for operations. If there is state money plus local levy money, how are they not able to corral the $20M?
They say they have a budget gap of almost $11M.
And look at page 16? Guess who is in a little "cloud" as a resource? PTA. Yes, folks, the district is counting PTA funding as a resource (and apparently, a continuing one). THIS IS WRONG. That kind of thinking is magical thinking because there is no guarantee any given PTA can continue its funding and/or might not change their minds about it.
Page 17, there's a chart showing WSS budgeting from 2011-2012 to next school year. What is not explained is whether the growth in spending - with the two largest areas of Basic Ed and Sped - is based on growing numbers of students OR more spending per student or both. Again, am I reading this chart wrong?
Page 19, "completed pre-mitigation adjustments for unique program needs - 33 teachers" - which schools and what needs?
Also on page 19, "25 FTE for K-1 CSR." Anybody?
Page 22, under FY 2015-2016 Capital Revenue, there's this:
Pending Legislative Ask for Magnolia ($23M), EC Hugh ($5M), MS ($5M)
So we are reopening Magnolia, EC Hughes and something else if the Legislature gives the district the money? This is roughly $32M.
Page 23, they are taking $3M out of BEX IV for "major preventative maintenance transfer." I'll have to go back and look but I don't recall this being in BEX IV. Again, preventative maintenance should come out of the General Fund. (I looked, this isn't in BEX IV.)
I also see a nearly $3M Muir green project. I looked at the BEX IV list - this is not there. I'm all for green projects but not when there is so much deferred maintenance to be done.
There are also supporting documents like the Summary of 2013-2014 General Fund Expenditures by State Activity that makes for interesting reading.
Guess who spends a lot less on professional development? Seattle.
And centered in a lot of white space on its own page is this one - Executive Management. Yes, it has grown both for "all management FTE" and "executive management FTE." Overall, it's gone from 16.7% to 23.1% as a "percent of total management."
I don't know if it's because I don't read many budgets but I am finding this presentation documentation hard to understand.
It appears - on page 10 - that the district is trying to pay for "strategic initiatives/grant backfill" to about $5M. Seems like a lot given that's money that is NOT going to the classroom.
What is also troubling on that same page - if I am reading it correctly - is that the district says the "materials, supplies, operating costs" are at $20.3M. And yet, they will get $16.5M from the Operations levy. Obviously the two numbers are not equal but the problem for me is that the district gets money from the state for operations. If there is state money plus local levy money, how are they not able to corral the $20M?
They say they have a budget gap of almost $11M.
And look at page 16? Guess who is in a little "cloud" as a resource? PTA. Yes, folks, the district is counting PTA funding as a resource (and apparently, a continuing one). THIS IS WRONG. That kind of thinking is magical thinking because there is no guarantee any given PTA can continue its funding and/or might not change their minds about it.
Page 17, there's a chart showing WSS budgeting from 2011-2012 to next school year. What is not explained is whether the growth in spending - with the two largest areas of Basic Ed and Sped - is based on growing numbers of students OR more spending per student or both. Again, am I reading this chart wrong?
Page 19, "completed pre-mitigation adjustments for unique program needs - 33 teachers" - which schools and what needs?
Also on page 19, "25 FTE for K-1 CSR." Anybody?
Page 22, under FY 2015-2016 Capital Revenue, there's this:
Pending Legislative Ask for Magnolia ($23M), EC Hugh ($5M), MS ($5M)
So we are reopening Magnolia, EC Hughes and something else if the Legislature gives the district the money? This is roughly $32M.
Page 23, they are taking $3M out of BEX IV for "major preventative maintenance transfer." I'll have to go back and look but I don't recall this being in BEX IV. Again, preventative maintenance should come out of the General Fund. (I looked, this isn't in BEX IV.)
I also see a nearly $3M Muir green project. I looked at the BEX IV list - this is not there. I'm all for green projects but not when there is so much deferred maintenance to be done.
There are also supporting documents like the Summary of 2013-2014 General Fund Expenditures by State Activity that makes for interesting reading.
Guess who spends a lot less on professional development? Seattle.
And centered in a lot of white space on its own page is this one - Executive Management. Yes, it has grown both for "all management FTE" and "executive management FTE." Overall, it's gone from 16.7% to 23.1% as a "percent of total management."
Comments
Also, did you read the article in the Seattle Times today (3/25) about the 20,000 parent signatures that were gathered by the (apparently pro-CC) Stand For Children organization in favor of a bill that would require student test scores in evaluating public-school teachers? Ack.
Roosevelt Mom
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/Business%20&%20Finance/ExecutiveMgmtPositions.pdf
sleeper
But schools get told what they'll get?
It seems a wee bit backwards. And by "a wee bit" I mean COMPLETELY.
If SPS admin is committed to serving students, wouldn't they figure out what a skeleton administration needs, get students what they need, and then work w/ the leftovers? Instead of growing from 108-ish management positions in admin to 135?
Maybe it's just me.
HIMSmom
wondering
28.5 Management level FTEs???? And 9.6 of those are at the "Executive Management" level???????? And they wonder why they have a budget shortfall and have to depend on PTAs to pick up slack! Classrooms first! Bldg safety first! Remember those kids you are supposed to be serving?
ack this place!!!
read347
That $182K amount is the projected 2015-16 spending on Lincoln. I'm sure there will be more work to be done as we get closer to reopening it as a high school.
Our budget projections for next year had us at 23 more kids's than what we were allocated for this year, but the school received no additional teacher allocation.
The school has been growing steadily since the NSAP, and we have a small 5th grade class leaving...at least it is small compared to the number of kindergartners, 1st graders, etc...
Should be fun!
We added a kindergarten classroom late last summer, and the new kindergarten teacher still hasn't received all her curriculum from the District. It took until about winter break to get the Math In Focus materials for her class.
They really seem to be skimping on the school support end of the budget. I can see not wanting to pull teachers in October, like they did this year, but there is a difference in being conservative and common sense.
- North-end Mom
reader47
I believe the "something else" is improvements to middle school buildings "in distress." The presentation says 4 middle schools.
- North-end Mom
The city had reserved $60M of Family and Education Levy for prek. Why did the city need the Gates grant for Bailey Gatzert? All it needs is already established in the Family and Education levy ..as far as I can determine.
The Family and Ed. levy wants data sharing and used the student ID number to do so. There is also language related to elimination of teacher tenure, Common Core is Required and a p-3 focus.
Previous top administrators (and board members like KSB) have noted that using a "gap analysis" is a crude, simplistic way of building budgets. Many of us have advocated using zero-based budgeting (it doesn't have to happen every year, if it clear that the changes - in top FTE for example - show obvious value-added etc). Zero-based budgeting requires EVERY department and EVERY manager to demonstrate WHY they need this monye. Using gap analysis means they don't have to do that. They just have to show "well, we did this last year and we project expanding $$$ on this same useless thing next year so there's our gap!" All this under Sherry Carr's oversight. Well, as long as SPS can use this as a hammer against our labor "partners"....
Grant backfill reflects the district's past mistakes of getting roped into unsustainable new shiny things. By mixing it up with the "Charles Wright for Supt" fund, SPS gets to make more screw ups. And Wright is in no way accountable. He can sit back and complain that the board won't let him do his job (and I use that term loosely).
MGJ brought in the TIF grant which was valued around $13M and this grant is probably due to expire. The funding was used to create the Academic Warehouse which links test scores to teacher evaluations, career ladders etc. How much of the budget is going to keep this useless warehouse alive?
The budget is absolutely crude. There should be a document that indicates the amount of funding each department is receiving. How much funding is going to the Department of Research, Evaluation and Assessment?
I want to know: How much of a budget are assist. superintendent's given? Millions? This question needs to be asked and answered.
Lastly, it is time to quit flying Harium Martin Morris around the country and there are multiple high level administrators that have payscales and compensation packages that equsl $200K.
Other People
Every piece of string, roll of tape, lens, battery, fish, pulley, spring and beaker is paid for directly by parent donation, or through PTSA fundraising efforts, or by teachers buying the things they need out of our own pockets.
This amounts to about $2500 outlay per year per full time science teacher.
I have great gratitude for the generosity of most parents, and the Ballard PTSA. The situation would be completely untenable without this.
Less impressed with a workplace situation that sets up employees who are committed to their work to pay for basics out of pocket.
What's weird is that the amount per pupil is going up (since 2011 and one Board member said "goodie" without realizing that the money does not appear to be going into classrooms and schools).
That's some pretty fancy coding there!
reader47