Seattle Schools Releases Final Staffing Adjustments
Update: I almost hate to post this but the Times decided to opine on this issue. I'm not sure most of you will appreciate it. Basically:
The district is not eliminating staff positions because of lower-than-expected enrollment but instead is moving some teachers and staff to the schools with the most demand.
But they also say this which is funny considering they NEVER hold senior leadership accountable for lack of transparency in spending:
While it’s clear the state must put more money into education, it’s also true that individual school districts must spend every dollar as effectively as possible — for the benefit of students.
end of update
From SPS Communications (Editor's note: I broke up this press release into more paragraphs for easier reading):
The district is not eliminating staff positions because of lower-than-expected enrollment but instead is moving some teachers and staff to the schools with the most demand.
But they also say this which is funny considering they NEVER hold senior leadership accountable for lack of transparency in spending:
While it’s clear the state must put more money into education, it’s also true that individual school districts must spend every dollar as effectively as possible — for the benefit of students.
end of update
From SPS Communications (Editor's note: I broke up this press release into more paragraphs for easier reading):
SEATTLE–Seattle
Public Schools will add certified staff to five schools next week, and
reassign only seven certified staff to other schools, out of nearly
1,100
general education staff (elementary, middle, K-8).
As the district
shared earlier this month, 52,399 students are enrolled in the district
this year, according to the 10-day headcount (9/30). This is an increase
of 411 students over last year. However, while
we have more students this year, the number is lower than projected by
675. This translates into $4.23 million less in revenue from the state,
not including the enrollment decline impact on Special Education,
Transportation or Nutrition Services.
Some schools
have increased enrollment, some have decreased enrollment. This made it
necessary to add more staff at those schools with higher enrollment and
to reduce staff at those with lower enrollment,
with a couple of unique exceptions based on classroom configuration.
SPS district staff have worked closely with school leaders to address
the timeline during the reassignment process. This has resulted in a net
reduction of 21.5 full-time positions.
Eight
start-of-school substitutes were added district-wide and funded
centrally in schools where principals believed their enrollment may be
higher than the district projection. Principals used this resource
to support smooth start of school efforts. The goal was to reduce the
number of classes without a teacher, and to mitigate for last minute
enrollment changes.
Five of the six elementary and middle schools that
received a substitute did not qualify to keep
this position.
One of the schools, Green Lake, will add a full time
teacher.
The six substitutes pulled were at the following schools:
Emerson, John Hay, Schmitz Park, West Woodland, Washington and Queen
Anne.
Those staff will be assigned to hard to fill
positions and assigned to one building rather than different daily assignments across the district.
Some schools have enrollment
changes at the grade level, as compared to projections, that generated
the need to add staff in some schools but also reduce in other schools.
The five schools adding staff members are:
Green Lake 1.0 addition
Rainier View 1.0 addition
Viewlands 1.0 addition
Madison 2.0 additions
Hamilton 1.0 addition
The seven schools who have been impacted by the need to reassign a staff member are:
Jane
Addams .4 partial displacement
1.1 internal funds, 1 reassigned to Broadview Thomson as
part-time building designated substitute
West Seattle Elementary 1.0 displacement Reassigned to Lafayette
North Beach Elementary 1.0 displacement Reassigned to Bagley
K-6 Stem @ Boren 1.0 displacement Reassigned to Rainier Beach
Highland
Park Elementary 1.0 displacement
Reassigned to Emerson as building designated substitute
Dunlap Elementary 1.0 displacement Reassigned to Kimball
Bryant Elementary 1.0 displacement Reassigned to Viewlands
Five schools had individuals choose to slightly reduce their contracts in order to remain at the school:
Sand
Point .5 vacant position
closed, .2 reduction, .3 funds restored with internal/external
Wedgwood .5 vacant position closed, reassigned to Roxhill as .5 building designated sub
Broadview Thomson Vacant position closed, two staff reduced .5 each to job share
Whitman
Vacant position closed, two
employees reduced .2 each, .4 funds identified, .2 to be determined
Madrona K-8 .5 vacant position closed, two staff reduced .2 and .3 each
The following schools either closed vacant positions or found alternative funding:
Alki Retained in position due to community funding
B.F. Day Grade one combined, vacant position closed
Beacon Hill Vacant position closed
Concord Vacant position closed
Bailey Gatzert Funds restored with alternative funding
Laurelhurst Vacant position closed
Lowell Vacant position closed
Martin Luther King Vacant position closed
Olympic View Vacant position closed
Queen Anne Allocation had not been utilized yet
Roxhill Two vacant positions closed
Denny Alternate funding identified
Special Education:
Out of 900 staff members, four teachers and eight instructional assistants were reassigned to other schools.
English Language Learners
We added ELL services to 35 schools (all schools now provide ELL services).
Out of 326 ELL teachers, 3.5 positions were reallocated.
We
understand families and staff are impacted by these changes. The SPS
Human Resources Department staff continues to work closely with every
building to ensure clarity and support
throughout this process. Those seven staff being reassigned, have been
assured that being reassigned has no impact on their contract status,
FTE level, pay, benefits or retirement.
Comments
-Steve
Full disclosure
sped reader
Confused
"reassigned" = "removed from a school"
"alternative funding" = "school paid ransom to keep teacher, check didn't bounce"
Awesome.
-SPS Math
The average presumes that all grades are roughly equal
* OSPI funding is approximately 22.5:1 for high poverty and 24.33 for low poverty.
* SPS funding via the WSS is approximately 24:1 for high poverty and 24.67 for low poverty
Here are the schools with a building ratio, higher than the WSS average.
Bryant 24.67
Greenwood 24.71
Adams 24.73
Schmitz Park 24.73
Coe 24.77
Fairmount Park 24.95
Hay 25.00
APP at Lincoln 25.07
Olympic View 25.11
West Woodland 25.33
Lafayette 25.37
Wedgwood 25.37
Alki 25.88
We would like to thank Matt Ficcaglia, Sam Riedeman, and Toby Jarman for teaching and supporting our students since the start of the school year. Due to lower than expected enrollment, these teachers will be leaving our school. We wish them all the best in their new endeavors.
?????
North by NW
What's more the obfuscation with language like 'vacant position closed' - I'm assuming that means a teacher was cut there - not reassigned, there is just no longer a position at that school and they were cut or put in the substitute pool or something (otherwise wouldn't they would be in the 'reassigned' list. And why are schools getting letters saying they are losing staff (see Whitman one above- losing 3 teachers) when they are not even on the list in the press release. Seems they are not providing complete information. Why am I not surprised?!
Typical
Reader
-reality check
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like even if SPS administration "overstaffs" schools using the WSS, they would still be ahead of what OSPI gives them and not need to make cuts, wouldn't it?
-ranting
Final ELL Staffing Adj
Here are the SpEd FTE adj:
SpEd Oct Adj Summary
Here are the GenEd FTE "reassignments"
Gened Oct Adj Summary
After the school allocations were developed which included mitigation (mega-spreadsheet provided earlier), and classrooms configured just so - the district applied two additional contingencies: all schools had ratios adjusted for smaller class size based on PASS recs (26 FTE), then SOS subs were hired.
Then once school starts, the bean counters apply this process:
SOS Staffing Adjustment Process
I have a lot of problems with this kind of "right-sizing". Why pretend to offer mitigation or equity factors when you end up going with WSS ratios, overages, and # of butts in seats/classroom configuration anyway!? This is not "service-based budgeting", a practice that, believe it or not, Central based its (climbing) budget on. How's that workin' out?
One thing I WILL say is good is the assignment of dedicated subs to some buildings. This should mean the district will stop misdirecting SpEd funding and harming students by pulling SpEd teachers out of their classrooms to sub in Gened classes. This would never happen the other way around and is a practice that must stop or the district will pay.
In what way do middle school grades matter?
I think the problem with standards based grading arises when it's translated to percentages. If it's used correctly, progress on each standard should be reported separately with no summative final grade. The point of standards based grading is to refocus attention from grades to the skills/content a student is expected to learn in this class.
-LCP
The WSS provides LESS money than is provided by the State of Washington. I am OK with this conservative funding, because some schools do cost more.
HOWEVER, the entire point of the WSS was that a school was GUARANTEED that they would NEVER fall BELOW that amount.
That is why so many schools started the year with a sub. Many principals only want to make a permanent hire for a position that is guaranteed under the formula.
The list of elementary schools that I provide are all schools who "most-likely" being funded at LESS than the WSS provides. I say most-likely because without a detailed list of per grade enrollment, I can't be 100% certain.
However, that list is long enough that some of those schools and likely a few that have a lower ratio but special program should also be on that list.
The bottom line here: These staffing cuts are opportunistic cuts, not policy based cuts. These are places where the Start of School team decided that it was more important to fund the 28.6 NEW staff that have been added downtown rather actually fund the buildings as promised.
And since I have zero doubt these were indeed "opportunistic" rather than necessary cuts, I am, as always, beyond appalled at the callous way HQ treats what should be their NUMBER ONE priority - kids in the classroom.
arrrrghhhhhhhhhhh!!!
reader47
The state fundings high school at 28:1 but SPS funds at 30:1. That different is 3-4 teachers at most high schools. That is why the proposed teacher cuts at Garfield last year was so crazy. The WSS already does NOT provide enough funding for high schools.
The WSS was intended to be the bare minimum and then high schools would be added back 2-4 teachers based on how complicated their master schedule would be. Garfield, Ingraham and Sealth have the most complex master schedules due to the vast range of types of students in their enrollment, combined with programming commitments for Advanced learning.
Here is my logic:
* The budget must be approved by the board. My understanding is that the entire point of having an elected board is to approve and oversee the budget
* The budget was for a minimum set of standards for each building but there are now buildings receiving less than the minimum.
* So what happens when administrators make a change that is substantial enough to actually change the approved budget.
And they did this by staffing at less than minimum ratios in schools. Which means there are some dollars floating out there that should have been in the "designated for classroom staff" pot but have gone elsewhere.
If any part of that is true, then logic would suggest the Board would be involved. But this is SPS-land, where logic doesn't apply....hmmmm...
reader47
Transparency Now
SchoolFinance Newbie
Our local levies cover 25% of operating costs. As long as the state is funding 75% of our actual payroll for certificated staff, we should be able to staff at the levels included in the state budget.
Transparency Now,
In the past unique exception schools were K-8s without enough students to create two classes per grade (Madrona), language immersion schools without enough students to provide a separate class at each grade for each language, schools with two separate programs (Montessori or Advanced Learning) and a school like JAMS that pulled students from two different schools and needed (temporarily) to provide more language electives than a typical school.
The short answer is no. The long answer is still probably no, but so hard to ascertain and explain that most people would nod off long before they got through the entire thing.
The state only funds base salary, and their allocation is based on a salary schedule they set up. Districts do not necessarily follow that salary schedule though. They don't have to. There are some specific minimums they have to maintain but otherwise they structure and fund their salary schedules as they see fit in coordination with their local union.
The specific raises negotiated for the new contract are not for base salaries, they are for what is called TRI pay. That pay is funded from local (levy) money.
FYI, we aren't at a 25%/75% split anymore. It's closer to 30/70 now.
GarfieldMom
I just read the SOS Staffing Adjustment Process that mirmac posted and it was a rather shocking.
Apparently there are TWO Staffing formulas. There is one formula for 26 elementary and K8 schools and then another formula for the remaining schools.
Here is an average presumes that all grades are roughly equal
* OSPI - 22.5 student per teacher for high poverty and 24.33 students per teacher for low poverty.
* SPS funding FOR 26 SCHOOLS, NOT IDENTIFIED - 24:1 for high poverty and 24.67 for low poverty
* SPS funding, everyone else - 25:33 students per teacher for high poverty and 26.67 for low poverty
So, wow! 26 schools get one formula, which is pretty close to OSPIs formula and everyone else, just gets the budget development formula.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/286878820/CSIHS-Sped-Funds-IB
There are some things I like about standards based teaching/grading. I like the focus on everyone working to meet specific standards. It seems clearer to me how one can be successful and it decreases the practice of grading on a curve.
BUT, what I don't like about it is that some teachers interpret standards based grading to mean all you teach is the basic standard. If the student meets the basic standard, they get a "Meets Standards". The only way the student can get above a "Meets Standard" is if they are taught and tested on materials above standard, proving they are above standard. So if the teacher doesn't teach/test anything beyond standard, the student is never able to get more than "Meets Standard".
Convoluted
One problem that I observed really starts with parents. There were still parents registering children for school two weeks after school had started. We also have the problem of kids coming from charter schools (which isn't a problem in Seattle).
I don't know if SPS still requires this or not. I do know that each year there were less money for Art/Music/PE/Library/Counselor in the budget. We never had an art teacher, the counselor was only .5 even though there were > 500 kids (and we almost lost him completely, until the decision was made to lose the Vice Principal instead). In the meantime there are more more assistant superintendents and directors created down in central admin each year.
CCA
A reasonable person would expect that when the district is funded on a per student basis and there are fewer students, then there would be a corresponding reduction, using the same ratio that is used for funding those same teachers.
* FTE were removed from buildings at a ratio of ONE FTE for every 15.5 students in the enrollment shortfall. This is dramatically different from the OSPI funding formula and SPS formula.
* The staffing formula that is used during budget development, would have generated approximately 18 FTE for the 465 K8 students. However, the total adjustment was approximately 30 FTE.
During all the changes to transportation and boundaries and school closures, the message was, we have to protect the classrooms. These cuts are sending the opposite message.