Proposed end to staff reductions after the start of school
The Board Audit and Finance Committee agenda for yesterday included a proposed change to Policy 6010, School Funding Model, which, if adopted, will prevent mid-year classroom shuffling and staff reassignment caused by
enrollment overestimation.
Director Peters is introducing this motion and she has a lot of stuff to back it up. Including a number of letters of protest to Superintendent Nyland about staff reductions this year. It's good that Director Peters included them because, as we now know, the Superintendent doesn't make it a practice to read letters.
Director Peters shows that the staff reductions make little sense - staff is reduced at schools due to under-enrollment while the school has a wait list for enrollment, the costs of the staff reduction wipes out most of the savings, and the staff reductions are incredibly disruptive to students and their education.
We'll see how it goes.
Director Peters is introducing this motion and she has a lot of stuff to back it up. Including a number of letters of protest to Superintendent Nyland about staff reductions this year. It's good that Director Peters included them because, as we now know, the Superintendent doesn't make it a practice to read letters.
Director Peters shows that the staff reductions make little sense - staff is reduced at schools due to under-enrollment while the school has a wait list for enrollment, the costs of the staff reduction wipes out most of the savings, and the staff reductions are incredibly disruptive to students and their education.
We'll see how it goes.
Comments
-sleeper
NW Mom
What I don't understand is how this policy makes any difference unless it also prevents the ADDITION of staff after school starts. Adding a teacher late is just as disruptive at any level. At elementary, it requires students to be shuffled around on the fly after a lot of care is put into balancing them in the first place and after kids have gotten used to one set of routines. At middle school, in both sixth and seventh grades, my daughter's schedule was completely upended with new teachers in October when new teachers were added, not taken away. Basically, kids lose September. What's more, in my experience, most of the teachers hired in October have not been effective -- they are given no time in the summer to get ready for the year and they are likely the ones who were passed over for positions earlier.
The policy needs to figure out how to align projections and actual enrollment in a way that good numbers, specific at the grade level at each school, can be determined and then held to and staffed to by June, or early August at the latest. Only major surprises should face October adjustments. Otherwise, the district needs to hold a tough line that eats the cost of staff where it wasn't needed and makes the best of a tight situation if numbers come in higher than expected.
I haven't read the proposed policy but I'm worried it just prevents cuts and therefore will encourage district bean counters simply to underestimate early on to stay in compliance.
Emile
Thanks for your comments and support but I can’t take credit for this proposal. It’s the thoughtful work of a group of community members and organizations including Kids Not Cuts and Soup for Teachers, and it was presented to the Audit and Finance Committee on Tuesday by parent Jennifer Ogle, whom I invited to the table to explain it. (My name was attached because I added it to the agenda.) Thank you, Jennifer.
Former Assistant Supt. for Business and Finance Ken Gotsch, current Deputy Supt Stephen Nielsen and I all thought it deserved discussion, and in the greater context of crafting the district budget.
Clearly the issue of staffing adjustments after the school year begins is a problem that concerns many of us. Such changes can be enormously disruptive (and heartbreaking). Seattle is not unique in making such adjustments. But maybe we can be unique in finding a better solution.
How feasible it is to lock in all staffing decisions before school begins and before the official (October) enrollment count is in, is the challenge. As we grapple with this, in the meantime the district has created a $2 million mitigation fund (which I and others requested, and I like to call the 'Student Stability Reserve') -- money set aside to cover some (unfortunately not all) of the potential costs of keeping staff in place after the official October student count (which is what has traditionally triggered the staffing adjustments).
As we delve deeper into formulating the budget for 2016-17, now is the time to bring forth ideas on how the district can do more with what we have, what priorities we as a district and community would like to bring to the top of the list, what we might take off the list, and what trade-offs we would consider.
In fact, I invite Melissa, Charlie and readers to start a thread or send the Board emails on their Dream Budget or People’s Budget (with a nod to Councilmember Sawant, who initiated a similar proposal with the city's budget): What would you like to see added to the school district budget? What would you like to see removed?
Because we are working within the reality of an unfulfilled McCleary mandate and thus limited resources (the state's failure to fulfill its Constitutional duty to amply fund public education), everything we add to our wish list will require an adjustment somewhere else in the budget.
What expenditures or initiatives should stay or be added? What should go? How can we make the most of the resources we have to better serve our students, teachers and schools?
The current Seattle School Board is seriously committed to directing as many resources as possible to the classroom. (As all boards likely are.) My own position is that we need to fund the fundamentals first. My question to you all is: How do we define fundamentals? Counselors? IB programs? Language immersion IAs? New curricular materials? School supplies? More staffing--where? Wraparound services? Ample time for lunch and recess? Fully resourced libraries for all schools? Arts and PE for all students? A computer for every student? Cultural competency training?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Sue Peters
sue.peters@seattleschools.org
(Chair, Audit & Finance Committee)
Jennifer
Alki parent
Definitely not a computer for all student. This would be a huge waste of money.
The new WSS funds counselor positions at "high poverty" schools, now defined as over 50% FRL, which leaves many schools with no counselor, and puts the burden of funding this position on PTAs, which is a difficult task, especially for schools with significant FRL populations (but evidently not significant-enough to warrant funding for a counselor).
-North-end Mom
Thank you for whatever part you played in this, Sue. It really is draconian. I understand that we have actual limited dollars to spend, but I would way, way rather have my child one year in an unfortunate surprise 29 kid class all year while another kid at a random other school gets a lovely surprise 21 kid class all year than have us all settle in and then in October rearrange every kid in the grade(and others if this involves splits) in both schools. Emile it right, you lose September that way, and that is certainly more harmful to lose a whole month than the extra 4 or 5 kids being in class all year.
-sleeper
Eliminate 1st grade HCC. This should help with some of the capacity crunch at these schools.
Eliminate computer-based standardized testing for Kindergartners, First and Second graders and simultaneously eliminate computers in the classroom for those grades (I do realize not every school has computers in the classroom - is this 100% PTA funded? I don't know.). The computers are only used for test prep and playing online games during rainy day recess.
Use this money on art teachers and nurses and school councilors.
-Making Waves
It is difficult to readjust a budget, but one possibility would be to stop switching math curriculums every year or two. It has been such a waste of resources.
- Northender
My child's elementary classroom has three new desktop computers and as far as I can tell they've never been used. The teacher (2nd grade) feels they're unnecessary and I agree.
Every elementary school should have a counselor and a full time librarian. Every school should have a line item budget allocation for library materials. That should not be something decided by the BLT. Textbooks and supplies are basic education expenses.
Things that are not part of a basic education: classroom computers and iPads, language immersion IA's, IB and coaches for sports. If parents at some schools are allowed to donate money for these enhancements, parents at every school should be allowed to provide the extras they value for their child's school. If this inequity is unacceptable, it should be unacceptable at every school.
Every year people post to this blog that they told the district they weren't coming and the district didn't get the message. A simple phone call might help.
Further, a formal change in policy vs. an operational change is always a good idea when dealing with downtown. Downtown changes operations and personnel more often than my niece changes her style.
JSYN
- MemoReader
Sped Reader
The registration page mentions no moves after May 31:
http://www.seattleschools.org/admissions/registration
As seats become available, Admissions staff contacts waitlisted students about an assignment offer to their choice school (or program). Once families receive this offer, they have 48 hours to accept or deny the choice assignment. Waitlist moves will continue through May 31, 2016. Click here to view the waitlist numbers by school, grade, and program.
SPed Reader
NW Mom
What money saved? There is no additional cost for HCC beyond busing and the state pays for that. Differentiation should happen in early elementary - but does not as evidenced by the number of children who move to HCC for 1st and 2nd grade. If you're thinking we could save money on testing, the state requires the opportunity for identification (testing) to be available every year from K-12.