District Pushes Back on McCleary Fulfillment

Seattle Times article today on McCleary funding which the article indicates seems almost as hazy as the skies over Seattle.

Seattle Schools statement (they are having a media event on Monday which I will attend and bold mine:

McCleary Plan does not achieve state’s paramount duty District also encourages resolution of capital budget
Today, legislators filed briefs with the state Supreme Court explaining how they acted to meet the court’s mandate to fully fund education. While the Seattle delegation fought hard to fully fund McCleary and provide adequate funding to Seattle Public Schools, the McCleary plan passed by the legislature does not fully fund basic education.

Many are applauding the McCleary Plan and consider the work to overhaul state funding of public schools now complete. We disagree.

“We have spent the last few weeks studying the changes and what they mean for our students and families. Of utmost concern is whether amounts allocated for student services and supports, compensation and essential staff positions meet basic education constitutional requirements and district needs.

“We know there are other areas where limits on levies and the net increase in state funding simply will not cover our basic education costs.

 “For that reason, we hope the Supreme Court sees what we see: the McCleary Plan is an important step but does not fulfill the mandate of ample or equitable school funding. 
  “We have said it before: the Legislature deserves credit for their effort. We hope legislators remain open to understanding the real consequences of this new plan and work with us to find solutions in the coming session.

“We also urge legislators to reach agreement on the capital budget soon. Seattle is fortunate in that we can move ahead with our capital projects and front the costs, but others cannot. Safe school buildings are an equally important part of providing an education for all students.”

Comments

Unknown said…
There should be an included cap on administrative positions at central offices through the creation and implementation of a 'Model Central Administration'. That would also increase the confidence in district offices especially in larger districts that they are being staffed to necessity and not cutting maintenance for management. In addition it would ensure that smaller districts or blended districts would get all the support that they need to carry out their duties.

Mr. Theo Moriarty
8/5/17, 12:28 PM
Anonymous said…
I think it would be a good idea for the state to run an analysis on school building maintenance to see which districts are deferring maintenance leading to excessive repair cost.

I would track building maintenance against administrative spending and initiative spending and districts found to be spending excessively for central administrative personnel or projects combined with delinquent building maintenance should be barred for a period of time from receiving funds via the school building assistance fund.

MJ
8/7/17, 2:15 PM
KRW Asbestos Lawyers said…
I agree with the previous comment.
8/7/17, 9:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more