BEX V/Budget Work Session Today
Today's Work Session has two parts; BEX V and the budget for next school year. I'll be attending the BEX V section. Here is the agenda which contains both parts.
Key pages
Page 23 - List of short-listed BEX V projects. I don't know that I agree with the whole list but it looks solid. It appears that the downtown high school is off as there needs to be additional discussion.
Page 64-65
Probably the most complete list I have ever seen (thanks, Director Geary!) of BEX/BTA funds spent for every school.
Page 111 is the start of the Budget section which is, well, pretty much bad news.
Page 114 shows that PTA funding has gone down by nearly $1M. (They note that this does NOT include booster club money which is where much of the big money raised comes from, particularly at the high school level).
Page 115 - Rainier Beach HS received a $300K IB grant from OSPI.
Page 116 - A particularly bad page about enrollment. Last school year should have been a signal, there was a slight drop, and then the big drop this school year. And it wasn't just that they expected new students but they lost students.
I have to wonder at the reason "Seattle is expensive" really explains it. (Although page 118 shows that the poverty rate in SPS has gone way down.) There are new charter schools, a couple of new private schools and an online school. To me, this may explain it more than being expensive.
To note, I've seen comments from readers like, "Why doesn't the district do more to get students in private schools back?" I've said that for decades. At this point, they truly don't have the room or the time to get back students (even as they lose money when they lose students). But if this trend continues, the district is going to have too many buildings to operate. That would be an even worse disaster for all schools.
Page 124 - State Prototypical spending for staffing is an interesting read. SPS has fewer teachers than what the state would allot but more principals/assistant principals.
Page 125 - Also an interesting page to see what spending looks like at low-risk to high-risk schools.
Page 126 - Possible areas for reductions - No one is going to like this page.
Key pages
Page 23 - List of short-listed BEX V projects. I don't know that I agree with the whole list but it looks solid. It appears that the downtown high school is off as there needs to be additional discussion.
Page 64-65
Probably the most complete list I have ever seen (thanks, Director Geary!) of BEX/BTA funds spent for every school.
Page 111 is the start of the Budget section which is, well, pretty much bad news.
Page 114 shows that PTA funding has gone down by nearly $1M. (They note that this does NOT include booster club money which is where much of the big money raised comes from, particularly at the high school level).
Page 115 - Rainier Beach HS received a $300K IB grant from OSPI.
Page 116 - A particularly bad page about enrollment. Last school year should have been a signal, there was a slight drop, and then the big drop this school year. And it wasn't just that they expected new students but they lost students.
I have to wonder at the reason "Seattle is expensive" really explains it. (Although page 118 shows that the poverty rate in SPS has gone way down.) There are new charter schools, a couple of new private schools and an online school. To me, this may explain it more than being expensive.
To note, I've seen comments from readers like, "Why doesn't the district do more to get students in private schools back?" I've said that for decades. At this point, they truly don't have the room or the time to get back students (even as they lose money when they lose students). But if this trend continues, the district is going to have too many buildings to operate. That would be an even worse disaster for all schools.
Page 124 - State Prototypical spending for staffing is an interesting read. SPS has fewer teachers than what the state would allot but more principals/assistant principals.
Page 125 - Also an interesting page to see what spending looks like at low-risk to high-risk schools.
Page 126 - Possible areas for reductions - No one is going to like this page.
Comments
And that’s a big change in PTA dollars. It would be good if anyone was looking at why the change was occurring and what the impact is to the kids.
So frustrated
For example, the PTA funding slide is a joke. There is no meaning to it. Why chart it? Seriously, I am not being rhetorical, why did they chart this?
They include "2019" on the chart yet that has but one month of revenue for the current school year, and they make it seem like an ominous nose dive has occurred? They have failed to plot PTA $ against student enrollment, which has changed, so you get no sense if there is an ominous per capita change, and they don't indicate the various per-school per-capita figures: what is the range for non-Title 1 K-5 schools? $30 to $190 per student?!? There literally is no information on this slide, so why do they bother? What is their point?
FWIW, I did calculate PTA $ per non-FRL student, for the 4 years as they only gave 4 years of PTA grant totals, and it works out to an average per non-poor student enrolled of $122 plus or minus $9 stand dev. Again, so what. All this shows is that system-wide, there has been fairly steady on average PTA donations per capita. But, it tells us nothing about potential equity disconnects, or even, if this money makes a substantial delta in the educational experience of students relative to the basic education allotment dollars of, what, $8K per kid?
Wasting everyone's time.
I picked this because it was a trivial example to show how badly they fail at presenting actual analysis. How can the board, or the district management, make any informed decisions if they get no information? (OK, that was rhetorical)
smoke bomb
In terms of the fewer teachers than the state model, it's hard to tell exactly what's going on because the numbers are too aggregated, but in addition to the higher numbers of principals/APs (not sure why that is), there's also a lot more certified staff in the buildings. I know in the north end, at least a few schools didn't have space to make the K-3 class size reductions so they reduced ratios by adding counselors and intervention support/etc. I wonder how those actually net out.
The funding model of lower need vs higher need is really striking. I don't think anyone would argue that higher needs schools don't need more resources and I've heard that actual funding doesn't shake out like that because it really ends up being netted out on a per teacher ratio and the higher income schools tend to have more senior teachers so effectively cost more, yet double the per student funding suggests low income schools should have really quite a lot more adults or discretionary funding or both. It doesn't seem like those resources are being leveraged effectively when we see posts about lower income schools still having large class sizes, lack of opportunity for music/enrichment, lack of supplies, lack of resources for camp fees, etc. Where is the disconnect? How do we figure out what will actually make a difference and support programs accordingly?
So frustrated
This "Olschefsky model" of shifting salaries and what not to PTA funding sources is already supposed to be an equity adjustment. This seems not to be well understood or discussed when we talk about PTA funding and equity. But it's not like richer schools are funding extras with their PTA money, which isn't anywhere near the extra per-head money poor schools get. They are funding a lot of essentials, too, that would be totally unfunded otherwise.
I agree with So Frustrated that there isn't enough transparency to compare apples to apples and really see where the equity problems lie and where the disconnects are located.
SF2
It seems like the millions of extra dollars haven't led to a better student experience, a happier school community, or higher achievement scores, or closing any gaps. What gives?
It's hard to get PTA/foundation/booster numbers for every school, but the comparison would be really interesting to see to get a picture of the real dollars spent per capita in shortfall, if any, that low-income schools have.
If there is no shortfall in real dollars spent, then it would be very interesting to look at the schools' budgets and see how money is being allocated differently.
SF2
When I was reading the write-ups during the Superintendent selection, I was really impressed by the woman from Michigan (a charter friendly state) who indicated that in the face of declining enrollment (mostly losses to charter schools) she began competing to get those students back.
I have no faith that any of the middle/upper managers in this district have any clue what that would even look like. They literally don't know what makes a family select the district vs. private vs. charter. If there are shoulder shrugs at the board meetings over the current enrollment slide, it very telling.
northwesterner
Frustrated parent
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/18-19%20agendas/September%2026/20180926_Final%20Packet.pdf
Eden.Mack@seattleschools.org
Lincoln alum
@Lincoln alum, the Lincoln auditorium is most likely not up to earthquake code (auditoriums at EMS, JAMS, and IHS are of a similar era). Given its age, it also most likely contains lead and asbestos, like many older SPS school buildings. From a health and safety standpoint, families should have some concerns. Major renovations usually require seismic upgrades of the structure - they have to be "brought up to code" - but in Lincoln's case, the auditorium is a separate structure, allowing them to bypass upgrades for now.
priorities unclear
You want fantastic? Have you been to the Shorecrest High School Auditorium just a few miles away in Shorecrest? That is what a fantastic high school auditorium looks like.
OMG
The 1 million loss of PTA dollars may be correlated with those who left for private schools. Isn't there any way to track the demographics of who did not re-enroll this year? Seems like in this city especially we would be able to hire someone to track the data effectively.
PL
What a load of uninformed, total horse crap. And we often hear the same load of crap from HCC parents, “proving” that their students’ program is ridiculously underfunded compared to others, and that segregation is proven to be cost effective. There is no $6,000 per student poverty differential. The ONLY program driving a $6,000 per student funding differential is special education. If a school has a very high per student rate compared to your school with a “well-funded PTA”, go look around for the special ed wing in the building, or, more likely, the special ed portables out back. You won’t find it. The notion that “PTAs are only providing money that those other $12,000 per head schools are getting “ ignores the other reality. Those well heeled parents are often the very ones driving the students with special needs out of their schools to protect their precious PTA dollars.
reader
Wonk Out
It is clear significantly more resources are directed at lower income schools in terms of teacher ratio and discretionary funding. I have heard, but have nothing to confirm, that the district has intentionally shortchanged higher income schools because they know those families will make it up. I have also heard PTA funding is inherently unequal.
I have no idea what the “right” amount more funding is or how to decide it. I know it can’t be all. It also seems clear that there’s a huge gap in what I would expect the extras to fund vs what they are funding.
I would not expect teachers from low income schools to be crowdsourcing basic supplies or have class sizes of 30. I have seen both listed on fund raising sites. I don’t think it’s inappropriate to wonder what the dollars are being spent on. The $3M extra Bailey-Ganzert gets is 6 times as much as the largest elementary PTAs fundraise. What is it covering? Is that allocation effective? How can we do better? How much more do they need?
So frustrated
https://www.donorschoose.org/project/lack-of-classroom-furniture-calls-for-fl/3479909/
The institutional barriers in SPS for those with disabilities remain strong, because Equity dollars use % FRL only without regard for disability.
Whatever SPED dollars are assigned to our school are insufficient as there was tremendous staff turnover this year due to SPED support issues.
Our school is too small to afford to pay for a counselor out of PTA funds.
If I have to choose between ability vs. disability support for my child, my choice is to move out of this district.
In researching other options, I discovered Lake Washington has 1.0 FTE counselor assigned to EVERY elementary school and has committed to Twice Exceptional student support.
Almost Out
NW Parent
HF
" SPS policy of funding based almost solely on FRL IS inequitable for many students. Every school should have a counselor, librarian and nurse. 2E students are especially impacted by the narrow minded funding based on FRL and not actual need.
It is outrageous really that there is no baseline of equity for many students. In addition, I notice that the vulnerability of 2E & LGBT students gets ignored. Parents and staff need to advocate to the superintendent & board. Point out these issues and a definition of "equity" which is being defined internally, however the management sees fit without any accountability.
PT
reader
Do schools with higher needs and fewer resources deserve more monetary support? Absolutely.
Should schools on the low end of the SPS funding gap be shamed for trying to raise money to support a librarian or a counselor? No.
Please stop painting with such a broad brush. We are much more likely to figure out how to fully fund *all* schools if we put aside our differences and work together.
-Northender
Nice try. So far as you know, Northend Kavanaugh. But yes, the resistance is nearly universal in the Northend, every high school, and every elementary school of any wealth at all. High needs schools simply need more AFTER all money is accounted for. Including pta donations. So, pta donations are fine but should be pooled and doled out in the same proportion as the WSS. Schools shouldn’t get to thwart the equity efforts, which means poor schools get more. Period.
reader
As another north-ender, why would I fight against special ed in our schools when my kids--and those of many of my neighbors, and about 1/3 of my friends--need those services?
"The resistance is nearly universal in the Northend"? Please provide data and examples, so those of with special ed students know more about who and when and how to fight this supposed opposition in our midst.
Are there not special ed sites and services in the north end?
confused
The PTSA moneygrubbing is ridiculous. The money is in corporations and elderly white ladies who lunch and tech workers who don't even have kids yet. It's a waste of time to go demanding that the 20 wealthiest families at McGilvra or wherever to donate money to cover everyone else who can't afford to pay cash for public education. All this energy could be going into fixing the state's underfunding of schools. But instead it's all being wasted on bickering about how rich other cash-strapped parents are.
Anyone who has read biographies of famous historical figures (Churchill, Einstein, Tesla, etc.) would realize that it isn't uncommon for disability and high IQ to go hand-in-hand and that school was troubling for these figures.
You can't leave out 504 from consideration, because the bulk of those children have ADHD which is a disorder. Furthermore, even though you continually disparage disabled children, they're a protected class, and whether over or under the distract average, they're not widgets, they're children who deserve social and emotional support.
Another fact that you don't realize is that Counselors provide social skills groups and emotional counseling to children across this district who need it, formally identified or not.
Calling Decatur a "rich, white" school reveals your penchant for alternative facts. It's 56% white, and you have zero way of proving it's rich. The opposite of FRL isn't rich. There's a continuum of low, middle and upper class following the very low income qualifier for FRL.
It's disappointing, yet not surprising, that you feel supporting one protected class means discriminating against another, but I don't share your views.
Almost Out
-Northender
Sheesh
One of my kids is at Lowell, and I was a bit confused too when I saw that donors choose page. They certainly DO have classroom furniture at Lowell (and I don't believe that most of it is covered in foul graffiti - not in my daughter's classroom anyway. Maybe the older kids?). It looks like she is asking for softer furniture (for a reading area or similar, maybe) plus classroom supplies, which the district probably does not pay for, and is trying hard to elicit sympathy from potential donors.
Mom of 4
The schools with the highest % of FRL typically also have the highest per-student funding. And it's not enough.
And the per-student funding isn't enough at schools with low FRL.
Every. Single. Student in SPS is getting shortchanged. None of them deserve to be shortchanged. They all deserve better. Every single kid deserves to learn at school, in a building that isn't crumbling around them. Fighting over which kids "deserve" it more is missing the point of public education: every kid deserves to learn at school. Every student deserves an education that makes them reach to the top of their abilities. And the problem with the way public education is funded is that everyone talks like it's really important, and then... our institutions don't spend as if education is important.
Does SPS administration make terrible financial decisions? Yes. If they didn't, would there be enough money? NO. It might be better, but it wouldn't change the constant Sophie's choice of public education - a child has to get screwed over because there is never enough money. And charters coming onto the scene is only going to make it worse. First fight: get SPS administrators to do better with the money they have. Second fight: get enough money from the state. McCleary isn't the savior, it's the start.
-Longtime Watcher
Rocket Man
just curious
If future Lincoln HS parents and current Hamilton MS parents (Hamilton relies on the auditorium for all its music concerts) are concerned about the fact that the auditorium is not up to health and safety standards (e.g. asbestos, earthquake retrofitting), please contact the FULL school board, not just Director Eden Mack, and register to testify at the next board meeting with stories that demonstrate the impact unsafe facilities have on students and teachers.
Concerned Parent
Rocket Man
just curious
Make sure you mark them as spam and feel free to delete this comment.