Tuesday Open Thread

The City is getting near to making a decision about upzoning throughout the city.  They say it will be "gradual and incremental" but frankly, I'm sure once the ok comes, you'll see the changes come rapidly.  One item to consider is the report issued by the Mandatory Housing Affordability group says that the current zoning is not fair to all citizens and does not afford them the ability to be near "parks and schools."  


While upzoning would create the ability for more citizens to access the parks and schools, it would also mean more crowding in schools if density is greater.  What will we do then?  If that happened, I would say the district is within its rights to ask for financial/logistical help in building more schools/expanding schools.  The City's decision to change zoning will always affect schools.  (I have previously noted that directly across from Roosevelt High School, there are several apartment buildings going up with more to come.  I would suspect that a few apartments might be rented by parents who want to guarantee their child gets into Roosevelt.  There's also that kind of issue.)

Seattle is one of 34 district to share $900,000 that was appropriated by the Legislature to match federal funds that are "designed to assist public school districts in improving student instruction and assessment through the use of information technology."  I'll have to ask the district what their share is and how they will be using it.

I see by the Public Testimony list for tomorrow night's Board meeting that there are still at least 8 open spots. 

The agenda for Thursday's Operations Committee meeting makes for interesting reading.  There are a lot of items related to capital projects.

The district has added three students to the High School Science Adoption Committee.

Nahom and Sofia are both juniors at Franklin High School and Aiden is a sophomore at The Center School. All three students like science and want to pursue a career in the science field upon graduation. As part of the committee, they will meet throughout the year with adults (teachers, district staff, families, and community members) to decide on potential instructional materials to introduce to the larger community for further review.

OSPI and the Statewide SEL Indicator Workgroup have put forth a survey for Social Emotional Learning (SEL) by request from the Legislature.  It is unclear to me when the end date is for the survey; I'll check.

On the topic of bond measures, the Seattle Times has come out with an editorial telling the Legislature that they need to lower the 60% super-majority for passage.  They are right.  Too many smaller districts are getting their hearts broken over 58-59% passage AND not passing a bond in years and years. 

Even slightly lowering the bar for passing bonds would make a huge difference. This year, 12 school construction bonds failed despite winning the approval of more than 55 percent of local voters. If lawmakers cannot agree on establishing a simple majority requirement for passing school bonds, they should pass a compromise that sets 55 percent as the new standard.

At the same time, state lawmakers must ensure they also provide ample matching funds for school construction in the their upcoming capital budget. The Legislature approved about $1 billion for school construction in its last capital budget; a similar investment may be necessary for the next two-year budget cycle. Legislative leaders should examine whether the formula used to award matching grants should be updated, so that it better reflects actual construction costs. 

Finally, an op-ed from head of OSPI, Chris Reykdal, on the issue of levies and levy authority.  The Times had said that districts like Seattle were out of line in ask for their upcoming levies and Reykdal shouldn't be supporting them.  To which, Reykdal says:

In 2017, the Legislature tasked my office with this process of reviewing levy plans before they go to voters, and it put new limits on how much funding school districts can collect in those levies — the key word being “collect.”

The law did not change how much levy authority school districts can put before their local voters. In other words, school districts can ask their voters for the authority to collect more levy dollars than the law currently allows them to collect; however, our school districts will only be allowed to collect within their legal limits. This has been the law for decades.

School districts can’t forecast with precision what their enrollment or levy authority might be three or four years out, so they get approval to cover those variances. Without this flexibility, school districts would waste taxpayer money going to the ballot every year with precise levy amounts.

In addition to these variances, Seattle Public Schools is asking for additional authority from voters because the Legislature significantly cut its local levy. Seattle will lose nearly $100 million in voter-approved school levies under the Legislature’s levy swap. This is too much!

And this very important statement (bold mine):

One of the most crucial investments that school districts across the state, including Seattle, will make with levy dollars is in critical services for students with disabilities.  Because we continue to see underfunding of these services, I explicitly told our school districts they could use their levy dollars for this. Until the Legislature fully funds special education, districts will need to continue using their levies to fund these services. The civil rights of students supersedes state funding formulas.

 What's on your mind?