Tuesday Open Thread
Interesting opinion piece in the NY Times about straight A students.
Uh oh, King County Health found 12 SPS cafeterias wanting. Story from KUOW:
The evidence is clear: Academic excellence is not a strong predictor of career excellence. Across industries, research shows that the correlation between grades and job performance is modest in the first year after college and trivial within a handful of years.The district has a couple of new hires.
Academic grades rarely assess qualities like creativity, leadership and teamwork skills, or social, emotional and political intelligence. Yes, straight-A students master cramming information and regurgitating it on exams. But career success is rarely about finding the right solution to a problem — it’s more about finding the right problem to solve.
We are pleased to announce we have filled the position of director of nutrition services and welcome Aaron Smith to the Seattle Public Schools team! This critical position oversees over 17,250 student lunches and 6,400 breakfasts each day and adheres to the highest level of national nutrition standards and provides many locally sourced fruits, vegetables, and beans daily.The district has a Science Materials Review for Instructional Materials Adoption for 9-12 Grades.
Aaron is a Le Cordon Bleu chef and joins us from Tennessee where he worked as assistant director of nutrition services for the Hamilton County Department of Education for more than two years. While there, Aaron identified areas to increase efficiency within nutrition services and collaborated with other departments and community organizations in Chattanooga to promote healthy eating.
You can join this important review by coming to the John Stanford Center Professional Library where you will find all instructional materials on display from Dec. 10 through Dec. 28. The John Stanford Center Professional Library at 2445 3rd Ave. S Seattle, WA 98134. Building hours are 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturday by appointment. December 24 and 25 are holidays and the building is not open.I have to smile because the district has not listened to parents about nearly anything about science (including the apparent unhappiness by many parents and students about Amplify) so why start now?
Uh oh, King County Health found 12 SPS cafeterias wanting. Story from KUOW:
Eleven cafeterias, serving 12 schools, had “unsatisfactory” ratings on their latest inspections due to one or more "red critical" violations, like food at unsafe holding temperatures, faulty hand-washing stations and workers lacking the proper training or food-handling permits.What's on your mind?
West Seattle Elementary School has had violations on seven of its last ten cafeteria inspections. Lowell Elementary School has had violations on nine out of ten inspections.
The central kitchen is also inspected, and it, too, had violations on most of its last 10 inspections, including inadequate hand-washing stations and unsanitary food contact surfaces.
Comments
They instead busy themselves with the sycophants that surround them.
https://twitter.com/Celia_LJ/status/1072270814588882944
LH Mom
WSParent
Funding for K-8 is class size based. When the WSS changes the class size ratio, you get a change in class size.
But since high school is the master schedule, there NO connection between the ratio and class size. Class size is controlled by the teacher contract. Instead, the ratio is the master schedule ratio. Every 30 students will generate 6 slots on the master schedule.
While the shift from 29 to 30 might seem minimal. its just not.
There are two problems with Core 24.
1) credit retrieval - needing to make up a credit
2) access to ANY credit in the first place.
The 29:1 made it more possible for students to get an appropriate schedule. This represents 2-3 FTE at each of the comprehensive highs schools and removes at least 10 -20 slots off of the schedule. The majority of those classes will be advanced options.
An ideal ratio for Core 24 is approximately 25:1. That ratio creates enough slots that all students should be able to get 24 credits and there is enough for credit retrieval.
29:1 is just the wrong direction on this issue.
Maybe the Board will at least acknowledge that this makes their goal of eliminating HCC pathways in high school even that much less feasible and will continue to delay those efforts until such time as we have adequate funding to provide a wide range of challenging classes at all schools. Whenever that may be.
Mediocrity4all
High school funding is based on FTE, not headcount. FTE is Full Time Equivalent. This means that simply enrolling a high school student is not enough. You must give that student 6 classes for the student to be full time. If the student does not receive 6 classes, they are given a fractional FTE.
This is why students are not generally permitted to have an empty slot on the schedule. Empty slots are filled with TA positions if a class can not be found.
When you remove 10-20 slots from the Master Schedule but you have the same number of enrolled students, it looks like you just saved yourself 2-3 FTE. But that's not what actually happens.
What happens is that the students who are unable to access the schedule that they need for college, career or life, make OTHER CHOICES. Some do part time running start, some do online classes, some shift to other CTE courses, etc. Some leave the district entirely, either by dropping out or switching districts.
The easiest way to see this is the reverse. When you add 10 slots onto the master schedule, those slots tend to fill immediately. A full slot then generates the revenue that covers the slot. There is a natural endpoint to this. By the time you have a ratio or 22:1 then you will have a lot of classes that are just not very full and are not funded. But 29:1, 28:1, and even 27:1 are most likely to result in still very full classes, that are funded.
Simply put, at 30:1, you remove 2-3 teacher at every comprehensive high school AND you also remove a similar number of students, but they are removed by fractional FTE. Some of this math is lost in the part that the State of Washington will pay up to 1.2 FTE for students. (Hence, the illusion I mentioned).
The bottom line is that SPS has done a terrible job of tracking the critical metrics for implementing Core 24. This change saves no money and will make it so much more challenging for even the students who are "on track and on time" to meet the more complex requirement of Core 24 without supplementing with outside coursework.
The 15% of students who are behind by the end of 9th grade are going to face even greater challenges with this ratio.
Third Rail
Or do you think teachers are making too much now?
Perhaps you will next suggest we reduce the salaries of road maintenance workers to get more potholes filled, cut the pay of police officers to get more police protection...
Third Rail
Of course, salaries are the biggest part of the budget - it's people that do the work of the district.
Go figure.
Students are getting more sleep per night, are less likely to be tardy or absent, and are getting higher grades. There's a lot to like there.
Third Rail
I thought not.
You didn't tell us whether you wrote your legislators about school funding. Can we assume you didn't?
You didn't tell us whether you believe teachers are paid fairly with that raise. Can we assume, since you write that teaching is a "jobs program for college grads" that you don't value teaching?
What?!
We pay people - new or experienced - to teach our children. It's no "jobs program" except for TFA and there are not TFA teachers in Seattle Schools.
A Parent
Quality education means quality teachers. Period.
Concerned parent
How many students' lives are you willing to ruin to maintain these raises, Seattle Citizen? How many students will you deny the chance to graduate high school to maintain them?
Third Rail
I smell the whiff of someone who doesn't like unions.
-Cynic
I know it’s a tough pill to swallow, but Ayn Rand was probably more right than Bernie Sanders or whichever other “leader” we are looking to for leadership.
Things don’t really change.
Voting no on all levies now.
Keep your eyes on new state dollars!
Seattle new bell times is increasing the amount of sleep teenagers get.
HP
I agree with the general premise that people should be encouraged to try new things in college, branching out into classes and extracurriculars that interest them but that might be a challenge--academically and/or in terms of free time. A well-rounded education is generally a good thing. That said, the idea that those who get all A's are spending all their time in the library and missing out on other experiences while, presumably, those who get lower grades are having all the fun is a bit of an oversimplification. At any college you can also find 4.0 students who DO participate in a lot of extracurriculars and/or take courses outside "their lane," just as you can also find 3.0 students who have to focus and study very hard to achieve at that level. The idea that grades/GPAs are simply a reflection of the number of hours studied is absurd, IMHO.
The piece's conclusion, however, stood out to me as useful advice for SPS. It said:
So universities: Make it easier for students to take some intellectual risks.
SPS schools--at all levels--should do the same. Make it easier for all students to take classes that really challenge them. Whether this means encouraging (and providing support for) low-performing students to stretch themselves and try an honors class, or working with families to develop strategies to support the unique needs of exceptionally gifted students who aren't well-served even in HCC, we need an approach that sees intellectual stimulation as the goal. For all.
all types
Ridiculous.
But thanks for arguing to the legislature, and I agree that E.Wa legislators are screwing us over. I'm just not prepared to blame it on teachers getting an equitable paycheck, as you apparently are. Your reasoning is bizarre, to say the least.
I'll ask again: do you believe the current pay is fair or not?
As I understand it, average teacher pay is pretty decent compared to many other professional jobs. That's not to say teachers (or at least some teachers) don't deserve more--but I believe many non-teachers deserve more as well. Many professionals find it difficult to live (up to their standards) in Seattle, as do many others working full-time (or multiple) non-professional jobs. Teachers do an important job, but they are surely not the only ones. Teachers also benefit from having union protection, with good benefits and summers off (during which time they can earn additional money if they so choose). I don't know what the research shows re: which is more important--small class sizes or better teachers--but I don't think we have the financial resources for the former and I'm not sure that salary is the best way to ensure the latter.
I realize we're not likely to reverse the unsustainable raises that were given, but are you saying the higher salaries are resulting in better teaching--better enough to offset any negatives associated with increasing class sizes? As the district moves more and more toward MTSS and its (supposed) differentiation, smaller class sizes and/or more teachers seem to be ever more necessary. At the same time, MTSS also seems to require better teachers, too.
Conundrum
I'm not sure why you have decided to single out teachers.
As for "summers off", you clearly haven't hung with teachers in the summer. And, oh joy! go find a 6 week job so that you can earn more money. Any thoughts on how easy that is?
I agree that we don't pay teachers more in hopes for better outcomes. But I've seen several studies where teachers said as long as they had a decent wage, they would forego more money for needed resources and supports. If I could guess, I think that would make the difference.
I agree that the district should not have given raises that they could not afford and said it at the time. However, you can't take the raise back.
What would help if the folks at JSCEE were more transparent about where all the dollars go. We are in a situation now where 85% of the Technology budget comes from BEX. That's craziness to me.
We don't spend enough on maintenance and yet the district has no problem asking taxpayers for ever more capital dollars (and seemingly spending more on buildings than surrounding districts). Honesty would go a long way to clearing the air.
Teachers have been notoriously underpaid for years. Many consider the raise a step towards bringing them up to a living wage.
Arguing that their increased pay should bring increased "productivity" misses the point: they, for the most part, already ARE "productive" and should be paid for it. I asked TR, and would ask you, if you think they are paid too much? If so, then lobby to pay them less. Just don't balance the budget on their backs.
As you write, many others deserve equitable (read "living") wages, as well, that are commensurate with their skill and schooling.
Perhaps they should join unions.
The raises aren't "unsustainable" if the state and the district and the taxpayers that make these up have the will and the way to sustain them. If they don't, well, perhaps educators should find jobs that DO pay commensurately, and leave the teaching jobs to cheap TFA warm bodies, digital learning, and whatever other penny-pinching labor-saving devices can be designed.
Heck, with a digital economy in a digital city, just make children stare at screens all day. That's "sustainable."
I object to the fact that the same unions that received 10%-20% raises will reopen their contracts AGAIN next year. IMO, they will swipe as much money and benefits they can achieve.
At what point are unions doing a disservice to students? Funding for smaller K-3 classes were put into a protected category. The state will fund special education this year. I now believe those dollars should be put into a protected category.
There are rumblings about levy funding that will precipitate McCleary 2.
Talks of layoffs have begun.
For me, the real issue is the way pensions are calculated. Teachers didn’t just get a raise, teachers got a huge retirement bonus. A teacher making 90K with 5 years left before retirement that received a 10% raise, received the equivalent of a $79,300 bonus! The same teacher that received a 20% raise got a $161,000 bonus.
Here is the formula for the defined benefits plan:
2% x service credit years x Average Final Compensation = monthly benefit
So, for example, if a teacher makes $90,000 and gets a 10% raise, they make an extra $9,000 per year. If they’ve worked 30 years (the max for the formula), that equals 30 years x 2% x $9,000 = $5,400 per year extra in retirement, until they die, or $450 per month. The cost to buy a Schwab Annuity that pays $450 a month for life starting today for someone age 65 is $82,000. The extra payroll taxes a teacher would pay during the last 5 years of work would be $9000 * 6% * 5 = $2,700.
In other words, a teacher making $90,000 a year and retiring in 5 years who received a 10% raise, got a bonus of $82,000 (annuity cost) - $2,700 (additional contribution) = $79,300! A teacher with the same salary that received a 20% raise, got a $161,000 bonus!
This is what McCleary was all about, right? Huge, hidden bonuses for our teachers that are costing taxpayers billions.
My understanding is that many Districts and unions agreed to a short contract on this round because of uncertainty over funding into the future - that this transitional year(s) from one state funding model to the next (levy reduction) was fraught with pitfalls and the one year contract would allow a reassessment next year regarding how to proceed with uncertain funding frameworks.
So HALVE those "bonuses" you bemoan.
"1 percent x Average Final Compensation x Service Credit Years x Early Retirement Factor (if applicable) = Monthly Benefit"
WA DRS Retirement Planning FAQ
You are absolutely correct in stating that there are levy issues. Unions knew-full well- about levy issues last year.
The upcoming legislative session will be very interesting. Personally, I'm expecting the state to fund special education- only. Some suggest a return to local levy authority- which would create inequality throughout the state. SEA is supporting a capital gains tax.
As previously stated, teachers needed and deserved a raise. Retirement packages benefit our society. I'm having a hard time state wide increased benefit packages (retirement) raises of 10%-20% last year and many state wide contracts being opened within ONE year.
I see tremendous needs in our schools. Our teachers are the cornerstone. At this point, I would like to see funding directed towards student services.
In my previous post, I argued that last year a teacher with 5 years left to retirement making $90K a year who received a 10% raise, in fact, got the equivalent of a $79,300 retirement bonus, and those receiving a 20% raise got a $161,000 retirement windfall, on top of the raise.
Seattle Citizen commented I was wrong, but I stand by my numbers. Some teachers received over a $161,000 retirement bonus last year because of McCleary raises. This was a money grab and a total betrayal of public trust.
I have a picture advocating with my daughter on the Capitol steps for McCleary, at an event organized by teachers. I don’t remember a single sign advocating for bigger pensions. But billions of dollars in teacher pension bonuses is exactly what we got.
Seattle Citizen argues my numbers are wrong because according to Pension Plan 3, the formula is 1% and not 2% x average last 5-year salary x service years (up to 30). That is true, BUT, Pension Plans 1 and 2, use the 2% number, as I originally stated. Pension Plans 1 and 2 are held by the vast majority of Washington State Teachers, NOT Plan 3. Pension Plan 3 is optional, and it would be foolish for teachers to choose it.
The teacher pension fund was already vastly underfunded because the future investment returns the state is using for its projections are too high, which will mean a huge taxpayer subsidy. And the Teacher’s McCleary money grab added billions of new taxpayers guaranteed pension liabilities.
Perhaps a teacher making $100K a year is on face value underpaid. But name a single private company that still offers a guaranteed 60% of salary pension plan for life?
https://www.drs.wa.gov/member/systems/trs/
https://www.drs.wa.gov/member/handbooks/trs/plan-1/default.htm
https://www.drs.wa.gov/member/handbooks/trs/plan-2/default.htm
Complete bullshit. It's not about "bonuses" at all.
And, I don't believe for a minute there's more than one of you and you are using different names. You've made your point so move on.
Thank you, Seattle Citizen. Good comments.