Seattle Schools Levies; The Times Pounces
In a fairly incoherent editorial yesterday, the Seattle Times slams SPS for their Operations levy. (And takes one swipe at the BEX capital levy.)
They say the district is asking for more in the Operations levy than they say is legal and "jeopardizing a 40-year effort to reduce inequity among schools across the state."
To note, OSPI signed off on Seattle's levies so if there was something illegal, they didn't find it. I am fairly certain that OSPI knows more about it than the Times.
Also, it is the Times that had advocated in another editorial that districts to take a "wait and see" attitude on the McCleary spending plan for a couple of years. Problem is that every district has budgeting folks who actually know how to forecast and nearly every single district in this state will have a shortfall by 2020. No crystal ball needed.
They say about the McCleary spending plan:
The plan is dynamic and can be adjusted to cover districts with extraordinary needs.
And yet the Times blows off the shocking lack of action on the part of the Legislature on fully funding Special Education. Some "dynamic" plan.
I think the central question that the Times ignores is that the State has ignored their paramount duty for decades. And, in the question of "what is basic education", the Times pretends that that issue has been solved.
If nine nurses for 53,000 students is a reality of basic education, then I'm gobsmacked. I'd like to personally ask the Times that question - do you think that is right?
They also ignore that fact that while Seattle and Bellevue can surely ask for more and pass levies, the more rural parts of the state don't even pass levies at lower rates. Is that about being rural or being conservative?
Children end up with unequal educational opportunity based on where they live, and the wealth and generosity of their community.
At least they are partially honest - it does depend on whether a community values education enough to be generous. I grew up in a rural community but it is a choice when considering taxes of what you value.
But they also forget that SPS is not a mirror of the City demographically. Seattle is a lot whiter and wealthier than the district - the stats show it. So SPS is not just serving "wealthy" students - it's serving homeless, low-income, and immigrant students.
Their editorial also begs the question - how come they mightily endorsed the doubling and expansion of the City's Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Plan levy - but now they have a problem with SPS' levies because property taxes are high?
The SPS levies are renewals (which they were fine with the City's levy).
And, the money collected by the State on Seattle property taxes does NOT all stay in Seattle. So yeah, Seattle's property taxes collected for levies DID go up but it's not all staying in our schools.
So to restate, I am for equity in school funding statewide but you have to be pragmatic about the understanding that big districts have big needs AND some smaller districts have populations that won't pass levies in the name of better public education.
The Times also has a series of questions. (I note that one reader put a few of these in a comment in another thread - without attribution - please always attribute wording and not pass it off as your own.)
At last night's levies meeting at John Rogers, head of Budget JoLynn Berge said it was "moral duty." And again, 9 nurses for 53,000 students and 3 social workers for 53,000 as the State funds "basic education" is immoral.
However, parent at last night's Levies meeting did ask what would happen if the State did fully fund Special Education and there were extra dollars. Berge said that they have many items they would like to invest in like a nurse in nearly every school, counselors, ELL and music.
But a Sped teacher did say that they have almost no curriculum and that the transportation issues were of great concern for their students. Berge said that transportation is another area where all districts are having issue and they need state help.
My main concerns for the levies are big and small. The big issue is that I continue to see a lack of transparency on where all the capital dollars go. How can Whitman Middle School have buckets in their halls because the roof leaks and there is money in both BTA III and IV and yet nothing is happening? What does the district consider a true capital emergency?
My small issue is that both Schools First (the group that plans the campaigns for SPS levies) and the district refuse to state how much each levy asks for AND don't admit like the City with their education levy, are asking for a lot more money. I get that the taxing rate is the same but yes, the district is asking for more money. They need to own that.
For the record, the Operations levy is for $815M and BEX is for $1.4B and I support both.
They say the district is asking for more in the Operations levy than they say is legal and "jeopardizing a 40-year effort to reduce inequity among schools across the state."
To note, OSPI signed off on Seattle's levies so if there was something illegal, they didn't find it. I am fairly certain that OSPI knows more about it than the Times.
Also, it is the Times that had advocated in another editorial that districts to take a "wait and see" attitude on the McCleary spending plan for a couple of years. Problem is that every district has budgeting folks who actually know how to forecast and nearly every single district in this state will have a shortfall by 2020. No crystal ball needed.
They say about the McCleary spending plan:
The plan is dynamic and can be adjusted to cover districts with extraordinary needs.
And yet the Times blows off the shocking lack of action on the part of the Legislature on fully funding Special Education. Some "dynamic" plan.
I think the central question that the Times ignores is that the State has ignored their paramount duty for decades. And, in the question of "what is basic education", the Times pretends that that issue has been solved.
If nine nurses for 53,000 students is a reality of basic education, then I'm gobsmacked. I'd like to personally ask the Times that question - do you think that is right?
They also ignore that fact that while Seattle and Bellevue can surely ask for more and pass levies, the more rural parts of the state don't even pass levies at lower rates. Is that about being rural or being conservative?
Children end up with unequal educational opportunity based on where they live, and the wealth and generosity of their community.
At least they are partially honest - it does depend on whether a community values education enough to be generous. I grew up in a rural community but it is a choice when considering taxes of what you value.
But they also forget that SPS is not a mirror of the City demographically. Seattle is a lot whiter and wealthier than the district - the stats show it. So SPS is not just serving "wealthy" students - it's serving homeless, low-income, and immigrant students.
Their editorial also begs the question - how come they mightily endorsed the doubling and expansion of the City's Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Plan levy - but now they have a problem with SPS' levies because property taxes are high?
The SPS levies are renewals (which they were fine with the City's levy).
And, the money collected by the State on Seattle property taxes does NOT all stay in Seattle. So yeah, Seattle's property taxes collected for levies DID go up but it's not all staying in our schools.
So to restate, I am for equity in school funding statewide but you have to be pragmatic about the understanding that big districts have big needs AND some smaller districts have populations that won't pass levies in the name of better public education.
The Times also has a series of questions. (I note that one reader put a few of these in a comment in another thread - without attribution - please always attribute wording and not pass it off as your own.)
- How much of the operations levy is for basic education, that the state should fund, and how much is for extras that are legal under McCleary?
At last night's levies meeting at John Rogers, head of Budget JoLynn Berge said it was "moral duty." And again, 9 nurses for 53,000 students and 3 social workers for 53,000 as the State funds "basic education" is immoral.
- If the state’s definition of basic education has flaws, and isn’t covering essentials, why not work to change that definition so every school district and student benefits, not just those in property-rich Seattle?
- If the district is facing a financial shortfall, why did it approve 10 percent raises last year? Educators must be well-paid, but wouldn’t it have been prudent to provide a smaller raise?
- Lawmakers say they’ll fully fund special education this year. Won’t that resolve much of the district’s budget problems?
However, parent at last night's Levies meeting did ask what would happen if the State did fully fund Special Education and there were extra dollars. Berge said that they have many items they would like to invest in like a nurse in nearly every school, counselors, ELL and music.
But a Sped teacher did say that they have almost no curriculum and that the transportation issues were of great concern for their students. Berge said that transportation is another area where all districts are having issue and they need state help.
My main concerns for the levies are big and small. The big issue is that I continue to see a lack of transparency on where all the capital dollars go. How can Whitman Middle School have buckets in their halls because the roof leaks and there is money in both BTA III and IV and yet nothing is happening? What does the district consider a true capital emergency?
My small issue is that both Schools First (the group that plans the campaigns for SPS levies) and the district refuse to state how much each levy asks for AND don't admit like the City with their education levy, are asking for a lot more money. I get that the taxing rate is the same but yes, the district is asking for more money. They need to own that.
For the record, the Operations levy is for $815M and BEX is for $1.4B and I support both.
Comments
Reading this blog tells me that central administration is bloated and ineffective and the school board still has not reined spending nor established ANY accountability in to the budget process.
Now that we have a new super it means a ramp-up period of 2-3 years before she knows what's going on and don't expect the foxes in JSCEE to point out where to look.
Just Shameful
Fed up
"those interest payments on JSCEE are a budget killer" - Yes, they are and have been for a long time. However, it is an obligation that they signed for so they have to pay those bonds off. I think that will finish around 2025.
I actually hope that with a new Super, CAO and Finance officer that we will see more transparency.
Fed Up, the money was to fund basic education. The largest part of ANY district's spending is salaries (teachers, nurses, etc). SPS did not give as big raises as other districts. That said, it might have to be reviewed. That's to come but even if the raises at been less, I believe the district would still have a deficit.
Incoherent is the perfect description of this editorial. It was concerning to read initially with a worry that this piece of muddled propaganda may influence voters. But then I remembered that everyone knows the Times editorial board is a joke and disregards them. And those in the know are aware that the Time's education reporting is paid for by the Gates Foundation and therefore has an agenda to undermine public education systems. I have faith that Seattle voters are going to do the right thing and pass this levy. And then hopefully continue to pressure our legislators to do their job on McCleary.
-Ravenna Mom
Calls for equity will ring hollow if SPS has the capacity to raise more levy funding than other districts.
I also agree that SPS needs to be more transparent and unsustainable raises (10%-20%) are not sustainable.
The Constitution requires THE STATE to fund basic education. The legislature has defined it. Several years of litigation later, the Supreme Court has agreed that the legislature is now adequately funding the basic education they defined.
I don’t disagree that McCleary and the change in the funding methods (and the restrictions on local districts) will have a negative impact on Seattle. But the remedy is not raising levies in violation of the law. The remedy is to change the system back to one that gives local districts more authority and responsibility over their finances or get the legislature to provide more funds.
An uphill battle? Yes. An impossible battle? Maybe.
No Taxes, yes, quite the dilemma but one more of the Legislature's making than the district's.
And the Legislature did not finish the job. And I saw a video where Carlyle says that they didn't get Sped funding done "because we didn't have the data and now we do." Really? I find that very hard to believe.
At the same time, we have wild (to me) funding oddities. Maybe we could make sure kids have paper and pencils before we worrying about kids having 1:1 access to computers to take science class.
NE Parent
Anything defined as “basic Ed” cannot be paid for by local levy. That would violate the Constitution and McCleary.
The State has defined "basic education" and funded it (well, except for the Sped population). For example, 9 nurses for 53,000 is their idea of basic education.
So, in the Operations levy, the district is choosing to fund BEYOND the basic education that the State says and is funding more nurses. The district IS using the McCleary money to fulfill the State definition of basic education.
But they are choosing to go to voters to ask for money to fund beyond "basic education."
FYI, SPS is not majority white (47%). It's also more racially diverse than Shoreline, one of the districts on your contrast list, which actually IS majority white (54%). SPS also has double-digit percentages in each category for Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Mixed. SPS also has a higher percentage of low income students than Shoreline.
unclear
WS
The Asia Society:
"Equity in education means that personal or social circumstances such as gender, ethnic origin or family background, are not obstacles to achieving educational potential (definition of fairness) and that all individuals reach at least a basic minimum level of skills (definition of inclusion)."
The NAACP says this:
"To achieve these goals, the Education Committee of the national board, in concert with education chairs and leaders from across the Association, have settled upon a four-prong strategy to improve educational achievement for disadvantaged students:
Increasing Resource Equity: Target funds to neediest kids
Ensuring College & Career Readiness: A path to success after graduation for all students
Improving Teaching: Growing our own great teachers now in underserved communities
Improving Discipline: Eliminate zero tolerance; keep kids in school* All applied to turnaround schools"
The NAACP also suggests this:
"A major contributing factor to the disparities continues to be the lack of appropriate instructional materials. One effective solution becoming widespread nationally is the use of open educational resources (OER). These materials encompass both print and other media that are generally free and readily available to schools and school districts. In addition, they address a range of subject areas and grade levels as well as educational needs from instruction to assessment. Most important, OER can help school districts in their efforts to close elusive achievement gaps by providing resources that many educational institutions could not otherwise economically afford."
Where do these equity supporters come come up with their data.
*Fairy tells
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/09/29/552929074/if-your-teacher-looks-likes-you-you-may-do-better-in-school
SPS did do a big experiment in black education - the African-American Academy. I have heard many reasons it did not work; some were SPS issues but others were issues internal to the school. It's hard to know what to think.
Abstract
Previous research suggests that there are academic benefits when students and teachers share the same race/Ethnicity because such teachers can serve as role models, mentors, advocates, or cultural translators. In this paper, we obtain estimates of achievement changes as students are assigned to teachers of different races/ethnicities from grades 3 through 10 utilizing a large administrative data set provided by the Florida Department of Education that follows the universe of test-taking students in Florida public schools from 2001-02 through 2008-09. We find small but significant positive effects when black and white students are assigned to race-congruent teachers in reading (.004 to .005 standard deviations) and for black, white and Asian /Pacific Island students in math (.007 to .041 standard deviations). We also examine the effects of race matching by students' prior performance level, finding that lower-performing black and white students appear to particularly benefit from being assigned to a race-congruent teacher.
https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/Egalite-et-al-2015-FLTM_EER.pdf
BLah ha
If you had bothered to click through and read even the first page of that paper, you'd have seen it's by one professor at Harvard, one at the University of Arkansas, and one at the University of Colorado, and the study was conducted in Florida. "Harvard" didn't say anything about the issue. I'm sure if you had gone through Amplify you wouldn't have made those oversights.
Haavaad Yaad
You need Amplify
--Yikes
Haavaad Yaad
We barely take care of our buildings and some of that is because BEX is now sharing dollars with Technology. 85% of the Technology Department's budget comes from BEX.
I know we all can see and understand the need for technology in learning but Amplify would require a LOT more in the way of hardware and software plus licensing fees. Where's the money for all that?
But I don't have a problem with them having an Operations levy.
And Former WPD, you do know that much of the new state property tax (to fulfill McCleary) collected in Seattle goes elsewhere? SPS doesn't get all the money that Seattle collects. So some of those "districts that have higher rates of poverty and diversity?" They are getting more dollars.
Please include the idea of scarcity and zero-sum games into your thinking.
Bringing everyone up to the same level either requires new resources or those with more to get/have less.
Do you believe there is scarcity in school funding, thus creating a zero-sum game, or do you believe there is no scarcity in school funding?
Government funding is finite.