Seattle School Board Meeting - New Budget and HCC Plan to OSPI

The Board has their regularly scheduled Board meeting on Wednesday; here's the agenda.

One happening you need to know - the Board meeting is going to include a 90-minute Work Session on the budget. So if you tune in at the beginning, starting at 4:15 pm, you'll be listening to a Work Session and public testimony has been moved to 6 pm. 

Of note in the Budget:

- The enrollment projection is somewhere between 50,183 and 49,650, a difference of a little over 500 students. I'd bet it'll be in the lower range. This is on page 4 but on page 5 I see the number, 48,748. Hmm.

- Special Education services has climbed to 17.8% of the budget. I don't even have to look to say that's an increase.

- The district is continuing with their squishy central spending because there is "central administration" and "other support." Central administration is management but they don't put something like nutrition services (making the food) into central administration even though ALL the food cooking takes place at JSCEE. That way they can say, see CA is only 6.4% of the budget when, in reality, CA is probably 10%+ of the budget. 

- I find page 14, Percent of Budget for Salaries to be jaw-dropping. Those increases are huge. 

- Another jaw-dropped is "districtwide leadership," page 28.  This $26.3M in the budget is JUST for the Superintendent, the Board (their office, they don't get a salary), the department of African-American Male Achievement, the department of Racial Equity Advancement and the office of Equity, Partnerships and Engagement (one office I have always been unclear about) and "strategic plan." It's over 2% of the General Fund. And, the AAMA gets outside funding as well. 

- Also, there is a 26.6M district reserve but that's not explained. Is that the Rainy Day Fund or what?

There are a few issues to note but the main one is Advanced Learning. The district is required to submit an annual Board-approved plan for these learners. (Hilariously, at a recent Student Services, Curriculum & Instruction committee meeting, not a single Board member knew for sure if the plan had to be Board approved. This includes the chair Liza Rankin and Director Chandra Hampson who have been around a lot longer than other members. 

Advanced Learning

- It is stated in the BAR:

The plan follows a format prescribed by OSPI and is not intended as a document to communicate the work of the Advanced Learning department to the broader public. 

However, some statements in the "plan" do make statements that do not align with what the district is telling parents. 

- The plan lists all the possible types of delivery of services but I note that the SPS document says:

Which services and how they are delivered are decided by each school. We encourage families to contact their school directly with questions about the specific services offered.

So how will the district measure the success of this program if every school - about 100 of them - are providing different services? Just on test scores? The district might be okay with a good test score but parents might challenge that as just one data point. What are parents to make of a service delivery at a nearby school that they like better than what is being provided at their own school? Do parents have any input on how the delivery of services might be done at their school?

- OSPI asks this:

Is there a parent organization in your area?

The district’s answer is it’s the Highly Capable Racial Equity Advisory committee. First, this is a group organized by the the district, not by parents so it is not open to all parents to attend AND give input. Second, there are 33 members of the committee and only 11 are parents. The rest are staff and teachers. It seems a little implausible to call this a “parent organization.”

- OSPI says:

Instructional programming and the delivery of HCP services must be in place at every grade level in your district.

At the high school level, HCC students have to enroll in AP or Honors or IB classes. It is curious that the district wants to keep HCC students in their neighborhood school in Gen Ed classes for services in grades 1-8 and yet, in high school, the only services available are in AP or Honors or IB or Running Start or College in High School. All of those involve students needing to make a direct effort to enroll rather than services being delivered to them by the district. As well, there are equity issues because for Running Start it can be a struggle to go to both high school classes and Running Start, in both time and money. 

- I also note under the Methods and Activities, the district says that:

Academic goals are developed in each cohort program for their students.

Given that the cohort program is going away over the next few years, I would assume that academic goals will then be developed for EACH student if that is still going to be a method used.

Other items of interest in the BAR:

- Continue the work with C & I to align course sequences across all secondary schools.

I hope parents are paying attention. I am seeing a flattening of courses offered and I suspect that the district may do away with speciality offerings at specific high schools.

- Implementing one field study for the purpose of talent development through the School-Wide Enrichment model including professional development and support.

Wonder what that might look like?

- Develop and implement an identification process for 2021-2022 for every student in K-8 based on the work of the Identification Practitioner Work Group.

No explanation so what this means, I have no idea.

- Funding an Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (IB) District-Wide Coordinator position to continue racially equitable systems for students.

Is SPS even funding one for each IB school?