Work Session: Seattle Education Association Tentative Agreement Summary

Update 2: The reporting is much more meaty than I thought it would be. I will need to ask for the document as it's difficult to keep up with the district speakers. 

Superintendent Jones asked directors for "no opinion or judgement" as they are still ironing the agreement out.

The overall cost will be $228M over three years; there will be a shortfall by Year Three

'22-23 - they have the dollars in the General Fund

'23-24 - will tap into ESSER funds 

'24-25 - without any ESSER funds, projected shortfall of $139M

Questions/Answers

Rankin: procedural question on going forward. 

Jones: Intro and Action at next Board meeting or special meeting to do that. 

Compensation 

1. Rankin - How many people this covers certificated and classifieds? Can wait for this info

2. Song Maritz - How does this put us with other districts in relative compensation? 

Pritchett - comparable space to other nearby districts

3. Rivera Smith - break down the years. 

Rob Gannon - This answer got away from me. IPD means Implicit price deflator (cost of living), this is a state-driven figure funded by the state. SPS compensate differently from most other districts. We get 3.6% of the 5.5% that is identified as IPD; it is not a full allocation. 

4. Hampson - .5 Social Workers at middle, high school and K-8, regardless of demographics?

Yes. (Hampson seemed unhappy with this answer.)

5. Song Maritz - ESSER date due to spend money?

Hampson interrupts to say let Gannon figure that out. 

6. Missed

7. Harris - miscommunication about the Sped Taskforce, membership, recommendations, inclusion, etc and why not released? When we can see on website and not educrat jargon, for our communities, parents and taxpayers?

Purpose of joint Taskforce, understand a bargaining agreement is not Superintendent or Board Taskforce as recognized in policy. Under guidance of CBA with joint interest for future bargains. As listed, CBA recommends SEA members to be appointed, Sped staff and principals. We also agreed family members and there are 5 of them. In order to public anything, there has to be joint agreement to release it but SEA and SPS must both agree.

We changed for ELL/Dual Language there will be a report. If the Board wants to see this, we will do that for BOTH task forces by asking SEA to do so. 

Hampson - "not taking action on anything, one request does not an action make." Hampson ends, "A single request just goes in the air." Nice smackdown to Harris. 

8. Rankin - resource continuum? Who does that apply to? 

Would include ratios.

9. Rankin - Sped question that I could not follow. 

10. Rankin - recommitment to Sped TaskForce, must be in CBA and that seems like needs of adults. 

Pedroza - have a superintendent advisory committee as well. Public meetings like HCC Advisory Committee. 

So I am checking out here (about 6:10 pm). I will try to come back and rewatch this but I think there's some good stuff in here but also some unsaid things that are internal that the Board and staff know but we are not going to get clear answers to. I find that annoying for a public meeting. 

end of update

Update: looks like it will start sooner, probably like 5:30 pm.

end of update

I just noticed this on the Board agenda for the now-in-progress school board meeting. It comes near the end of the agenda so if I had to guess, probably about 5:35-5:45 pm start time. It might be interesting. 

Here's the link to the SPS YouTube page to watch. 

Comments

Eckstein Parent said…
Yup, starting now.

Only 9 people spoke during public testimony. But we were all mad.
9/14/22, 5:26 PM
Oy said…
I listened to the work session.

Basically, A=SEA took an unethical stance and told teachers that there were hundreds of millions of excess dollars in the district. SEA basically told teachers about Rainy Day Fund and ESSR dollars. ESSR dollars were previously allocated. Who wants to spend down Rainy Day Fund and bankrupt the district?

The CBA will result in shortfalls. It is unclear, at the moment, about projections in relation to decreasing enrollment. One time ESSR funds will help cover 22-23 shortfalls. Those are one time dollars which doesn't make for sustainable funding. In 2023=2024..there will be a $47M shortfall. In year 3, the district is projecting an $139M budget shortfall.



9/14/22, 7:09 PM
Frugal said…
Wait, they are using one time federal dollars to get through next year and they are projection a $139 million shortfall in year three?!

What if they don’t get additional state funding?

They are going to increase base salaries with one time funds?

Aren’t they heading for a cliff?
9/14/22, 10:03 PM
Anonymous said…
If the teachers say they couldn't do their job with the resources allocated to them in the initial contract, I believe them.

If the teachers say their students need more mental health support, well that aligns well with everything I see.

Everyday the strike dragged on, sps central administration seemed more out of touch with reality. The teachers and the principals appeared more and more like the glue holding this district together. And I wasn't the only parent to feel that way. One School Board Director stated ~99% of the emails she received supported the teachers.

If efficiencies need to be found, I can think of one shiny building in South Seattle that could use some slimming down.

-Thank You Teachers!
9/15/22, 6:43 AM
Anonymous said…
Thank You Teachers,

You are right BUT I don’t think Admin is sitting on $139M in their office, maybe $2-3M tops. Enrollment numbers are bad. I don’t see how we can avoid closing schools. The financial situation is really scary.

Your Welcome
9/15/22, 8:37 AM
Anonymous said…
Is there a place to watch the meeting now? Are old meeting videos archived somewhere?

Thanks!
9/15/22, 10:21 AM
Eckstein Parent said…
I'm confused by this:

"The overall cost will be $228M over three years; there will be a shortfall by Year Three

'22-23 - they have the dollars in the General Fund

'23-24 - will tap into ESSER funds

'24-25 - without any ESSER funds, projected shortfall of $139M"

$139M (cost in 2024-25) is more than 60% of the total cost of $228M. Is this correct or is the cost of the contract massively backloaded (and if so, why?)?

Is there a recording of the meeting? I wasn't able to listen to the work session. Thanks for your notes.
9/15/22, 1:22 PM
Anonymous said…
I have so many thoughts about where they might find money, so much distrust at the numbers being thrown at us, and so much frustration. But I think the take home message is that if the district didn't come across as shifty, shady folk who barely listen to students and parents, maybe they wouldn't constantly be on the losing end of every pr battle with the teachers.

-Thank you teachers
9/15/22, 1:54 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Frugal, yes, it would appear that somehow, someway the district allowed itself to get snookered by teachers into a contract that will plunge the district into debt.

That's sarcasm there (in case you missed it).

Yes clearly, the district, which is losing enrollment and therefore dollars, is going to go off a cliff with this contract. Except, maybe not.

Thank you, Teachers!, have you been in the JSCEE? Because there's nothing "shiny" about it. And now it has a massive cement structure at the front of the building (the new overpass for cars and pedestrians so as to avoid train backups). JSCEE is no thing of beauty and has the most uneven cooling and heating I have ever seen in a building.

Now are there a lot of people in that building who make a lot of money? There are. And Jones has added more since he got there.

I am attempting to get a link and I will post it here. I'd like to finish watching it myself, if only to see what directors asked.
9/15/22, 4:55 PM
Anonymous said…
It’s backloaded because we have to have a balanced budget every year. We can’t have any overage this year, and we will need to have a plan next year, so it can’t be any huge number like 139 million. This is just admitting we are hurtling into the sun, basically. I also think we overspend at downtown but just nothing remotely on that level. 2-3 million. Not 139.

Blue dog
9/15/22, 7:53 PM
sean said…
I believe there is a looming budget crisis at SPS that goes beyond any mis management . How can there not be. The school funding is pretty complex but I know there is regionlization tiers and other factors that don't benefit seattle schools as much as other districts. I have two data points. Bellevue school district gave their teachers an 11% raise while SPS teachers got 7%. BSD teachers have been getting larger raises every year sonce 2018 (I don't have all of the numbers) But its not surprising since BSD gets $19,755 per pupil funding while SPS gets $17,483 which is only slightly higher than the statewide average of $17,082. These numbers are from the Washington school report website. Seattle won't be able to keep their teachers if the teachers can commute 20 minutes and earn 10% more so they have to try to compete with the other districts on wages but they don't get enough funding to do it
9/18/22, 9:19 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more