Is Seattle Public Schools Gonna Close Some Schools? The Answer is Yes
Update: Based on early comments, I need to make a few things clear.
1) Just because one person said something about a program or school at the Work Session, it does NOT mean anything. A lot was said but less was stated as fact. For example, dual language is probably going away. If anything, they should expand it because that WOULD draw parents back but dual language is a heavy lift and expensive.
2) President Hersey just alluded to receivership. That is unlikely to be on the table now. If SPS does not get its ducks in order in say 3-5 years, I'd say yes. But not now.
3) When I said "new district" in talking about the timeline, I meant the reorganized one from the closures. Close more than 10 schools (and I suspect it might be more), and the district will look quite different.
end of update
I plowed through the two and a half hour Work Session on the Budget from last week. All the Board members were there along with Superintendent Brent Jones and senior staff.
I'll present the key points made, then some choice statements made by directors and then some analysis.
KEY POINTS
- I'll put one item that was stated at least three times and boy, it's just jaw-dropping. Lower enrollment but higher staffing. Why this happened when they KNEW enrollment was projected to drop is a mystery. This was called a "structural problem."
- Here's another good item. It was stated that the state gives districts a K-3 ratio adjustment to reduce class sizes. However, it was also stated that "right now we are providing more teachers than is (sic) necessary to achieve that funding through the state." Going forward, they will use the "racial equity tool" to determine the use of this funding.
- This closing/consolidating of schools is going to be a process which will take the rest of this school year to discuss and set up. Then, in school year 2023-2024 we will see what programs might be cut and schools closed/consolidated and then the real action of closing schools will happen and the "new" newly reorganized district will start in 2024-2025.
Superintendent Jones said there would be time for more "robust" feedback in '24-'25.
- The district wants to "consolidate our district into well-resources schools" and "recognizing where we are with enrollment," namely, that it has fallen and will likely remain stagnant or drop even lower.
They said it is hard to spread resources across a bigger system when they have fewer students and that this is happening to other districts as well.
- Labor partners, namely SEA and PASS (the principals' org), seem to be wary of the claims that the district is going off the cliff. (Apparently the head of SEA was at the Work Session.)
This is a HUGE issue for the district because it appears both the Superintendent/district and the Board want to present a united front to the public and having Labor with them is key. Generally, on issues like school closures, SEA and PASS let parents take the lead in saving schools/jobs but I have to wonder if they will stay silent this time. President Brandon Hersey said "If we sing on song and teachers another, there will be misinformation out in the community." Indeed.
Naturally, SEA and PASS don't want to see reductions because that hits their members hard. It was stated by Linda Sebring, head of Finance, that principals want better Sped, more safety and security and mental health resources protected. SEA said they "were not necessarily agreeing with any of our suggestions or even the need to do the reductions."
- What is key to both the district and the Board is communications and they all know that the district has not traditionally been good at communications nor transparent in their communications. So this will be quite the challenge.
Almost every director made statements about what the BOARD will say to constituents and families. Despite having vastly different regions, they want to be on the same page in what they say.
Director Leslie Harris said she has already received a coordinated email chain from the Bryant Elementary community and she expects at least 30 other schools to do the same. She said at her last community meeting, she took three budget books to show participants and "it was alarming to folks."
- The Superintendent said he wanted to "invite folks to come to the table to tell what they know and see" and "we want to be accurate."
- There was a drumbeat of "vision and values" with values shaped by feedback from "the community."
- Despite all of the Student Outcome Focused Governance and the Strategic Plan, we hear from Director Chandra Hampson that there is no "guardrail" in their plan for budgeting and funding. Because of that "there may or may not be the appropriate input tipping points necessary to positively impact student outcomes." Meaning, because there is nothing in place, what parents and community believe about what is important in schools may not be the same as what the district thinks should be funded.
- Sobering explanation that the district has liquidated its emergency stabilization fund and reserves and transferred some funds from Capital spending. (I'm a bit mystified at that use of Capital funds because I thought it was not legal to use them in the General Fund.) There is a legal obligation to have a reserve but it was not discussed how that would happen.
- They want to convince legislators that they are creating long-term solutions with a sustainable path so that the Legislature will want to continue to invest in SPS. Director Michelle Sarju stated that she believes legislators don't really want to hear from other electeds but rather from voters. So again, the need to get parents and community behind this plan is very important to the district.
- One cut, programs (and the only ones I heard in specific came from Director Harris asking about Alternative (Option) schools and dual-language schools. As well, staff mentioned cutting administrative costs to Running Start, fewer assistant principals, and "look at administrative costs for running 'some things.'" It sounds like 15% reduction at the Central Office.
According to their budget, they could save over $700,000 by not adding additional school athlete director staffing to high schools. Balancing that out, it appears that Head Start will cost 5% more.
- In one of the odder moments of the Work Session, Jones said that "there are not two sets of books." He also said the district did not have time "to be wrangling over numbers." He said, "If our math is not good, we welcome a correction to that." He also said there was "no incentive" for the district to be misrepresenting the situation.
Continuing on this subject, Hampson said the Board's job is "to know the truth of our financial situation." She mentioned that the State Auditor does do yearly audits of various programs/departments in SPS (as they do for all districts). Sebring came in saying an audit is "a look in the rearview mirror." "Past doesn't predict future." And, "it's complicated."
- Fred Podesta, COO, said that they believe "focusing on consolidating into larger schools that have the resources they need is a good strategy whether you have money problems or not." (Hersey, seated nearby, nods his head vigorously.) Podesta, continuing, "There are benefits to this and we are trying to focus on the positive" and "those schools (left) will have all the resources they need to be the best schools they can be." He also said they wanted to "find different ways of doing business; do more with less and you can work smarter." He gave no examples.
- Concie Pedroza, Associate Superintendent, said there would be "reallocations, readjustments and reductions." She nodded they have to decide/plan for "how to revision" and "learn from other districts."
COMMENTS OF NOTE FROM DIRECTORS
Director Vivian Song Maritz
About conversations with community about what the district is saying, "like to the extent of telling a student that they need to show us the math behind your thinking."
"The collective community needs to get behind this" and that "we are all seeking the same thing." Sadly, just like what "well-resourced school" wasn't clearly defined, I'm not sure everyone IS seeking the same thing.
She also asked if the 15% reduction at Central Office included transportation.
Director Michelle Sarju
Sarju had some of the more cogent remarks of the evening. She said that the slide that stated the district needs to "advocate and hope" for better from the legislature reminded her of Obama's thinking that "hope is not a strategy."
She said that the choice of language in "consolidate into a system of well-resourced schools" was "a sophisticated statement." She said many parents who do not speak English would find that a difficult statement to understand.
She said during the teachers strike she heard various statements that sounded like "the telephone game" and that was an example of WHAT not to do.
She also said that "just because a decision is made doesn't mean YOU were not heard." She said it was not about "liking a decision" but to stay solvent and that decisions were being made "for the greater good and long-term good."
"We owe it to no one but our children to get ourselves out of this financial situation."
Director Liza Rankin
Rankin certainly was open in her thoughts and was the most specific in what she said might happen as opposed to the other directors.
"I don't see anything that seems totally off the wall."
I appreciate the focus on "unreliable service" because that doesn't mean continuing to do things as they have been done. Words have meaning and there needs to be reliability in terms of knowing what is coming.
She said something about investing in attracting and retaining a diverse body of educators but said maybe all the raises for teachers could be spread out over support staff. "Support staff seems to come last and don't cost as much as central staff and teachers."
"Define 'well-resourced' because it might not look the same to everybody at all schools." Also "are we going to maintain schools that are small?"
Director Leslie Harris
Wants more "2x2" meetings with senior staff to get into the weeds of what they are thinking.
She seemed taken aback at the statement that the district had more teachers than needed for K-3 class size and "I hope this is a misstatement."
She stated that the last round of closures "divided the community and pitted school communities against each other." She asked, "How will it be different this time?" She noted that very soon after that, schools were reopened.
She said that they needed to define what Alternative/Options schools are because there are some that aren't alts any more. She asked why there were two dual language schools almost right next to each other.
She said, that "kids aren't widgets and that there were some extraordinarily stupid decisions made in the past" and that "we need the courage to fix some of this stuff."
She also said that PTA dollars don't equate with Title One dollars.
Harris also called out Middle College which is a program of last resort for high school students. She said she personally knew of 50 students who had been saved with the program. "Where does that fit on a spreadsheet?"
Director Chandra Hampson
"Our job is to know the truth of our financial situation."
" I don't know that we are going to be making decisions that Director Rankin mentioned like programs. I don't think we have many programs that are not necessarily aligned with values and goals." She said some are more effective than others and "we have to make really hard decisions about those."
She also noted that all "Black students aren't just at priority schools and cuts don't become a reason to abandon the Strategic Plan."
"We have managed to make it (the budget) work every year and yet spend more than we have."
Director Lisa Rivera Smith
We need to be transparent and clear in our language. "Consolidation might mean closing schools, I don't know." "We need to be able to explain why we are making the choices we are."
She pointed out that many assistant principals at elementary schools wear many hats in their jobs. If they were gone, work would fall by the wayside and hurt those schools.
In speaking of engagement, she said, "What do we want from parents and communities?"
President Brandon Hersey
Like Song Maritz, he said it was important to remember that SPS is "a big school district with a $1.2 billion dollar budget." He said that closure/consolidation is "scary" and there is "the difficult individual experience of a student facing change" but "we are fortunate in this state for the money we have."
He also alluded to State Superintendent Chris Reykdal coming down "and telling us what to do." I perceive he meant the district going into receivership.
ANALYSIS (in no particular order)
I have mentioned that I believe that SPS enlarged three building renovations at three very different locations in the district. I absolutely believe that:
1) this is because they KNEW they would be closing schools. For example, Montlake is being enlarged to the point where there will be less playground space for more students. McGilvra Elementary, in the same area, is also a small building that would be costly to replace at its current size (as is Montlake). I believe McGilvra will be absorbed into Montlake's new building.
2) Those closed school buildings? They will lease them to charter schools and it becomes a new revenue stream for SPS.
- Pedroza remarks about "revisioning" and "learning from other districts." SPS has NEVER been good at either thing and what is different about this time and place and this staff eludes me.
- Podestra on what a good idea it is to consolidate (from a business standpoint) - What?! That signals to me they wanted to do this all along. Please remember he said here that the remaining schools will have "ALL THE RESOURCES THEY NEED" because that's a huge promise. I also don't think now would be the time to be looking for the positive because many people are going to suffer in many ways.
- Sadly for the Board, they have not had community meetings on the "community values." Most
of the directors don't have community meetings. So where is this coming
from? That's gonna be a tough sale when directors cannot point to that
community engagement on so-called values.
- Know what this situation means? Time for some to sharpen the knives against any school/program they don't like, both at the district level and among school communities.
- It sounded to me that Director Hampson was trying to appear neutral while acting as a parrot/puppet for the district's wishes.
- At the end of this budgeting process and at the end of this "consolidation" process, will the Board Intro and Action these items or just Intro it and then shove it to Consent Agenda as has been their recent practice?
- "It's complicated." Yes, communication with parents and school communities does need to be clear and transparent but hey, at the end of the day, the district can always fall back on that tired old canard to protect themselves.
- On why enrollment dropped, staff keeps saying "low birth rates" as if that's the only possible reason.
- The uptick of hiring at JSCEE is "a structural problem." No, it's not. It's some incredibly short-sighted, ambitious people wanting to make things happen fast and who gave no thought to the costs.
- Can I blame SEA or PASS for being wary? Nope, because I've heard "the sky is falling" many, many times before and, just as was stated at the Work Session as what Labor thinks, somehow the district always manages to solve the problem.
- "We owe it to no one but our children to get ourselves out of this financial situation." I respectfully disagree with Director Sarju. The district and the Board owe it to SPS students AND Washington State taxpayers.
TIMELINE FOR 23-24 BUDGET (bold mine)
January 16-February 3, 2023 – Central budgets technical process of staffing/line-item budgeting
February 1-28, 2023 – Community Information Sessions
February 15, 2023 (tentative) – Budget Work Session
February 28, 2023 – Budget Allocations to Schools
March 1-31, 2023 – School build their budget and staffing
March 8, 2023 – Budget Work Session (tentative cancellation)
April 3, 2023 – HR begins displacement process for SEA staff
April 29, 2023 – Regular Legislative session ends
May 1, 2023 – Final General Fund Balancing, Budget Book development
May 3, 2023 – Budget Work Session
June 21, 2023 – Board Action Report and Budget Resolution
July 6, 2023 – Board Action to adopt school year 2023-24 budget
Other
I learned some new words - "graphical" from Jones ( meaning, they would be showing a graph) and "intenting" from Hampson (meaning someone has the intention to do something). If I had a gif of an eye roll, I'd use it.
Hampson, as usual, spoke the longest of any director. She clearly thinks she's the smartest
person in the room and it can be exhausting waiting for her to finish. And she always notes how the time is limited.
Comments
Uh, so can I glean from all of this that the Board has essentially seen this coming for years, is just letting the district go off a cliff, and is resigned to state receivership? Is that what all this means about a "new district" in 24-25? Certainly sounds that way with the capital project management. If this is true, this is abhorrent.
The term "well-resourced schools" is manipulative. At sometimes it seems like a snide insult with class tensions, others it is a nod to their financial pickle, and at others it is aspirational. What is it? Good on Sarju for calling this out.
Ick, "intenting?" There is already a word and it is INTENDING with a D, stop trying to invent new insider language!!!
Intent This
Cedar Park - superfluous, never should’ve been opened in the first place with Olympic hills brand new and extra large capacity adjacent to it
Licton Springs/Webster – redundant, never should’ve been opened in the first place, the program formally known as Pinehurst has struggled for decades to attract students, and when their site was cannibalized to build a K8 for the popular and oversubscribed program Hazel Wolf, they should’ve been closed then. At that time, they bragged about their LGBTQ friendliness and non-gender bathroom, and when that didn’t work, they trumped up their Native American “orientedness” including a program that literally had zero students, and that gave them the reprieve. Bottom line, it has not attracted sufficient students, not even close. Capacity to absorb those students in surrounding buildings is more than sufficient.
Meany Middle School. Between Meany and Washington middle schools, there are only enough students for one middle school, not two. It should be Meany that closes, because geographically, it’s more isolated, relative to Washington’s more central location to absorb capacity from multiple directions. Washington also has the ability to host portables should the enrollment cycle reverse. However, since Meany is renovated, the district will probably close Washington, which would be very convenient for the current occupant to thus take that building “private” into a charter.
These three are exceptionally easy choices to close. There’s capacity nearby, and they’re not filled.
It’s less about the size/appeal of the school per se, it’s more about the neighborhood dynamics, relative availability of capacity in adjacent buildings, and the reality that these 3 are never going to be filled to capacity in the near term.
More controversial choice: Center School. Small, perennially tiny enrollment relative to other high schools, and thus its capacity could be absorbed by Lincoln High School. But, school probably won’t be targeted, because it functions as a sacred cow for the downtown lobby who have been ardently pushing for “downtown” school so that they could get a free, publicly-sponsored amenity for their SLU condos for a decade. And, affordable, housing, authority units aside, know those condos are not filled with kids. The comparable Vancouver, Canada experience is clear: well couples me initially have one baby, by the time those infants reach, age 9, the people leave for a bigger space, and more appropriate kid, friendly surroundings. Yes, center school is a relatively popular choice for students looking for a much more tailored, or niche experience in a very small school, but it’s arguable that the budget simply can’t afford to keep this one alive.
Another candidate, although Sandpoint. Its students could go “back” to View Ridge/Bryant, but that’s only if they don’t close Decatur, because if they do, those students are going to have to go back to Bryant and View Ridge. It’s obvious to me that Sandpoint is eminently closable, but it’s also obvious to me they’re going to attack Decatur, even though it is popular and subscribed as well as necessary as a program to retain students and thus enrollment in Seattle.
Certain programs that may be small yet house students with unique needs, such as Interagency, or Nova, as well as HCC, should be left alone and allowed to continue to service the students. Similarly, Middle College should have also have been left alone.
Cont….
Selection of buildings targeted for closure SHOULD be based on being perennially undersubscribed coupled to the fact they are also geographically redundant given proximity to other buildings housing same grade bands that can stably absorb those displaced students. It should not be based on the race of the students in the building, nor should it be based on test scores of students in the building.
Unfortunately, with the current board and staff at JSCEE, it’s going to be less of an evidence-based sensible capacity/student alignment, and more about their political vision of how some of students carry a “most favored nation “ status than others.
Regardless, of which they choose for closure, no building, no property should ever be sold. Rented out, yes. Mothballed, OK. But radically adapted for non-education purposes, no.
Their suggestion to close/abandon dual language buildings is completely asinine. Those are the most popular schools in the entire district. They provide bilingual education, and as such, excellence. If anything, we should have more of them, not fewer. Closing them is just another assault on education that delivers. It’s pure politics, not about capacity or cost. Closing buildings should be about buildings that can’t, and really never have attracted students, either because there’s a family desert adjacent to the building, which is never going to be rectified, due to factors, such as zoning, for example, or because those are simply buildings, families do their utmost to avoid.
VoteNo
Vote No, well, you certainly have thought about this. I don't necessarily disagree with you but Licton Springs (formerly Alt 1) wasn't given a chance for many, many years. In fact, Enrollment wouldn't even acknowledge it as a choice. But yes, I think it's done. They certainly didn't renovate Webster thinking LS would fill it.
I think Center School should go; they are renting space for it. How do you justify a small school that serves mostly white kids that you rent space for?
I think the closures will have a great deal to do with the condition of buildings PLUS student population. If the majority of the Board has its way, race WILL BE a key factor.
I do agree that the district should sell NOTHING. But again, the law favors charters and that's what we'll see. So the district will close their schools and that will help charters expand. (Technically, the door should shut on more charters because they didn't get to 40 schools in five years that's in the law. But I see that there is advocacy at the legislature to extend that time. This news might help that along.)
First, there is a state law about K-3 class sizes (which was referenced during the Work Session). It says that at a minimum, there should not be more than 25 students in classes in those grade levels.
https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/safs/misc/2015-16/k-3complianceqanda.pdf
So if you go from there, I'd guess for grades 4-6, it's probably 28 and everything above from 28-32.
And what is "normal?" I'd have to research that but it likely varies state to state, district to district. As a person who has written this blog for more than a decade, I can tell you that lower class size is the NUMBER ONE wish for parents. Those private schools don't advertise their low class sizes for nothing.
My opinion is 16 for K-1, 18 for 2-3, 20 for 4-5 and nothing above 30 for all the rest. But that's a pipe dream.
What they meant by having too many teachers for the K-3 class size mandate? They did not explain nor did any Board member ask specifically. I would say that they might have elementary schools with fewer students and used the money to buy extra staff who might not have ever been in the class.
Key takeaways from the Adopted Budget:
The district is projecting a loss of 2,640 students from 2022/23 to 2025/26 (49,550 to 46,910). (p. vii). Keep in mind they already lost over 2,000 students from 2020/21 (52,381).
They already lost $1.1 million in state funding due to a reduction in students from 2020/21 and 2021/22. (p. 24)
YET….
Teachers are getting paid nearly $100 million more ($588,024,748 in 2020/21 vs. $679,490,118 in 2022/23). (p.34)
Central Administration is getting paid $10 million more ($63,063,254 in 2020/21 vs. $73,015,676 in 2022/23) (p. 34).
The Deputy Superintendent's budget quadrupled from $361,984 in 2020/21 to $1,322,812 in 2022/23 (p. 59).
The Superintendent took a sizable increase from $1,266,929 in 2020/21 to $1,587,890 in 2022/23 (p. 59)
Dept. of Racial Equity Advancement (DREA) more than doubled its budget from $768,892 in 2020/21 to $1,642,251 in 2022/23 (p. 59).
The Strategic Goals budget increased from $7,367,866 in 2020/21 to $8,592,815 in 2022/23 (p. 59).
https://www.seattleschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-23-Adopted-Budget-Book_Final_Online.pdf
Irked
Kid Parent
The SPS budget document does not allow isolation of teacher compensation exactly. Page 35 mentions certificated salaries rose from $445 million to $495 million in two years, though that includes principals, counselors, and assorted others. Employee benefits rose $30 million, and a majority of that probably went to teachers. Meanwhile, page 217 indicates that the number of teacher FTE went down by 233 or 7.2%.
One interesting line is "Instructional Programs, other" which is never further explained and increased from $35 million to $74 million in two years. I wonder if that is technology, reflecting the provision of computers to every student.
The previous page, 34, defines "teaching activities" as follows:
"Teaching – Teaching includes expenditures for teachers, educational assistants, extracurricular activities, and
teaching supplies."
I appreciate your point that teachers' salaries aren't isolated. If you're correct that the teacher compensation and/or benefits drove $30 mill of the increase, and we see that Extracurriculars accounted for $2 mill additional in expenses, that would mean the remaining $68 million increase falls within educational assistants and supplies.
That sounds high; however, I wonder if that's where the computer costs are tucked in rather than "Instructional Programs, other." I'm really not sure.
Perhaps instead of lowering standards for all students to the lowest common denominator, how about teaching and challenging each student at their own level?
No parent wants a suboptimal education for their child to help the district's optics problem. And many parents with resources have voted with their feet, furthering draining resources from SPS, and impoverishing the experience for all students, including those further away from educational justice.
For many people, its a laudable goal to focus on those furthest from educational justice. Where it becomes unfathomable is where opportunities are removed from more advanced students in order to solve the optics problem. Many of the curtailing of opportunities have not been to save resources - for instance, you have to teach math to students, limiting the advanced math opportunities does not save any resources, it just holds students back. And parents with resources leave. Perpetuating the cycle of further impoverished schools at SPS.
It's not white flight. It's all flight of all groups who have the means to do so. And leaving a more impoverished education for those of limited means.
Shame on the myopia of SPS leaders - the board and its superintendent.
BLUE SKY