Will Seattle Schools Close Schools ?
The Board had a Work Session on the Budget yesterday that I was not able to attend but on Twitter, parents are reporting that there was talking about closing schools. Agenda and Powerpoint
The meeting WAS recorded and here's the link. I'm going to try to listen to it this weekend.
I will check to see if this was recorded so I can listen to the entire
thing. If it wasn't recorded, then the Board and the Superintendent are
doing a HUGE disservice to parents and taxpayers because if discussion
of the budget - and its fallout like closing schools - is not worthy of recording, what is?
I note there was no mention of individual schools except Director Liza Rankin allegedly said option schools.
I see this on one slide:
•Consolidate into a system of well-resourced schools
Know what was the first Board committee that I served on? It was called the Consolidation Committee and it was to close schools. I can write about that messed up process elsewhere but there is NO good way to close schools.
I also see this:
Use of Racial Equity tool for decision on which schools are impacted – class size/support
This helps you to know exactly where the district will cast its eye if the decision is to close schools.
Here's one page:
Goals
1. Stabilize our financial future to be able to fund our highest priorities
2. Keep Seattle Public Schools solvent
3. Resolve long term (decades of) structural deficit spending
4. Instill discipline into our spending.
5. Display fiscal stewardship and responsibility
Do you know how many years - just with different wording - I have seen this slide? That would be decades. How can so many seemingly smart people not recognize that rearranging the deck chairs is not going to cut it?
Ditto on this one:
Multi-year Budget Planning Objectives
•Develop a sustainable model for a system of well-resourced schools
•Adjust to forecasted enrollment•
Preserve resources in schools
•Create programmatic efficiencies in central office
Been there, read that before
How
1. Develop and submit a comprehensive package of budget balancing
2. Reduce our expenditures to a level of future sustainability
3. Make the tough choices now to match our resource/capacity to our revenue (enrollment)
4. Advocate and hope our legislature will help us bridge the gap
Might I advocate for NOT continuing the hiring going on at JSCEE? Or the Board not spending nearly $20K to go to a conference (complete with bringing a staffer along)?
Assumptions/Realities
1. Immediate efforts will not be enough to resolve all the long-standing structural issues
2. Lack of experience with this level/magnitude of reductions in balancing – 80% confidence on knowing all impacts from choices
Why Now?
1. At the tipping point – Structural Deficit has grown to $131 million
2. Current year budget is based on $82 million of one-time funding
3. Recent prior year solutions have been one-time state and federal resources – ESSER, funding of enrollment loss, funding of transportation without riders
4. Enrollment has decreased since 2014 while staff has increased
5. Enrollment is anticipated to continue to trend down
See Number 4? Yeah
Next Steps
•Hosting information sessions
•Continue work to identify $10 million of additional reductions
•Conversations with legislators regarding state level funding shortages for special education, transportation services and other
•Continued conversations with labor partners
At one point:
Board Discussion:
•What resonates?
•What are you curious about?
Curious about? Like they are at a science lecture.
Comments
NE Mom
Absolutely enrollment has eroded in response to the deep deprioritization of the needs of actual students. Except, of course, the revered priority of one certain kind of student, per JSCEE explicit psychobabble wordsalad of “targeted universalism” which they think means that by targeting African-American males, every student is going to benefit.
That is so so so wrongheaded if not flat out cynical.
What exactly does this particular group need for an intervention to reach excellence? And is that the same intervention needed by everybody to grow?
What about that published article in the Seattle Times that show that African-American males, depending on whether they’re immigrants or native born, have a radically different mass achievement. I don’t see anybody, referring to that, because it certainly doesn’t support their battle cry of “ evil institutional racism
!”
Yes, there is institutionalized racism, and yes, it is evil, but it’s really not been shown to me how exactly a teacher standing in a classroom, delivering instruction is innately, racist, although that’s what certain at JSCEE assert. There’s no way that yanking away algebra from sixth grade for students who have been ready and successful will result in magical growth for other students.
When Thurgood Marshall was unraveling their HCC, asserting, “terrible inequity!!”, I directly asked them in a big public meeting: well do kids in general education get “the bad classrooms” in the basement? No… OK, do they get the “bad inexperienced teachers” assigned to their classrooms? No. OK; do they get “shafted” from supplies and not getting their fair access to things like paper or math manipulatives? Oh no absolutely not. OK; do they get “bad” textbooks, either ones that are in bad shape or poor instructional choices? Oh no, absolutely not. OK; so how is it that these kids are being treated inequitably? Silence.
By prioritizing “a select few”, it’s not just that they’re doing a disservice to the entire student body, as well as the entire city, including non-children households, it’s critical to point out that despite all of their lenses of equity, etc., they still continue to horrifically fail those particular students as well. See disaggregated test scores at any particular school of your choosing. Garfield is a classic example, but you could look at Maple or Baily Gatzert too. It’s almost as if poverty was the thing that was particularly harmful to all students regardless of color… go figure.
Anyways, all of this, it will be very convenient for a particular person who’s taking over washington middle school, destroy the education there, and now I will get to walk off with it as a charter school.
So predictable.
The only possible,hope to get their attention, fail a levy. Remember, the levy can be brought back in six months for a revote , at which point, you can happily pass it, but unless we yank their chain, these people are quite determined to use every policy possible to drive public education into the ground under the banner of saving education.
VoteNo
2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
African Americal Male Achievement -$ -$ $1,481,697
Communications and Engagement 1,125,733 1,299,287 1,287,113
Dept. of Racial Equity Advancement 768,892 1,318,960 1,642,251
Deputy Superintendent 361,984 505,086 1,322,812
Equity, Partnership and Engagement 2,212,760 2,553,274 2,769,386
General Counsel 6,020,259 5,280,592 5,379,474
Internal Audit and Ethics 385,704 564,646 595,462
Media Operations Center 358,876 374,960 443,334
School Board 755,372 1,742,113 1,126,294
Strategic Goals 7,367,866 10,473,497 8,592,815
Superintendent 1,266,929 1,524,921 1,587,890
Total 20,624,375 25,637,336 26,228,528
FollowtheMoney
As I recall, Stanford didn't think that advanced learning should be co-housed with general education.
I did find it interesting that SPS hired more people despite declining enrollment.
Thanks for for your work and presence, Melissa.
So VoteNo, I’m right there with you on voting no on the next levies. But Seattle is convinced “it’s for the kids!” Did you know that way back when after a financial scandal, a company here in Seattle, Moss Adams, was hired to do a deep dive look at the entire SPS system. And know what they mentioned hearing, over and over about system inconsistencies and mishandling? “We’re doing it for the kids!” To which, and I paraphrase, Moss Adams wrote in their report, “that’s not a good reason to for doing the same thing.”
But I can tell you that at one point, the district’s Strategic Plan DID differentiate American Black boys from non-American Black boys. Or they wanted to but the optics were not good.
I do not think for a minute that Trish Dziko is trying to change WMS into a charter school. She has worked as a faithful partner with Federal Way Schools and now with SPS.
SPS can make all sorts of word salad presentations and chip away in painful ways to the students by eliminating option schools, cutting discretionary budgets (aka copy paper and the like), pretending that there's any sort of meaningful way to do this "equitably" or to create "well resourced schools" when they really have 4 real levers to control costs. Bussing (limited), non-classroom staffing, classroom ratios and compensation. SPS (and most or all schools around here) have increased salaries and therefore pension obligations so much that they've pretty much backed themselves into a corner. Since they don't track, we can only speculate why they've had the enrollment losses they have, but I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that if they continue to cut advanced learning, eliminate option schools and most of all, increase class sizes, they're likely to continue to see large declines in enrollment.
NE Parent
From a cost standpoint, when we bought our house, the cost was far more reasonable, and our pathway schools were well-rated. Last year a house down the block was redeveloped, and the new medium-sized house sold for 1.5M. The Great Schools ratings for our pathways schools are now 7 (elementary), 5 (middle), and 5 (high school) out of 10. What parent who can spend $1.5M for a house would then choose to send their kids to a school rated 5 out of 10?
From a programming standpoint, our neighborhood elementary used to have walk-to-math. When walk-to-math ended, the District made the students repeat the year. Our pathway middle school used to offer three years of a foreign language with a choice of two languages; now, the same school offers two years of a foreign language with a single language option. These are just examples. The proposed budget changes reduce programming even further, such as funding for Running Start.
From a senior leadership standpoint, I was told programming was limited at the start of COVID because not all kids had computers. Apparently, not all parents could get to the schools to pick the free ones up even though many staff appeared to have nothing to do and could have delivered them. In another COVID example, the school fields were all gated and locked, with the kids instead forced to play in the school parking lot and street for “their protection.” In another COVID example, the PTA purchased IXL for the school, but the teachers weren’t allowed to use it, and instead, parents had to download packets for their kids to complete and then scan and upload. Poor decisions have tremendously hurt disadvantaged students, as evidenced by recent state test scores. Perhaps some parents also don't appreciate that two School Board Directors were accused of racism against two staff members and were found guilty of harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying.
From a budget standpoint, it appears most of the Paramount Duty funding went to teacher and staff salaries. This year, it appears salary increases were paid in part by Federal COVID funds and future deficits (i.e., programming cuts). Yes, the teachers and staff always deserve more, but then so do the kids who seem always to lose. There will never be more funding in this District for students because even when there isn’t enough money, which staff well knew just four months ago, staff end up getting it.
From an advanced learning standpoint, one district middle school has a Great Schools Test Scores rating of 9 and a student progress score of 4 out of 10. The District's Chief Academic Officer called Advanced Learning “Manufactured Brilliance.” What she and the other leaders had the District do is take the students that were in the advanced classes and put them back in the general education classes to achieve equal outcomes. Thus, the high test scores and low progress scores as students are forced by the District to repeat learning standards.
From a priority standpoint, Seattle Public Schools classifies students based on their race; all children of the current Superintendent, Chief Academic Officer, Head of HR, Head of Public Relations, Ombudsman, and Head of Equity have a higher priority and count for more in funding, busing, and other service decisions because they are Black than all White, Chinese, Korean, Middle Eastern and East Indian students based on their race, regardless of socio-economic status or test scores. This is like the recent proposal for reparations in San Francisco, where even OJ Simpson would qualify. Such racial prioritizations are a violation of the U.S. Constitution and state and federal law. Likely many parents that care about equity don’t care for such policies in the schools their kids attend.
To me the most revealing part of Melissa’s post is that the district’s plan was to “hope” for legislators to bail them out.
Too Big to Fail
Tell Me Why
The problem is that this is not in alignment with what most Seattle parents or residents want. While no one wants kids left behind, most want more than that from schools. Most want children to work to their potential. SPS has been clear that that is not what they want. SPS wants equal outcomes, i.e. minimal competency, and if that's not what you want then this district is not for you. As Liza Rankin put it, go somewhere else.
Or as Danny Westneat neatly summarized at the end of his Jan. 17 column from 2020:
Ng, who graduated from Seattle public schools himself, said there’s a philosophical question here that’s bigger than any one program.
“This is a debate about what is the role and purpose of a public school district,” he said. “Is it to get every kid to a basic standard? Or is it to foster the potential of every kid? What the district is proposing here is like Medicaid, sort of a broad safety-net approach. It’s understandable because, like with Medicaid, they have people falling through the cracks. But if you want more than that, I guess you have to go to private school.”
I don’t know the right answer. Can’t we do it all? But as a lifelong public-school person, one who believes the schools are the bedrock holding up the city, I worry about what Ng is hinting at: An exodus out of the system.
In other words, some real opportunity hoarding.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/manufactured-brilliance-and-opportunity-hoarding-what-the-seattle-school-district-really-thinks-of-its-advanced-learning-program/
Educational Medicaid
Do you know what else SPS does with their Equity Tier money? They count the kids multiple times. They consider data for the following six student groups:
1. African American Male Students
2. Students of Color Furthest from Educational Justice
3. Students who qualify for free/reduced meal program
4. Students who are served by ELL program (or exited within last 2 years))
5. Students born outside the US
6. Students experiencing homelessness
And then they count the same student again and again depending on how many of those criteria the student meets. So the school might get more points (and subsequently money) for having a Black Male student (that's a pint for 1 and a point for 2) who's family is low income (that's a point for 3) and is a recent immigrant still learning English (that's a point for 4 and a point for 5). If the student is experiencing homelessness, that's another point.
So, that one student might be counted 5 or 6 times for the equity tier money. The equity tier money isn't that much money, but something doesn't feel right about government (schools) payments based on race.
https://www.seattleschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/tier_methodology23.pdf
Also, if racially you're 3/32 a student of color furthest from educational justice, do you get that point or not?
This is why PTA funds are so important. PTAs can provide a revenue stream in the low six figures per school that pays for supplies, recess supervisors, and other luxuries that de-stress schools at the building level, and PTA revenue is completely safe from being commandeered for staff salaries and benefits.
There will be no school closing. Only racist districts do that.
Donors Choose
SPS parent
Doesn’t Pencil
SPS parent
SPS Superintendent Olchefske, who resigned in 2003, implemented a school funding scheme where less district money was steered to wealthier schools and more to lower-income schools specifically so that PTAs at the wealthier schools could and would back-fill the lower funding. A sort of indirect tax on wealthier schools. Which worked well until a small number of loud voices started complaining that this PTA back-fill scheme was not good.
Any conversation we have in this district about PTA funding must start with this issue: either all of the schools are starting from the exact same funding levels (the state's "prototypical school model") and PTA funding is discouraged globally at all schools ~or~ schools that receive the lowest funding from the district (to a one, these are the wealthiest schools in the district) be allowed to back-fill that intentionally lower funding level. We can talk about adding a maximum per-head amount, we can talk about getting funds to the "missing middle" (lower income schools that are not Tier 1 but that lack robust PTA funding opportunities), but the conversation still has to start with keep or ditching the Olchefske model.
Perennial Tulip
Why? Do you subscribe to the notion that “equity” = same for every student? Kids at schools whose PTAs can raise hundreds of thousands every year have access to parents with resources, which can take the form of more volunteers at school, tutors and educational extras paid by mom and dad, parents who speak English as a first language or know how to navigate bureaucracy, or even the absence of poverty, violence, family trauma. What’s the difference if these schools donate 10% of their PTA funds in addition to Olschefkse funding? Why does that bother you?
Stumped
Didn’t say one thing about tithing. Every PTA we’ve been in has done this, and I have zero problem with it. I’m talking about the Olchefske model, where per head allocation is intentionally lower at wealthier schools for the reasons you cite, but predicated on the idea wealthy communities can and will backfill so that lower income communities don’t have to worry about that.
My issue is with this idea PTAs shouldn’t be funding stuff. The Olchefske model is based on the assurance they will.
It may not matter at this point. If we end up in receivership, the prototypical school model will likely be imposed on all schools anyway.
Perennial Tulip
Do you have any insight regarding SPS hires? According to district documents, SPS has more employees despite decreasing enrollment.
I don't understand why PTA dollars are a matter of concern when Rome is burning. Try taking a stab at the transportation and enrollment budgets. Transportation allocates more than $1M per week in transportation costs and the district is only transporting 9000-10-000 students. As Tulip pointed out, the system is set-up to shift dollars to low income schools. Decreasing enrollment means there will be less funds available to shift to low income schools.