Follow-Up on SPS Staffing

Update: the district is short on money but the new Assistant Superintendent of Finance's salary range is this:

$243,947.00 - $256,297.00 Annually

It IS a big job but that's a great salary for this area. For the money SPS spends on top administration, you'd think the district would be in better shape.

end of update

 I put this up at the last "This and That":

I'm hearing that the Executive Directors numbers may be reduced from 7 to 5 and those remaining will be working by region/K-12.  

Apparently ALL the EDs (and their boss who is Mike Starosky) have to reapply for their jobs, with the number of EDs being reduced to five. 

I also note that the district is looking for a new Assistant Superintendent of Finance. The broad job description on the announcement page is quite different from the actual job description.

Join a team that is committed to every student’s journey. We are proud to be a forward-looking, K-12 school system. We believe it is our responsibility to do whatever it takes to ensure that every child — regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, learning style or disability — graduates ready for college, career, and life.

Our district, as made evident by our strategic plan, is unabashed in its focus on eliminating systemic racism and its adverse impact on student learning. We seek to hire individuals who bring to our district a deep commitment to racial equity and social justice. We foster a culturally responsive workforce so teachers, leaders, and staff can effectively support students and families. Every role in SPS centers on this commitment.

Read the assistant superintendent of finance position description and apply.

 I am quite astonished at the admission that the district is "committed to every student's journey." That is a rare statement from this administration. 

As well, that second paragraph? You don't see much of that in the actual job description. Hmmm.

 

Comments

Robert Cruickshank said…
The Executive Director positions ought to be eliminated entirely, as there's no justification for keeping them given the district's budget needs. I have a hard time seeing how we need that middle layer of administration rather than, say, save WMS's music program.
4/26/23, 5:47 PM
District watcher said…
SPS needs to stop obsessing about racial equality and put academic excellence as its major goal. Use evidence-based curricula instead of racial stories into every classroom.
I am a liberal and think there is a place for racial teachings in history classes. But SPS has gotten ridiculous.
Also, students need music, art and drama classes. Hopefully a new finance person can find a place for those.
4/27/23, 7:15 AM
Anonymous said…
@Robert,
Any central positions including Executive Directors or even Superintendent(s) ought to be eliminated entirely if they are doing AWOL or mismanaging. A competent admin as an Executive Director should be valued far more than an incompetent Superintendent whose job is to snuggle with the board members.
If this District is being managed based on the managerial advices from CGSC anyways, any positions requiring any brain or courage will be meaningless under the current Board & Jones leadership.

Unnecessary Toppings
4/27/23, 11:27 AM
Anonymous said…
There really should be a law about limiting the percentage of staff used for non contact service to students. Eg. The district staff may not have more than 25% of staff devoted to anything besides student contact. That includes principals, lunchroom staff, program managers, superintendent and baby superintendents all of them need to be limited. The limits could be based on salary or absolute headcount. Either could work. Teachers, IAs, direct service proving therapists, counselors …. all good in the 75% bucket. SPS needs to get rid of the excessive burden of administration and hairbrained schemes.

Waste Not
4/29/23, 4:26 PM
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