The Seattle School District/Board Push for Two Major Items Before the Board Elections

The first item is the list of schools to be closed/consolidated. The date I have seen is November 15th which is a week after the November 7th Election Day. 

I would have said "preliminary" list but I don't think the district is considering closing schools throughout the entire district to make it look fair. I do think it possible to come out with a large number, like 20 as Superintendent Brent Jones did at one point, and then decrease that number so as to look like good people trying to save schools when that was the plan all along. 

I want to reiterate a couple of points I made elsewhere and one BIG point. 

The big point is that NOTHING in this district happens in a vacuum. Meaning, there will be ripple effects from closing schools throughout the district. Do not think because your school is not closing or consolidating that it won't impact you. I certain think if you ask your principal, he/she/they will tell you the effects for your school. 

My other previous comments:

Parents, think of the newest teachers (not new to your school but to the profession) at your school. They will be the first ones displaced for more senior teachers at closing schools.

As well, all these mega elementaries? Each will absorb some other school's population which may be further from that neighborhood so some kids will now have a longer commute which may impact the entire transportation system.

The second item is just as serious if not more. 

You may recall that I talked about how Directors Hampson, Rankin and Song Maritz are working on a "fiscal policy" for the Board which in turn, will trigger superintendent procedures to enact it. 

I have a copy and here's what it says.

First, it's a bit of a word salad. This is clearly written for the people in power, not the people it will affect. It has the fine hand of AJ Crabill at the Council of Great City Schools as well as Director Hampson all over it.

ANY policy that has such far-reaching consequences should be out in the public. From the Work Session discussion, it appears that both Director Harris and Director Rivera Smith feel this way. And Harris said there should be DRAFT written all over it. It does not. It may still be a draft but odd that it doesn't say that. 

I searched the district's website and cannot find a link. Remember that when some on the Board talk about public engagement and "community values and vision." Because this fiscal policy includes PTA funds.

I believe the Board wants to push this through before any new Board members are seated. Given the time period - from now to the beginning of December, that is too short. But watch them try to do it.

It has 13 points and I am going to attempt to explain what I think they mean but please do chime in. 

Let's start with the opening statement:

Financial planning or budgeting for any fiscal year, or part thereof, shall not risk fiscal jeopardy or deviate materially from the Board’s goals and resulting District strategic plan and shall be derived from a minimum four-year plan in full compliance with state law. 

There are three items in there. 

One, the district will not draw up a budget that will "risk fiscal jeopardy." I'm a bit confused here because this year's budget does that. They drained the rainy day fund. That would certainly appear to put the district in fiscal jeopardy if there is any natural disaster or dire situation. I would presume that the district believes the city/state/feds will step in and help should that happen. 

In fact, in Policy 6022, the Board recommends having that fund be between 3-5% of total actual general fund expenditures of the most recently completed fiscal year. 

In the event the ESA balance falls below the recommended minimum level of 3%, a plan to replenish the fund will be developed and provided with the resolution authorizing use of the fund. The repayment plan must be reviewed annually as part of the budget process until the funds are fully restored

I believe it has been stated that they need to set a plan now that they have used all the Economic Stabilization Account ESA) for this year's budget but I haven't seen that yet. And, with the district continuing to have a budget deficit, I would think it's a long way off. 

The second item in that sentence uses the phrase "deviate materially from Board's goals and resulting District strategic plan..." I think "deviate materially" sure could mean different things to different people and needs to be more fully explained. 

The third item is the "minimum four-year plan." It's fine to have early forecasting for the next couple of budgets but they are going to start with the need for 4-years worth of budgets? I'm troubled that this might mean that Board elections could mean very little if  four years worth of budgets have already been set. 

I note that many items are more procedure-based and others more labor partners-based and still others appear PTA-based. After a caveat of "without limiting the above, the Superintendent shall not cause or allow Seattle Public Schools to:" we dive into the 13 items. 

Item 1

Omit credible projections of revenues and expenses; separation of capital and operational items; cash flow and significant balance sheet items; or disclosure of planning assumptions and analysis.

 I'm a bit confused about "separation of capital and operational items" because there are already separate budgets for operations and capital." 

Overall, I believe this item to mean "don't hide anything from us that you have used to create budgets."

Item 2

Fail to compare, for each major fund type and activity, the actual expenditures for the most recently closed fiscal year, budgeted expenditures for the current fiscal year, and proposed budget expenditures for the next fiscal year.

This is a basic and one that SPS already does but, of course, good to have in writing.

Item 3

Fail to provide adequate and reasonable budget support for Board development and other governance priorities, including the costs of fiscal audits, Board and committee meetings, Board memberships and activities as delineated in the Board’s annual plans.

This is fair because Board members through the ages have complained about NOT having enough material support for their jobs. However, if "activities" means expensive travel, that needs to be drawn out. What is interesting to me is that I have seen Board work plans but I have not seen this "annual plan" that would include Board memberships. I asked about this in public disclosure and no one even suggested this exists but that's where I might find all the professional organizations that the Board has membership in. 

Item 4

Omit or fail to propose budget changes which mitigate risk and/or are fiscally sound due to any existing provision in a collective bargaining agreement for which there is no legal requirement.

Is this to prevent strikes? Because I believe that technically, in Washington state, teacher strikes are not legal. 

Item 5

Fail to propose and negotiate pay scales aligned with multi-year fiscal capacity so as to ensure equitable pay and benefits for all labor partners and other staff and mitigate the risk of compensation concentration in any class or sub-class of labor class.

I would take "mitigate the risk of compensation concentration in any class" to mean that no one group gets a bigger raise than any other group. I'd like to hear SEA's thoughts on this. 

Item 6

In years in which an operating deficit or surplus is projected, omit categorical and programmatic location and type of budget reductions or enhancements and their maintenance of Board’s goals and resulting District strategic plan.

Wordy. What does "categorical and programmatic location.." mean? Does that mean specific school programs? Also did they mean to say "type of budget reductions or enhancements that don't maintain Board's goals and resulting District strategic plan?"

Item 7

In years in which a significant operating deficit or surplus is projected, fail to present a Reduced or Increased Educational Program Resolution for Board approval.

I'll bite - what is an "educational program resolution?" An explanation of the deficit or surplus? Also, the Board writes its own resolutions so why would they direct the Superintendent to do this?

Item 8

In any way allow building or other leaders to solicit or fundraise in support of building, departmental or district budget if that funding is not a) sustainable, if one-time funds, or for one-time needs, and/or b) aren’t clearly shown as matched by the district through a balancing mechanism consistent with the Board’s goals and resulting District strategic plan.

Again, very wordy. What is interesting is that I think this is squarely aimed at PTAs except that I have rarely seen principals "solicit" funds. The PTA generally raises funds and then gives the money to the school budget without the principal ever directly asking.

And "aren’t clearly shown as matched by the district through a balancing mechanism?" Does that mean whatever funds are raised and used, then there has to be matching funds for schools without that fundraising? This would hobble PTAs pretty well if that's the case.

Item 9

Agree to staffing ratios with any bargaining unit that are not flexible enough to ensure alignment with established goals and guardrails related to ensuring student overcomes.

I note that last word is likely "outcomes." Again, another union issue that may not come out well for the unions. Staffing ratios are a big issue for Special Education but it is unclear to me what this item would mean for that area.

Item 10

Utilize funding models and staffing ratios that 1) center adult over student need and 2) are not flexible enough to ensure alignment with established goals related to ensuring student outcomes 3) are inconsistent with the Board’s policies and statement of values including the Board’s goals and resulting District strategic plan.

This somewhat repeats Item 9 but again, it needs to be explained what "center adult over student need" truly means. SOFG uses some version of this phrase but if it's used for budgeting, then they have a responsibility to say what they mean in plain and clear terms.

Item 11

Present budgets that utilize student or family fees as the majority of revenue to support programming, equipment and/or materials, that student/family fee revenue are insufficient to support at other schools, without a demonstrated alternative financial source providing equitable access to the same basket of programs, equipment and/or materials.

Again, likely aimed at PTAs and now, if other students in other schools don't have access, nobody gets anything from said basket. I am a bit perplexed at the "fees." Are they talking about fees to play sports or be in music programs? 

Item 12 

Fail to delineate, manage to, and communicate a clear timeline regarding the budgeting process.

Again, pretty much a given in SPS but I guess they want to put it in writing.

Item 13

Propose to retain static student assignment plans, school boundaries and transportation standards, if modifications will create or maintain efficacy in association with the proposed budget and aligned with high standards of service.

Well, SPS has tried for "efficacy" in transportation for decades so no mystery there. The student assignment plan is regularly revisited and, after they get rid of the cohort model for Advanced Learning, it will need to be revisit. Changes to the enrollment plan will also likely change boundaries. Not sure why anyone on the Board believes any superintendent has "proposed static" plans for any of this. (FYI, this word efficacy seems to be the word du jour for the Board and staff; don't know why.)

Thoughts?