Seattle School Board Work Session on the Budget, Meeting Two
I finally listened to the last Work Session on the Budget. I had a difficult time even finding it on the SPS channel on YouTube. Please note on this issue - you can put in "SPS work session" at YouTube and find numerous meetings. However, for this particular work session, someone labeled it a "special meeting" of the SPS board and you won't find it if you put in work session.
The meeting was scheduled for an hour and a half and ran two hours. From the footage, it appears there were about 10 members of the public including watchdog, Chris Jackins. To my astonishment not one but two board members were not in attendance - Michelle Sarju and Brandon Hersey. Also, for pure entertainment value, you can't beat the face of Director Leslie Harris who can be quite funny especially when she looks like the cat who swallowed the canary during some people's remarks.
Folks, the news is not good. I'll break out the highlights. I can say that except for a few directors making pointed statements, that there was a helluva lot of pussy-footing around big issues. My take is that staff wants to kick the can down the road as long as they can and THEN spring it on the directors and the public about what they think would be the best value for creating this budget.
This will be a lengthy post but I believe a lot of what was said is important. I'm highlighting a theme in red.
Meetings
- There are to be 10 sessions on this year's budget; this was meeting two. They are coming up on two key dates.
1. November 15th - the introduction of the resolution on the budget (to be written by staff).
2. December 13th - a vote on that resolution
However, in-between those two dates is the November 7th election which will see changes on the Board. I see that ballots were mailed on October 20th so you will be seeing yours soon.
Also, as I previously mentioned, there appears to be an oddity in the Board's calendar about regular Board meetings. Board meetings are generally every two weeks. There is one this week on Wednesday the 25th. So the next meeting should be in two weeks on November 8th. But no, it's the NEXT week on November 15th. The next day starts the Washington State School Directors Annual Conference (which is likely to include newly elected Board members even if they have not yet taken the oath of office). Two weeks after the 15th meeting would be November 29th but no meeting there, just the newly-electeds taking the oath of office. (Yes, there have been times when members take the oath and then the regular meeting starts.)
If the Board was following the regular calendar, the new members would have two full meetings before the holiday break. I do not believe any of this is by accident. I think it is in service to these budget issues.
- Communications' Bev Redmond said that community affairs has "come to nest and rest" within her department. She said that there had been a series of "internal and external" community engagement meetings. If that is true, why was there no slide explaining when these meetings took place and who was invited? I find it weird that the district wants to be "transparent" and yet they are having private internal meetings with community partners that no one else knows about or knows who was there or what was discussed.
She said that the well-resourced school community meetings will generate a community engagement report but it's still not finished. She also said there were common themes that would be discussed at this meeting. Those themes were barely touched on and there was also no discussion of them.
Meetings Questions
Director Lisa Rivera Smith said that Redmond had thrown out several numbers for respondents to both the meetings and survey. Redmond said that there were 5 in-person session, two online meetings and the survey. She claimed the survey had 10,000 respondents but Rivera Smith said that people could make more than one comment so it is not likely to be 10,000 individual comments. Rivera Smith then asked about demographics captured. It forced Redmond to concede that the district used "a basic sign-in sheet" at the public meetings which didn't ask attendees about where they are from within the district.
Redmond also said something curious about "community values should be evergreen" as they go through the budget process. I'm assuming she means values that should be kept and that issue comes back again and again with both directors and staff.
Agenda Walk-Through
This started with John Podesta started by restating the number of sessions and saying that what the legislature does or does not do in this shorter session will be very important to the process. He then went through a number of informational slides.
Podesta Questions
Director Leslie Harris, the beacon of bluntness on this board, asked why closure and consolidation list was not include as well as noting that the new Board will be asked to vote on a resolution - how the budget is balanced - at their first meeting and it's a resolution that they did not craft.
She right on point with both statements. Podesta ignored the question on the C&C list.
Podesta admitted that yes, that's how the process would play out with the old Board introducing the resolution but the new Board voting on it. You can't set up a go-along to get- along situation much better than that.
Harris said she had "significant concerns and pity on that to my successors." She also noted that on the heels of the budget work are boundary changes and then the February open enrollment time. She mentioned that all these changes - both within the resolution AND the boundary changes they may make - will also change transportation.
There is no crime for the district to want to saving money on transportation. They have tried a number of ways to do that and, given that they are still working on efficiencies, something has to give. And by give, I mean bell times. I absolutely think SPS will go back to a two-tier bell time schedule so parents get ready for that. It is one key place to try to save dollars.
Director Vivian Song Maritz then asked about the process around writing the resolution on the budget. Her question was, who is writing it? Podesta said staff was writing it and Harris, to Song Maritz's left, gave a knowing half-smile. Song Maritz went back to the issue of the intro of the resolution under one board and the vote on the resolution under the new board. She asked when the new Board members might be able to give input on the resolution?
Podesta lamely said that could happen during the onboarding of new board members. I would urge any new Board members to ask for a 2x2 meeting with senior staff. He claims that budget is "the lion's share" of onboarding. Hmmm. I would suspect it's legal issues.
Director Chandra Hampson chimed in that the old board generally moves the new board through the onboarding process. She said, "Just as there is never a good time for kids, there is never a good time for onboarding new members.” She also complained that past boards didn't do a good job.
Song Maritz came back saying when she joined the board, that board DID do a good job but she pointed out the difference in terms of this resolution.
Then VP Liza Rankin came in saying that the state has some of the lowest school board standards in the country.
She said that buildings had to build their budgets at the same time especially around staffing as the district and that closure and consolidation changes would be "happening in real time." She also said that "November 15th doesn't seem that far off."
Rankin said that the resolution is "not policy" but a way to have a public discussion and then vote on it as "guidance" and not set in stone.
Podesta said the Superintendent has to get "explicit" direction from "explicit" Board feedback to create transparency.
Rivera Smith asked where in the timeline for the resolution would there be opportunities to hear from communities about priorities. Podesta said they would "stay open to that" with any adjustments as well.
Jones said that part of the well-resourced schools discussion is informing communities where the district will go with the Board's ideas as well. He also claimed that "we stay open to that."
I call bullshit on both Podesta's and Jones' statements. Staff will listen but be open to changes? Nope.
Then Rankin said something completely nonsensical. She said, "Each date (on the timeline) is a public opportunity." Really? So why were the 10 members of the public were silent during this meeting? Because at Work Sessions there IS no public input and she knows that. What other meetings are there but Board meetings?
For something this serious, there should be at least three public meetings for parents and others to give input. But I think that would be too transparent and certainly too scary for the Board and staff. To note, for any school selected to close, the district is legally obligated to hold a public hearing.
Jones then said the now-tired canard, "never waste a good crisis" which, in the face of pending school closures, seems tone-deaf. He said this process is a way to find out what is "sacred" to us.
Specifics from Agenda pages
Dr. Kurt Buttleman, a new senior staffer for finance said that staff did not want to dwell on how they got here but did want to acknowledge that SPS has not done well but wanted to do better. He said that there had been "perpetuated inefficiencies" as well as staffing up at schools even as enrollment was declining.
What I found odd is that neither staff nor the Board acknowledged that one reason there was some increased staffing at school was driven by the pandemic. As it waned and schools reopened, the outcry for more mental health specialists as well as nurses was loud and long. It's hard to fault anyone for that.
He referenced page 26 for a spreadsheet on central office adjustments (which, at a previous meeting Harris had asked for) as well as FAQ pages at the district website. Second FAQ page. Third FAQ page on staff adjustments.
Questions from Agenda pages
Rankin said that the FAQs don't talk about the "structural deficit" that comes in multiple ways from the State. She referenced that there is an artificial cap on Special Education that did get raised to 15% but that the district is running between 16-17%. She added that even if the cap were raised again, the multiplier used to pay for services is not enough for costs.
She also explained that the "basic prototypical funding model" for staffing at schools doesn't work for SPS. She said SPS hires more people and pays them more (the latter needs to happen because of the huge housing costs in Seattle). She said class sizes in Washington State are some of the highest in the country. She said the 2014 class size levy was never enacted nor funded. She said there were some funds for K-3 but that's not enough.
She stated, "From the beginning, we are behind so we have to make some difficult choices."
Hampson said that Rankin's remarks covered a lot of issues. But she said there was "a big piece I don't see" which was "for us to own where are, we have to account for the lack of long-range planning." She gave a big sigh and continued that they "can't fail to make big decisions now. We are now at a place of having failed to do that for many years. And it’s not about any particular Board." She praised staff for now trying to do that extended work.
She said they need to dive down deeper for "outcomes" for kids.
Ah, here comes SOFG.
"School finance is massive rollercoaster. Our job is to demand a view that there will still be ups and downs and we need some padding. We were teed up pre-pandemic with some of the best padding we ever had and thank God we had it but it’s gone. We need to make sure we are not violating our values and guardrails."
She said it is a challenge to directors, "as I tend to hear from us is a whirlwind of reactivity to the extent that we fail to provide a clear relatively focused path forward."
“Disruptive and upsetting things are real and somehow we still have to focus on critical 4-year plan to rebuild that cushion."
She mentioned the district "absorbing shocks."
"Historically we have not, we don’t want to cut this or that and haven’t made the hard decisions."
I do want to observe - over and over at Work Sessions - that nearly all the Board members listen attentively to speakers, be they Board members or not. However, both Hampson and Sarju look at their screens constantly no matter who is speaking. In this case, you had Harris next to Hampton, doing active listening, but if Harris was speaking, Hampson could not be bothered. It is a very upsetting thing to view, that level of disrespect.
Rivera Smith asked about where the district could cut and suggested that composting, rather than throwing out paper towels, could be one item.
Kurt said the central office is doing an exercise across the leadership team to try to figure out efficiencies. He mentioned something about using a timeclock. Jones mentioned that Guardrail #2 was around "organizational efficiency."
Podesta came in with the issue of transportation and said they have "50% more school buses on the road than we need to." I would like to see a breakdown of that statement. I can say that this door-to-door bus service, especially in such a geographically challenged city as Seattle is a major issue.
Rivera Smith said that the district itself needs to be a "better educator" to parents on these issues.
Song Maritz said that "this is still a $1.2B enterprise" and one issue is finding what "we CAN guarantee to families."
She said in the spreadsheet there were a number of "TBDs" and obviously, with no numbers assigned, that is a frustration to board directors.
Harris talked about a previous senior leader who said, "We can do many things but not everything." Which, of course, is the crux of the issue. What is the district legally obligated to do and what is the baseline for every single school that families can expect in an SPS school?
She continued, "What can we hold harmless?" She said 50 schools "just went through hell" rebalancing staff. She said there were costs for "disruption and (loss of ) trust."
Then she said out loud what I have said all along about SOFG - she asked, "What ARE the community vision and values - what does that actually mean in plain language?" Hampson to her left, reading her screen, did not say anything. And Hampson is the one preaching the gospel of "community vision and values" but she can't be bothered to answer that question?
If there is NO ONE on the Board who can answer that question, then SOFG is bullshit. This "community vision and values?" Bullshit.
Harris continued that she gets asked, “Are you for closures and consolidations you ask me?” And I responded, " Beats the heck out of me because I have no details. I can’t make those decisions. I got nothing.”
She asked about what is it that they value - small schools for particular populations? K-8 model? STEM? and so on.
She said, she couldn't give "a list up or down without input from our community."
Rankin said the Board is there to represent community and that "we've been in a reactionary place." She said that they need to know "what we expect for kids and here are the things you can't violate." She said they needed to zoom out for "a community view for the public education system" and what it will take to provide that to all students."
From my experience, those are two separate things - what parents want and what community wants. I'm sure there is overlap but I do not think both groups want the exact same things. Whose voice then?
She went on, the "consolidation thing, we don't have a list for because if we say that we can't close any schools and find a way to afford it," but then "it would be irresponsible to say that's not a possibility because we could pay to keep them open but when you are at a school where 4 fewer kids means a teacher or not. No one wants a school to close, not small schools but we are talking about schools intended to have 400-500 kids, that have under 200 kids, split classes, no art, no counselor."
"It’s about making choices. And as Song said, we are a $1.2B organization." She then waves her arms like it’s all very simple.
She was then listing the "topline goals" and said one of them was, "Graduation based on access to Advanced Learning." What?! She said that was "a ton of info on what we prioritize."
She then said that if the Board makes some things "sacrosanct" then "we are limiting" ourselves and will have to ask staff what the trade-offs would be. I'm not sure that is a surprise to anyone.
She said they did not want to "wait to be fully funded to serve our students equitably."
She mentioned the two-tier transportation and that "state law says districts need to adjust bell times for efficiency." Is that "need" or "can?"
Still going, she said they need to "lay it out on the table and make choices and not have adult finger pointing and blame but what is for students." She said it "doesn't mean rocks and gruel" and that the district has "amazing teachers and awesome families and (some) beautiful facilities."
Hampson comes in. She said, "I’m not convinced that the major characteristics of this district represent the vision and the values and I’ve never heard of or analysis done. We hesitated because of backlash like when I suggested that we not fund transportation to option schools and I’m going to do that again."
She said nothing they do is net neutral, that all actions have costs. This is true but when she suggests that charging athletic fees would be problematic in terms of time/effort, well, the district charges for things all the time. This would not be new to them.
She said that eliminating school choice would "save a ton of money" and "is that something we should be considering." She said she was just looking for system efficiencies.
Well, sure. If you create cookie-cutter schools - something this district has consistently NOT done for more than 30 years - you will save money. Get rid of Option Schools, get rid of STEM, get rid of the BioTech program at Ballard, get rid of dual language, get rid of anything not available at most schools and you will save money.
Who knows? Maybe it would be a better, more consistent district if they did that. But man, the upheaval.
But Hampson then claimed that in the histories she has read, school choice was about white flight. I would like her to show us a verified, researched history that says/proves that. Because that is an easy accusation to toss out, harder to prove but that's per her MO.
She continued that "they (the Board/staff) are just nipping around the edges. We narrow in on teeny changes and don’t want to disrupt. And I don’t know if we have considered all those things. Our Option schools in general don’t provide an appreciably better education experience and not better outcomes for students. May be exceptions here and there but, as a whole, they do not have better outcomes for kids."
"Don’t lose sight of but one of progress monitoring session is that we have better outcomes for Black male students in 13 schools of promise but not which of five strategies to invest in."
Now THAT'S just stunning. The district picks 13 schools, gives them several major supports and something seems to work for some kids but they have NO WAY TO TRACK WHAT THAT IS.
"And yet, in case anyone is wondering, and still failing to serve our students furthest from educational justice."
I'll bite - what else should the district be doing at this point for those students? And, where the trickle-down to other students of color?
Jones stated that "we are truly wedded to outcomes for those students and we codified it and that is sacrosanct." He said he was not going to put a list of consolidated schools "in front of you if I don’t believe wholeheartedly that will change outcomes for students." He added, "We are not at that point yet."
It's October 23rd and this resolution on what the district thinks is the best way forward fiscally is due to the Board by November 15th. And they are not at the point of making any list? Again, I call bullshit.
Buttleman state that, after draining the rainy day fund for the last budget, that the district is indeed now going to pay it back. It will be $6.6M for each of 6 years. I'm thinking there must be something legal in this because if things are this bad off, how can they afford to do this right now?
Hampson did say that she is worried about risk managment and an upcoming internal audit around compliance. Hmmm.
Song Maritz did note that she gets asked about cuts to central office and that many people don't realize that direct services to kids like transportation and culinary services live in the central office.
Another thing I did know - McCleary positively impacted revenues for most districts and some of it is funded through a King County levy where Seattle takes a major hit to fund it. I'm guessing this is around property taxes.
Song Maritz suggested starting enrollment earlier as a possible cost-cutting measure.
Hampson says that "homeschooling has doubled" and that private school enrollment hadn't. I would love to see the source of that data. She said that Seattle had more private schools than other districts. Okay, sure, no mystery about that.But the Board and senior staff need to state the baseline. NOW.
end of meeting
Here are the stated goals and guardrails. The only time that the district references every single SPS student is in the Strategic Plan which seems to have bowed out in favor of SOFG goals. From the Strategic Plan:
Mission
Seattle Public Schools is committed to eliminating opportunity gaps to ensure access and provide excellence in education for every student.
Vision
Every Seattle Public Schools’ student receives a high-quality, world-class education and graduates prepared for college, career, and community.
Did you pick up from those items in red the theme?
What is the baseline for EVERY SINGLE school in the district?
Because if they are taking choice away to save money, the district has to be fair and give every school the same baseline. If they want to then throw more equity dollars at some schools, fine.
I suspect that they will close schools before ending school choice.
Comments
"Harris said she had "significant concerns and pity on that to my successors." She also noted that on the heels of the budget work are boundary changes and then the February open enrollment time. She mentioned that all these changes - both within the resolution AND the boundary changes they may make - will also change transportation."
Harris is 1000% correct. The board majority killed committee meetings in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
Families should keep a sharp eye on transportation because I believe the district will want to roll back bell times- again.
Dilulu
If you cut transportation, you are surely hurting less fortunate kids more.
If you close schools, well, it appears that most of the schools would be in the north end but even there, some less fortunate kids will be affected.
If you try to baseline each and every school, there will still be less fortunate kids affected.
Fees for athletes would be felt especially but that's one area that I think different community groups could rise up and take care of those fees.
Look at the numbers below. There are very small schools with excellent test scores and low costs in Seattle, as well as much larger schools that cost more.
For example, the district could merge Wedgewood with Decatur and build one large new school. The current average per-student cost between those schools is $17.5K. Thornton Creek, which is nearby, new, and larger, already costs $22K per student. Does anybody really think that merging Wedgewood and Decatur into a new building would reduce the per-student cost?
Sure, there are small schools with astronomical costs. But that's generally because those schools have very expensive students, typically low-income, special needs, and/or language learners. Shifting expensive students from small schools to big schools is likely not going to be much cheaper.
The district is being very dishonest if they're saying this whole plan of consolidation is to cut costs. The true reason is much more likely motivated by various agendas. For example, closing schools means they have an excuse to redraw boundaries, which may be legitimate but has nothing to do with being "well-resourced."
Kids graduating this year, who started in kindergarten, have seen five separate superintendents. First, they were changing the boundaries to build new schools. Now they're changing boundaries to close schools, all the while bouncing kids around. They were opening options schools; now they're closing options schools. They were opening advanced learning schools; now they're closing advanced learning schools. Three different math programs.
One year, STEMbyTAF was the new fad, and then a few years later, a new superintendent arrived and that program was canned. One year they opened a new Native American school, and a few years later, there was a new school board and a new superintendent, and they closed it. One year, it's about how homework is important for building connections with the family, and the next year, it's about how homework is inequitable. One year, there's one set of start times, and a few years later, under new leadership, they revert to the old plan.
With few exceptions, these are all unforced errors. Instead, it's just a constant churn of senior leadership with different ideas and zero accountability.
Would you really want to join a company that had a new CEO with a new vision every two years? A company that was losing customers but never asked why? If there's one thing I would tell anybody considering Seattle Public Schools, it's to stay away until the district has changed its ways.
---
SMALL AND EXPENSIVE
Dunlap has 290 students and spends $29K per student. 32% met math standards
Lowell has 331 students and spends $27K. 36% met math standards.
SMALL AND CHEAP
Queen Anne Elementary has 205 students and spends $18K per student. 65% met math standards.
Decatur has 229 students and spends $17K per student. 98% met math standards
Wedgewood has 359 students and spends $18K per student. 80% met math standards.
BIG AND AVERAGE COST
Thornton Creek has 456 students and spends $22K per student. 71% met math standards.
Thurgood Marshall has 473 students and spends $22K per student. 70% met math standards.
Schools are inconsistent BECAUSE of parent demand, not in spite of it. We have option schools, programs and shifting learning approaches because that’s where the mojo is, and school administrators are looking to justify their paycheck. It may be that other districts retain leadership for longer, but is really common to see churn at positions that head up organizations this large and this political. And are bigger schools better than small? Who knows, there’s probably 300 different answers to that for each school. Building new schools to accommodate new consolidation is a fiscally irresponsible folly at this point. Pick a theme and stick to it. But it’s on you to find $131M, that’s our reality.
Hard Times
Not sure that Decatur is an apples to apples standard. It’s an HCC school, packed with kids whose parents are very invested. When my child was there, I believe their ask of each family for the PTA was $600!!! We paid that but I was shocked at even the request as the school was new to us. At any rate, it is small because you have to test in.
But it’ll likely be gone in a few years anyway, a casualty of the war on smart kids. Plus the building is pretty ancient. Maybe just slightly younger than View Ridge?
Ex-Decatur Parent
According to the 22/23 Purple book, $2.1 million was allocated to Decatur for 211 students. Isn’t that $10k per student?
- Wondering
Also, she can't have it both ways. Either she wants the kids in Seattle to get the same uniform outcome of education, in which case, option schools being no better than neighborhood schools achieves that so that's not a reason to close them--you'd have to demonstrate increased cost OR she admits that she just wants uniformity in the process of education which is a terribly dehumanizing argument on its face. Humans are not robots. Some kids/parents/teachers will always have learning types, needs, personalities, goals etc farther from the mainstream than others and having some options within the district is a good way to create positive spaces for those individuals. If there's an equity issue with the option schools its that there aren't enough options in South Seattle. Rich parents are always going to find 'options' for their kids. Poor parents should have options, too, and it's the district's responsibility to create them.
One might even wonder whether the 'typical' option student (if there is one) would do WORSE at a big generic neighborhood school, and that by keeping up with the average, the option schools are improving outcomes.
A "well-resourced" school has two components: (1) well-resourced facilities (no state funding restrictions); and (2) well-resourced staff (state funding restrictions).
Regarding well-resourced facilities, a key feature for decades has been a school's proximity to its neighborhood so kids can safely walk to school. When the District builds larger schools intending to replace multiple existing smaller schools, it inherently reduces walkability and the sense of connection to the local community. If there's no anticipated need for new capacity, the District should avoid building larger schools. If an old building needs replacement without increased student numbers, construct it to accommodate the same number of students but add pre-K, more community space, and maintain the parking and playgrounds. Add bonus space for potential future growth. Although the initial building cost will be higher, the ongoing operating costs with new efficient systems shouldn't increase materially. New buildings and staff salaries are separate budget items, and there is no "crisis" related to funding construction because it's not limited by the state. I still remember the District's bean counters refusing to build an auditorium when constructing Robert Eaglestaff. This city is affluent enough to build world-class schools that are walkable and community-focused.
As for well-resourced staff, the only lasting definition is compliance with the minimum per-student ratios and funding required by state and federal law. Everything else can change with the next leadership team. Many small schools in Seattle like Wedgwood, Queen Anne, and Decatur maintain low per-student costs and excellent test scores while meeting state and federal requirements. Such schools have been sharing resources like librarians and nurses for years to keep costs in line.
Take, for example, James Baldwin Elementary School (aka Northgate Elementary), scheduled to open in 2023-2024. The new school will have 650 seats, compared to the old school's 300-seat full capacity and 200 current students. Another example is Aki Elementary, which currently has 297 students but is designed to accommodate 542 in its new building. Despite declining enrollment, a budget crisis, and dropping academic performance, the District is adding nearly 600 seats between these two new elementary schools alone.
When comparing Alki to Northgate, which are similarly small, we again see that the per-student cost is driven by the proportion of low-income and English Language Learner students, not the school's size. The notion that staff costs for these high-need students will drop by merely constructing bigger buildings is suspect. If costs do decrease, it will likely result from higher staff-to-student ratios, negatively affecting outcomes.
During COVID, a teacher noted that initial limitations in providing online learning were in part due to many low-income parents lacking the means to pick up computers from schools. It's ironic that the same leadership promoting equity plans to build schools such as the 650-seat elementary school in low-income Northgate while concurrently warning of closing smaller, more walkable neighborhood schools due to budget cuts.
The new round of Seattle machine politics is warming up, and look for all kinds of building contracts.
They've exhausted McCleary, DEI, COVID, and SpecialEd is being drained right now. So I predict that buildings is where the grifters and cronies and headed.
Thanks for doing the grimy work, Melissa.
SP
If not consolidating schools, how would you make up the shortfall?
Also, it drives me bananas how teacher pay is being conveniently ignored in our current situation. It was a grossly negligent move to pay that much above funding levels with zero plan to offset it. It doesn’t account for the entire gap, but it’s another “nice to have item” that we need to trade away for - like bell times, option schools, those other sacred cows that families keep drawing lines in the sand about.
Pencil Out
What does seem real is that the district is very, very close to a doom loop. It feels like the only thing keeping it from spiraling into that is the fact there are so many disinterested/uninformed voters that keep punching "yes" on their ballots for the school bond levies without any idea of how badly (borderline illegally) those funds are put to use. If one of those bonds ever fails, that will truly mark the end in my mind. But the current approach of dumbing down SPS to a barely-mediocre level of academics and then being surprised when enrollment plummets, then cutting *more* attractive programs due to the resulting budget crisis precipitated by 1) falling enrollment and 2) fiscally irresponsible teacher contract... is clearly not a winning strategy and will just keep the infection spreading. But keep blaming "privilege" while SPS prioritizes pet projects that continue to fail by any metric. Keep blaming enrollment drops on "affordability" despite a roughly 20% increase in the city's general population in the last 10 years. They would have us believe none of those people have had children - despite the district's own capture rate data showing a plunge to truly embarrassing levels.
I'm done. I have two kids: the older one is only still in SPS due social/inertia reasons; the younger one started private and will never attend SPS barring an earthquake in governance and refocus on academic excellence with literally any level of accountability. The current board has from my view abdicated nearly all of its responsibilities for oversight and rational budgeting. I will not even be slightly surprised to see Evan Briggs win despite being a toady acolyte of probably the worst board member since I've taken up residence here. If I had to guess, it will be people with no kids in SPS who will see the endorsements she has and just figure it's fine. At that point, there will be no turning back. I would be willing to wager that within 5 years the district ends up in whatever version of receivership or bankruptcy that Washington state has.
- Seeing Red
@SP
You are spot on with the BruceBrentBrandon message. I suspect closed buildings will go for city use. Keep watching.
"The district is being very dishonest if they're saying this whole plan of consolidation is to cut costs. The true reason is much more likely motivated by various agendas. For example, closing schools means they have an excuse to redraw boundaries, which may be legitimate but has nothing to do with being "well-resourced."
Spot on. As Jones said, "don't waste a good crisis." Well, I think this is a golden opportunity for staff to get rid of programs/schools they have never really bought into. Even though I think if schools are closed, they will mostly be elementaries, I fear for places like Center School and Licton Springs K-8.
Hard Times:
"Building new schools to accommodate new consolidation is a fiscally irresponsible folly at this point."
Well,not if you are planning to close schools and consolidate. From that viewpoint, it makes perfect sense but for the district to not ADMIT that, is just weaselly.
Anon2, good points.
Pencil Out, even the district says closing schools isn't going to make that big of a dent in the deficit. As for teachers salaries, both the Superintendent AND the Board knew this was a problem when they said yes (and Rankin even admits that - another reason to say no to her). What's spent is spent.
Seeing Red:
"I would be willing to wager that within 5 years the district ends up in whatever version of receivership or bankruptcy that Washington state has."
Sadly, I agree. Parents will keep leaving if the district doesn't right itself AND actually start caring about every kid in this district.
SP:
"The new round of Seattle machine politics is warming up, and look for all kinds of building contracts."
That may come to pass but, as I repeated stated, charter law gives a charter operator the right of first refusal to any unused school building. Will that mean a spate of new charters in Seattle? It definitely could especially if those charters open with an eye to providing something SPS can't. Like Advanced Learning.
The student population has decreased by approximately 5000 students. District spending has increased by approximately $172M.
Total Expenditures for 20-21
$ 1,054,331,382
Total Expenditures for 2022- 2023 and 23-24
$ 1,142,449,116 $ 1,172,569,001
School budgets no longe contain WSS allocations.
It will be worth watching to see if any schools loose their Title 1 status when small schools are shut and moved into larger schools. Loosing Title 1 status, when non FRL students move into a buildings, has been problematic- in the past.
Do you think Center is replaced with a comprehensive school for the QA and Mag kids now that Ballard is returning to its violent roots?
SP
To your point, I mention Center School because of the following:
-Center is the only school I know of where the district does not own the property and pays to lease space. For a small school, that is a big added cost to the district.
- The City wants to renovate the Armory. They have said they will include Center School in the planning but I suspect that SPS would be paying even more in leasing costs. Maybe SPS could negotiate something better with the City during negotiations over Memorial Stadium. I don't know. And I don't know where Center School students would go during any renovation.
- I believe in Center School and Nova High school as well; those are the two high schools that are the most accepting places but I think the district has never been happy with them.
- Do I think QA/Magnolia will get their own comprehensive high school as they wanted when parents in those areas sued the district over the use of the racial tiebreaker at SCOTUS? No, I don't. I actually think if there WERE a high school in that area, that it would fill but the district has no land that I know of to build on. There had been talk of redoing Memorial Stadium with a high school above it but I think that's a long gone thought.
On this particular point on Center, yes, it is conjecture on my part. But I had someone at a Facebook page say that nothing is on the table until staff presents the data on what these possibilities pros/cons/costs are.
Folks, I listened to the entire work session. I know what was on the PowerPoint. All the possibilities I laid out ARE on the table. And, things are going to move swiftly. If you have any thoughts about it, tell the Board NOW.
spsdirectors@seattleschools.org