The So-Called "Fiscal Policy" That the Seattle School Board Is Putting Forth
Or rather, the fiscal policy that Directors Chandra Hampson and Liza Rankin are putting forth. I was not able to tune into the Seattle Council PTSA meeting on this fiscal policy that was held last week. This policy is to come before the Board on November 15th; more on that later in this post.
I will say that for such a sweeping amount of change that this fiscal policy would bring about, it's appalling how little is being said publicly. It kinda reminds of me Student Outcome Focused Governance (SOFG) because I'd bet very few parents know about it and even fewer understand it.
Someone I know did tune into this meeting and this is what she heard.
Hampson and Rankin along with Director Leslie Harris were the only Board members present. Also present was Janice White, SEA president. There were about 50 people signed in. (Editor's note: Janis White is the president of the Special Education PTSA; Jennifer Matter is head of SEA. Did I know this? Of course but my fingers sometimes get ahead of my brain. I jumped to the SEA association because of the change in the fiscal policy. Apologies to both women.)
The meeting started at 7 pm and apparently Rankin and Hampson spoke for the first hour and even 27 minutes in, there were still no specifics offered. That's sure a long time to talk before any discussion starts but this was likely a performative meeting, not real engagement.
Questions started about 8:10 pm and my source had to leave about 10 minutes after that. If anyone else was listening in, please let us know what you heard.
- The claim was made that this fiscal policy does NOT replace existing policy. That's it's more like a guardrail. Well, if that were true, it would be called a guardrail and not a policy. If the Board is to vote on it and it becomes part of the policy manual, then it's a policy.
- Another claim is that "nothing in the policy is prescriptive" and bo,y will that be a real problem for the Superintendent and principals.
- The claim is that they are "shifting from compliance to alignment." I would guess this means alignment with equity goals and the Strategic Plan.
- Hampson said schools would be free to accept outside funds BUT they had to follow some kind of guidelines to be set up by the Superintendent and senior staff so that "inequalities" are not created. The Superintendent must track the dollars and make sure he/she can report to the Board that the use of the dollars are consistent with equity goals.
Can you imagine trying to figure this out? If the Superintendent and senior staff create guidelines with wiggle room, then someone can always point a finger at any spending that person thinks may be wrong. The Super will need more staff just to track these dollars AND monitor the spending.
I have no idea how this will work with outside grants from foundations.
- Apparently this is perhaps a trial run because another stated item is that this policy will expire in June of 2024.
Basically, it sounds like this policy goes after bell times, option schools and PTA dollars. I see this also affecting sports.
As my source said to me, "I think the Board is poking a bear at a time when enrollment is falling." Plus, there are going to be a couple of more years of large budget deficits. I agree.
As for the next Board meeting where this is on the agenda, I am appalled to see, yet again, an item like this that will affect so many aspects of school financing, to be on the Consent agenda. But I fully expect either Director Leslie Harris or Director Vivian Song Maritz to pull it off.
Two things have changed in this non-policy policy:
6) Utilize Maintain or agree to school funding models and staffing ratios that 1) centerfail to utilize data proven formulas centered on meeting student need, 2) are
adult over
not flexible enough to ensure alignment with established goals related to ensuring
student outcomes, and 3) are inconsistent with the Board’s policies and statement of
values including the Board’s goals and resulting District strategic plan.
I think somehow this policy wants to change the WSS to meet both the Strategic Plan and SOFG. I don't think it's a good long-term idea.
9) FOmit or Fail to propose disclose any legally allowed budget changes options which
mitigate financial risk and/or are fiscally promise substantive fiscal improvement in the
district’s ability to serve students.sound due to any existing provision in a collective
bargaining agreement for which there is no legal requirement.
Well will you look at that? Completely changed that particular area of the policy that pertains to the SEA. No surprise there except that Hampson could even dream that would pass muster with the union.
The last issue to note is that Director Song Maritz had put forth an amendment which I never saw but she now seems to have tweaked into a new amendment. Unfortunately, it has not yet been attached to the agenda. I'll try to get it up before November 15th.
Comments
The board should respect the incoming board and allow the incoming board to vote on the fiscal policy because it is clear Hampson et. al want to revert back to a 2 tier bell time, kill option schools and prevent PTAs from supporting their schools- even though said schools receive less funding via per pupil and WSS.
I again note the oddity of how they are not have two week Board meetings which would see the new Board in sooner. I'm sure that's by design.
And I'm sorry but calling out "transparency" as a guiding principle of the fiscal policy is disingenuous. Where is such transparency when piling everything (like a student safety audit???) on to the consent agenda? Or writing a policy that encompasses so many facets of school operations in a single document? PTA spending, bell times, and more all deserve their own discussion.
Puh-lease.
These poor pandemic kids. They just keep getting shuffled around. School closures will be more of the same.
It is imperative to usher in a new board. Briggs is more of the same.