First Community Engagement on Closures Didn’t Seem, Well, Engaging
I’m hearing feedback from various sources at last night’s Well-resourced schools/Closures meeting at Roosevelt High School.
- It was a near full house which is a good indicator of interest/concern in this subject.
- Superintendent Brent Jones, coming into the meeting, was stopped by several parents who wanted to talk. He stopped and talked. Meanwhile, some parents were talking to media and then School Board President Liza Rankin apparently broken in to those conversations.
- State Senator Javier Valdez was in attendance and it’s reported that he told a crowd of frustrated parents, “ I heard zip, zitch, nada about the details and data.” Not good.
- Apparently the district had some app available - the Thought Exchange - to register questions/concerns; it seems many parents didn’t like this option. I note that one parent said it was not clear if the app would register how many times parents said the same comment (meaning, hey district pay attention here).
- Finance guy Fred Podesta repeated the party line about no real numbers.
- Staff layoffs were mentioned but again, no numbers.
- It has been alluded that the district will keep most schools as “inventory” but one person said they heard the district say they might raze one for “green space.”
- One slide had some questions:
- What will happen to the buildings?
- Will there be layoffs? What about staff? I again state, seniority will rule for layoffs. No one’s teaching staff is immune from this.
- How will we help students and families with this transition?
- There is nothing at the SPS Facebook page on this particular meeting nor on Twitter.
From the story in the Seattle Times:
Toward the end of the meeting, the scene devolved into shouting. “Show us your work,” one participant yelled in the crowded school theater. Others booed or shouted questions.
Rebecca Stephens, a parent with one child in elementary school, said she expected parents would be able to ask questions during the meeting, even if they did not get answers immediately.
“They used the word engagement multiple times,” Stephens said. “I don’t think anyone in this room felt engaged in a conversation.”
Parent Erica Seddig also left disappointed that the meeting ended so quickly. “The listening session didn’t feel like a listening session,” she said, “but more like a presentation.” Like many parents in attendance, she wanted to know how the system of well-resourced schools would affect current and future students. Her two children attend option schools, and she’s worried those programs may close.
A citywide group of parents, community members and educators launched a petition last week opposing possible closures. By Monday, the group, All Together for Seattle Schools, had collected more than 600 signatures.
Anybody else want to weigh in?
Comments
Face Palm
https://tejoin.com/scroll/182510438
It's not great, but it does let you both make comments and rate other people's comments, and I recommend people do so.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe9JKOqDd9e3aUvF_zt80FA6rS5OEZ8icecxIQwhE0fhMWnVw/viewform
In summary, between 2014 and 2019, the number of 5 to 18 year olds in Seattle increased from 76,570 to 86,189. This was a 12.56% increase. We can assume this is the school-age population.
During the same 2014 and 2019 period, SPS enrollment increased from 53,712 to 56,051. This was a 4.35% increase.
During the same 2014 and 2019 period, the SPS capture rate, as calculated by dividing the enrolled students by the student age population, decreased from 70.14% to 65.01%.
Between 2019 and 2022 (the last year for which there is data, assume 2022-2023 school year), the number of 5 to 18 year olds in Seattle decreased from 86,189 to 81,909.8. This was a 4.97% decrease.
During the same 2019 and 2022 period, SPS enrollment decreased from 56,051 to 51,528. This was an 8.07% decrease.
During the same 2019 and 2022 period, the SPS capture rate, as calculated by dividing the enrolled students by the student age population, decreased from 65.01% to 62.91%.
Between 2014 and 2019, the school-age population in Seattle increased every single year. Between 2019 and 2022, the school-age population has decreased every single year.
The SPS student yield rate (SPS students as a percent of school-age students) decreased steadily from 2014 to 2018, and then increased slightly. The yield then dropped by almost 4% between 2019 and 2020 as far more students left the District than left the city. Since 2020, the yield rate has increased slightly from 61.21% to 62.91%.
It would appear that the District built several new large elementary schools based on the increasing Seattle school-age population which had been steadily increasing from 2014 until 2019. In 2019, the District introduced its new Strategic Plan focused on equity and simultaneously ended many honors humanities classes, advanced science classes, and advanced math classes. It also changed its grading policies while at the same time there was COVID.
Between 2019 and 2022, the number of 5 to 9 year olds in Seattle decreased steadily from 31,823 to 27,961, whereas between 2014 and 2019 this age group increased steadily.
Someone should do further analysis and compare the SPS attendance and yield rate for different age brackets and grades. What the data seems to suggest is that the largest drop in school-age population has been for the 5 to 9 year old age bracket, and this number is continuing to trend down. Unless the yield rate has increased significantly, this suggests the lower number of younger students in Seattle will eventually flow through to the middle schools and high schools.
The District must have known at the time that it granted significant teacher raises that both the Seattle school-age population as well as its own yield rate of those students were decreasing.
Either the District has done similar analysis and is withholding it from the public, or they are arguably negligent in not doing it.
Recall Director Hampson's insistence on maintaining a homeless encampment on District property? Also, consider the remarks by Directors Rankin and DeWolf, and staff comments regarding the departure of white privileged students as no loss.
Furthermore, Director DeWolf affirmed that raising teacher salaries last year was the right decision, despite these known trends.
Is it any surprise that Superintendent Jones is withholding the numbers? The figures are terrible. We hear euphemisms like "demographic changes." Dr. Jones frequently speaks of "well-resourced schools." He wasn't out there claiming the District couldn't afford the teacher raises. He has suggested that parents will be happier losing their neighborhood school because, with bigger buildings, there can be a full-time nurse on staff, etc.
Instead of paying teachers more, the District could have used the money to pay for more nurses. Or why not do both? Perhaps Director DeWolf would have again said, "It was the right thing to do."
Give teachers raises and pay for it with larger class sizes optimized in bigger buildings. Drive parents away by labeling them as privileged and by ending popular offerings like walk-to-math and music. It's not clear that closing schools hasn't long been part of Dr. Jones's plan.
Great research! If only SPS admins could offer such a good service like yours.
However, your analysis of the data will yield the factors that thoughtful leaders should have considered and should consider, in making their decisions affecting the finances. But there is another factor which would affect the personal finances of the individuals who have made the decisions that would basically doom the district finances but they could make off with bigger retirement incomes.
When the admins and Board decided to approve 12-14% raises for teachers in 2019 and again in 2022, the admins who had the capacities to make decisions about salaries of the non-represented staff chose to add themselves to the Collective Bargaining Agreements to raise their salaries at the same percentages as the teachers who threatened to strike or actually picketed in a strike in those occasions.
That's because, "The Average Final Compensation, or AFC is the average of your 60 consecutive highest earning months in your career. This could be at the beginning, middle or end of your career. DRS uses your AFC income information to calculate your pension amount." (https://www.drs.wa.gov/plan/sers2/)
Could you believe such evil minds who act on their individual greed as to prioritize maximizing their sucking from the non-profit organization, just because they could and the Board allowed them to do it? Yes, the individuals who were already making almost $200K/yr pushed the raises which were to balloon their salaries to become a quarter of $1M by 2024. That's regardless of the enrollment or their performances which this and last Superintendents were hardly keen about any way.
Lost Cause