This and That on Seattle Schools
I want to point out one relevant pie chart in the school closure presentation staff made to the Board at last Wednesday's Board meeting. This is on page 13.
I had stated that if there were no closures, then cutting salaries across the board by 1-4% would bring in the same savings as closing 20 schools.
What I got wrong is that I then stated that I believed there would still need to be other cuts at schools.
Looking at this chart, SPS could either cut salaries across the board by 4% AND/OR lower salary cuts (like 1%) plus staffing reductions and class size increases. And, as you see in the chart, additional savings would come from changing bell times/bus times which would also be an across the district impact.
The big news here is that the price tag for costs to SPS to implement would be WAY lower than actually closing building and then securing multiple buildings, redrawing boundaries that would then make for longer bus rides for some students, and other physical costs.
The last shoe to drop at the Seattle Times is this morning's editorial,
Fixing What Ails Seattle Schools Hinges on Listening to Families
Here's the scenario they present:
No one takes a saw to the beams of their home, cutting into its structure without knowing exactly how those changes will affect the soundness of the building. But that, in effect, is what Seattle Public Schools Superintendent Brent Jones is asking his board to approve.
Just two weeks ago, Jones, head of the state’s largest school district, presented two scenarios to close a $94 million hole in next year’s budget.
Option A: close 21 elementary and K-8 schools.
Option B: close 17 schools.
Total savings: $31 million, at most.
Even a fourth grader can see this equation still leaves a $63 million gap. According to the district’s own figures, that will likely mean staff layoffs, ever-larger class sizes, mandatory activity fees and the end of some programs. So, when Jones tries to sell his closure plans by insisting they will result in a system of “well-resourced schools,” there is little reason to believe him.
They extrapolate:
It’s anathema to make children pay for the financial lapses of adults. Yet here we are. One wonders if it’s all a ploy to manipulate horrified families into pressuring the Legislature for a bailout.
They kinda call out the Board:
Even School Board President Liza Rankin has stopped playing nice, accusing Jones’ staff of “gaslighting” her by failing to provide information about the specific impact of closures on the 7,000 students who could be moved and the ripple effects districtwide.
That is an unconscionable lapse, and Rankin was right to call it out — however late in the game.
It is VERY late in the game to suddenly wake up to "student outcomes."
But if the tide is truly turning, away from the board rubber-stamping officials’ recommendations and toward a rigorous rethinking of what this district can be, parents should get the credit for making that happen."
If the Superintendent and staff write up, say, 3 paragraphs about how the plan will directly provide better student outcomes, the majority of the Board will indeed rubber-stamp that.
Trouble is, does a divided vote on closure look good to parents and the public? Because I don't believe there is much hope for a united vote on closing schools.
Last item is another story from the Times, the announcement of Washington State National Merit Scholarship semifinalists.
Bellevue high schools have 46 students.
Redmond high schools have 25.
Seattle high schools have 20. There were 9 at Lincoln HS, the most in the district. Also represented were Ballard HS with 4, Ingraham HS with 3, and West Seattle HS with 2. Roosevelt HS and Garfield HS had one each which is incredibly sad, given their past history of student achievement.
Lakeside has 30 students. One private school outpowered entire districts. Yes, I know there are many reasons that might be true but it's still impressive.
Comments
I have to tell you that the building where I work at the secondary level has cut our school's budget for years to keep electives and knowingly overload our ELA classes "for the sake of the greater good." I have 165 students in my ELA classes. I should have no more than 150. With the new inclusion model, around 38 kids have IEPs and 22 have MLL currently or were recently exited in the last two years. That means that 60 of the 165 have services that are "kind of" given support of in class in any effective way. Many days, however, I am left to fend for myself because they, too, are overloaded and have a schedule that keeps them running from room to room all day to deliver services. Keep in mind as well, this total is not inclusive of other "issues" that I have to make adjustments for. I know I am not alone in the building. The grade level history teacher will now have all 300 students over the course of the year PLUS 60 plus seniors in the AGE classes. That means over 300 students plus all of the services and needs that come with. Wrap your minds around that, please. She sees more students in a day than some of the SCHOOLS on these lists see IN TOTAL among all of the teachers in all of the classrooms in the building. That is over 300 families that she herself is responsible for communicating with. ALONE.
Now, you suggest that we should take a decrease in pay, too, on top of everything else? Are you serious? Our personal families suffer enough with the extra work and stress involved with over loaded rosters. Now you want us to have them tighten their belts, too? More work and less pay? Less time with parents at home so that someone else's kids can keep their small school? Are you for real?
Asking secondary teachers who are in a similar position with a similar increased burden of taking on ALL of the needs beyond the current contractual limits so that we can continue to fund under enrolled schools is not only unfair to us, but it is unfair to the other children who deserve high quality educations in their neighborhood schools, too.
- sign me 'Share the Burden' PLEASE!
Because one day, your elementary school children will be in middle and high schools, too. You can't continue to ask us to give over what we don't have.
Maybe ask the people in those building to take a cut to save their schools. Many secondary teachers have already taken a .8 to save positions but still work the 1.0 in the time spent.
This is not a reasonable solution. It is desperate and unfair to ask of us who have already been footing the bill for YEARS for the sake of the smaller elementary schools and the "greater good." I don't know that we can do it much longer.
I put my kids through SPS. I have weathered many a shortfall with EVERYONE, parents and teachers alike, for more than two decades. This is not okay.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sfusd-schools-matt-wayne-19783412.php
Sorry if there is a paywall at the SFChronicle, but SF is having similar problems with plans to close schools and pushback.
NESea mom
Still, I do wonder what SEA's plan is. Parents aren't going to be happy if schools close due to budget consolidations or to labor unrest. Families can only go without stable childcare and education for so long. And state receivership will blow a big hole into everything. I'm seeing parents on Facebook forums in southend neighborhoods ask about waivering into Vashon and Mercer Island public districts. We really are entering a defund public schools moment as the blowback to this strained institution includes staff leaving and deep distrust of public schools - which manifests in enrollment drops.
It's not looking good, folks.
Face Palm
And, you know as an SEA member, that seniority will rule and so the newest hires will be RIFed for closures. Also, as an SEA member when the union is going to renegotiated their contract, your salary will not go up again.
I hate larger class sizes and apparently, it's quite bad at WSHS. But that's on the district to play games with the Oct 1 head count.
I should have said that there should be a time limit placed on this lowering of salaries - like 2-3 years.
Do keep in mind that Mayor Harrell and Superintendent Jones are best buds.
CHG
But I think CHG is right in his take; I've said before getting Mizrahi on the board will ensure that the union has an advocate on both sides of the negotiating table. Heck, Hersey is also a labor union employee as "political director." I doubt he keeps that position without rolling over for SEA.
The teachers might strike again in 2025. Absent an infusion of state dollars though, they'll be trying to get blood from a stone. The last strike was supposedly all about getting more aides until it turned out it really wasn't and they got a great salary boosts that the district couldn't afford.
I think the district is nearing death spiral and that receivership/"binding conditions" is almost inevitable now. The district will have more leverage with contracts if this happens. They can let someone else make the hard and nasty decisions so they can claim they're simply following the data, just like corporate execs do when they hire consultants. The real question is if anyone in charge is capable of making a decision to move in that direction that could help the district stabilize even if it went against political expediency and ideology. I'm not optimistic with Jones et al in JSCEE and Rankin & crew at the board. These are deeply unserious people with only a few rare exceptions who have largely been sidelined.
-Seeing Red