In Advance of the Seattle School Board Meeting, October 9,2024
Update:
One other thing to happen at tonight's Board meeting are updates on 3rd grade reading and 7th grade math. Maybe it's me but I'm having a hard time deciphering the charts and graphs.
Maybe one of you can tell us what you think. It is the first item after Board comments.
end of update
Want a tip on Board meetings? Go back to the agenda again and again to see documentation that has been attached to items AND new items. To wit, now on the Board agenda for tonight:
- Adoption of Resolution No. 2024/25-11, directing the Superintendent to present preliminary recommendations and supporting analysis in October 2024 for up to five school closures for the 2025-26 school year;
- to develop a multi-year plan no later than June 2025 to achieve fiscal stability in support of student outcomes; and
- to form a taskforce to advise the Superintendent on implementation of 2025-26 school closures, if approved by the Board, and development of the multi-year recommendations. Approval of this item would adopt Resolution No. 2024/25-11 as attached to the Board Action Report. Immediate action is in the best interest of the district. (Introduction & Action; Added to agenda 10/8/24; Materials will be added prior to meeting)
I checked the agenda yesterday and I didn't see this so it came on last night. That's not 24 hours notice AND the documentation is NOT attached. If I were there tonight, I would boo this resolution. It's just too much. If it were to support 5 school closures, sure.
Rankin has no idea how run this situation and she is probably listening to the wrong people.
I am also amused the Board wants a multi-year fiscal stability plan when the Superintendent can't even explain with clarity how he will fill the budget gap that's left with next year's budget.
Staff has also included documentation on BEX VI. I will review that and post separately.
Also to mention, the Board is putting forth its legislative agenda.
The 2025 proposed legislative agenda is focused on the following areas:
• Addressing funding gaps in Basic Education
• Supporting student learning and well-being
• Accessing capital and levy funding
Bland so here's detail.
1. Special Education. Increase the special education tiered multipliers and remove enrollment funding caps to cover the cost of providing special education services. Support unique needs of students through addressing safety net funding and support best practices by investing in professional development, particularly for inclusionary practices.
2. Transportation. Revise the student transportation funding formula to ensure transparency,
predictability, and sufficient funding to fully cover the actual costs of student transportation. Allow
additional types of vehicles to qualify for funding for students requiring specialized transportation,
such as students with disabilities, experiencing homelessness, or in foster care.
3. Materials, Supplies, and Operating Costs. Increase the Materials Supplies and Operating Costs
(MSOC) rate to account for the actual costs of operating a school district, including significant
increases to insurance and utilities rates.
One further bit - about "accessing capital and levy funding" caught my eye:
High-quality and sustainable capital investments. Provide state capital funding for accessible, high-
quality learning environments. Allow for flexibility in the use of local capital funds to cover maintenance costs and purchase curriculum.
Uh, that's a big NO for me to spend capital dollars on maintenance and buy curriculum. Those BEX and BTA dollars are for CAPITAL needs. If JSCEE staff can't run the district on the money they get from the state and Seattle taxpayers, that's on them. They already have 80% of the funding for one department - Technology - coming from BEX.
Lastly, I will be unable to cover the first hour or so of the meeting; I'm going to a Tim Walz rally. (So yay.) But I'll jump in when I come back and then go back and review the first hour or so. But do put in comments if you attend or watch - I'll put them up as I can.
Comments
“Increase the special education tiered multipliers and remove enrollment funding caps to cover the cost of providing special education services. Support unique needs of students through addressing safety net funding and support best practices by investing in professional development, particularly for inclusionary practices.”
1. Increase “special education tiered multiplier”. Hmm What multiplier is that? Where are those published? The district, for its part, has long had union contracts which define programs based on teacher and instructional assistant ratios. Those ratios form tiers of support for students with a cost “multiplier”. Weird word salad for a “cost”. So possibly they simply mean staffing ratios will be increased to save money (duh). Interestingly, the terms “tiered” and “multiplier” is used by OSPI to pay districts extra money for students with disabilities. Special Education Funding In Washington State. You can see districts get an extra BEA x 1.12 for inclusion students and an extra BEA x 1.06. So perhaps the intent is to move as many students as possible to general education settings to collect the tiny (0.06%) inclusion bounty. That amounts to about $30 per student dropped off in general education (beyond the self contained placement). Of course the students all get around $5,000 extra just by being in special education. So. The best bet for the district is to identify as many students as possible and then to place them in general education with as little support as they can get away with. Seems like a hard way to get $30. Self containment would net $30 less but so much easier.
2. The other “ideas” are to do inclusion PD and call it good. Save a bundle doing that.
3. And finally there’s some salad about “removing enrollment funding caps”. Huh? There is an OSPI state legislated funding cap, to prevent rampant over identification. Is that what they’re talking about? Not much the district can do about that other than lower its identification rate.
Special education reader
I am new to all this, but OSPI is proposing to remove the enrollment cap for the next budget cycle:
"This proposal addresses five strategies to improve the state’s special education system:
1. Removing the special education enrollment cap and creating a review system to monitor
year-over-year increases in special education enrollment." (https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/2024-09/p13-2025-fully-funding-equitable-high-quality-services-all-students-disabilities_0.pdf)
Sounds if they are aligning their agenda with what is already out there.
Seems Fishy
Sign me teachintheknow