Seattle School Board Meeting, January 22, 2025

Update 2:

I forgot the Board had an executive session at 3:30 pm; clearly, it ran long.

The SPS channel has its music that I call “school board meeting music” on so I expect they will start soon. 

end of update

Update: 

I am tuned into the SPS tv page on YouTube but they are showing an awards program.

end of update

I'm going to try to slog through this one as there are several items on the agenda that I have read up on and have many questions.

This will be the first meeting to be presided over by new Board President Gina Topp. Here's the agenda.

The speakers list is at the full 25 with testimony coming on the budget, dual language and goals/guardrails. There are 22 people on the Waitlist with most wanting to speak on possible cuts to librarians. 

There is to be a presentation before public testimony on College and Career Readiness. Looking at the presentation, it would appear there is good news on the district's focus on African-American males and outcomes. I find the numbers to appear either pumped up or unrealistic or both. 

Then there is this BEX item on the Consent Agenda which really should be an Action Item.

This is yet another amount of spending - this nearly $750K - for another change order for the Rainier Beach High School remodel. That cost does not include state sales tax.

The largest costs within Change Order No. 19 includes the following three items:    

• unforeseen costs for unsuitable soils,
• the cost of the interior Graphics Package for the school which was not complete at the time the project bid, and
• Revisions to the interior openings and partitions to meet requirements for acoustical separation at the Skills Center, Production Studio, and music rooms

Want to know something? The district has known for DECADES about the unstable and unsuitable soils at most, if not all, the comprehensive high schools. There should have been money in the original budget for just this problem.

Next, well if someone didn't get their job done in time, maybe you have to find the money WITHIN the budget for the “graphics package."

Lastly, I would assume that anyone building, say, a production studio or music rooms would be aware of the need for "acoustical separation.”  Why wasn’t that in the budget?

Then there is a "Study Session" with the Superintendent on the next budget and a financial review. I never saw any notice if this is an additional term or substituting for "Work Session."

This is where I find the most disturbing information and got a smile. This work is being presented by the Finance Department but no one there - out of all the people who work with numbers - could be bothered to number the pages for easy reference.

Good news! After this presentation the Superintendent is only two steps away the end.  In the beginning of June, the budget will be introduced and the public hearing for the budget will presented. The final act will be on July 1, “Action on the 2025-2026 Recommended Budget and 4-Year forecast.” It strikes me as confidence that between June 1 and July 1, the Superintendent and staff believe there will be no changes needed at all. 

Review of Annual Financial Report for 2023-2024

There’s a “General Fund Resources” page that shows from 2021-2022 and 2023-2024, “local non-tax” resources went up 94% but they are only about 2% of the budget. I am not sure why this is. “State grants” went up 32% while “federal grants” went down 40% (which isn’t surprising - those were ESSER dollars.)

Overall, total General Fund resources went up in that time range 8%. 

For General Fund Expenditures by Program:

“Regular” Instruction only went up 1.8% while Special Education went up over 23%. What happened in three years to shoot up like that? Special Education is now nearly half the spending of Regular Education.

As well, “Other Instructional Program” has gone up 24%. I’m not even sure what that is. 

I also see “principal and interest” go up from under $750K to over $3M. So is that the district paying off debts? 

On the page labelled “General Fund Expenditures by Object,” we see the teachers’ raises from the last contract come heavily into play. 

Also, the district has spent less on “supplies/materials” year over year, down 32%.

Interestingly, the next category “purchased services” has gone up the exact same amount - 32%. 

The district is spending more on travel by 42%.

And I would love someone to explain page 16 - General Fund Balance - to me. There are a lot of categories, like “legal reserve” and “budget balancing” that I have never heard of before.

In this report, it appears that the district has put $7M into the Rainy Day Fund in 2023-2024 but in the Budget review, it’s says they “used our ‘Rainy Day’ fund to help balance the budget". 

Key Takeaways from 2023-24 Annual Report

 Teaching and teaching support increased as a percentage of total spending, from 70.8% in 2021-22 to 71.4% in 2023-24.

 State underfunding remains a significant issue.

 Fund balance continues to decrease.

 Student and family needs have increased.

 Inflation continues to be a challenge.

 Central Administration spending has decreased the last three years.

I would like the “student and family needs have increased” to be explained because at some level - if only for fiscal responsibility - the district cannot be a social services institution.

As for Central Administration spending going down, I’m not sure I’m buying that. 

Update on Budget Development (this section IS numbered)

Bottom line:

- The structural deficit still exists. This means our anticipated expenditures exceed our anticipated revenues.

- Seattle Public Schools’ general fund financial situation remains unsustainable unless further reductions are made and/or additional revenue is provided by the State or our local levy.

I would say on the latter that the State will either put forth more money OR lift the levy cap but won’t do both. Anyone?

What reductions have already occurred at the school level?

• Reductions in custodial services

• Reductions in schools’ discretionary funding

• Increase in secondary class sizes

• Transportation reductions

• Implementation of convenience fees and voluntary athletic fees

• Utilized Capital Fund interest for school supplies

I would think the reductions in Transportation will go down even more. Probably more deductions in each school’s discretionary funding. Changing athletic fees from “voluntary” to required may happen with perhaps the Alliance for Education having a scholarship fund for low-income students. 

Oddly in the middle of this entire presentation is a page labelled “Enrollment Study Update” but no accompanying documentation.

Preliminary Budget Proposals for 2025-26

The Board approved an “educational program resolution” in late December to:

Educational Program Resolution per Board Policy No. 0060 (bold mine)

1. “The Superintendent is directed to prioritize on-going solutions that support improving student outcomes in the development of the preliminary budget proposals for 2025-26 fiscal year;

2. These proposals shall align with making progress on the Board’s Goals and honoring the Board’s
Guardrails and prioritize the critical functions of the District in pursuit of improving outcomes for
students,

3. The preliminary balanced budget proposals shall be presented to the Board on or around January 22,
2025;

4. The preliminary balanced budget proposals shall include a scenario in which the District receives no
additional funding from the Legislature in the state’s adopted 2025-2027 biennial operating budget, and should contemplate the potential impacts on enrollment;

5. The Superintendent is directed to continue to advocate with the Board and collaborate with our

legislative partners to explore state funding solutions for the 2025-26 school year and beyond;

6. The Superintendent is directed to, aligned with recommendations developed with a task force or advisory group for the strategic plan, develop a multi-year budget forecast to be presented to the Board at or around the time at which the 2025-26 budget is presented for Board approval;

7. The Superintendent will, prior to the introduction of the 2025-26 District operating budget in a Regular Meeting of the Board, update the Board on any significant variations in necessary program reductions if the adopted Washington State 2025-27 biennial operating budget results in a significantly different

level of revenue for the District than anticipated and will align any increase or decrease with the most positive impact possible for improving student outcomes as aligned with greatest need.

As the Superintendent and Board move on in this process, they are calling 2025-2026 “Year Zero.”

Page 28 which is “Year Zero” groups different activities together. 

AI is in with Transportation and Safety. Mental Health with ELL and HC. Interesting.

Page 31 shows what they would do if NO additional state funding materializes. 

It’s fascinating that they could save $4M in “strategic plan refinement” and aren’t doing that right now. The biggest savings would be…”reductions/adjustments in school staffing” at $28M. There are no numbers to explain who that means.

Pro 

They say one “Pro” argument for this is that reductions in school staffing “potentially significantly reduces the long-term deficit issue” which is also key to Board policy that the Superintendent does not “fail to engage in long-range planning.” 

The Cons:

- reductions could destabilize schools

- no contingency funding

- potential negative impact on SPS future enrollment

- transportation impacts (I assume this to mean further cuts.)

- athletic fees (likely going from voluntary to mandatory)

Page 34 is the second scenario. Basically,

- don’t replace money borrowed from Rainy Day fund

- the $30-60M that the state might give would take staffing reductions at schools off the table 

Pros for this plan:

- gives the district more time for planning. 

- Minimizes school-based impacts for 2025-26.

Cons

- No Rainy Day fund

- Continues to erode the ability of the district office to provide adequate supports for schools.

- Would impact Transportation and Athletics

What’s next?

- District continues this work internally

- Strategic Plan Task Force or Advisory Work

- January - legislative session starts

- February - levies election

- April - legislature adopts 2025-2027 Biennial Budget

- May - another budget study session, pending the outcomes of the legislative session

- June/July - public hearing on budget, final recommendation to Board and then final vote in July.

Analysis

I hope the Board directors went through all of this just as I did and have questions at the ready.

I think the district is now at the most difficult time where they will have to make the hardest positions. Hence, the “Taskforce” which I think is nonsense. The district will only spend time and money and end up just where the Superintendent and staff want to be. It is simply not worth it.

BUT having some real town halls with parents over a couple of months throughout the city WOULD glean new ideas or at least some sense of what parents are willing to cut. That I am the one who is writing this and there is not one scintilla of public engagement is just plain wrong.