What to Cut to Solve the Seatle Schools Budget Crisis

 KUOW had a recent sweet story on the smaller schools that had faced closure and how their communities embrace them.  Parents like the staff or the focus or inclusivity or all of those. 

The story mentions the John Stanford International School. That mention reminded me of a comment at The Seattle Times about the budget hole. In the story, one person said their children was taking Mandarin at Concord International School and how much it meant to their family.

The comment said something to the effect that it was all good and well but now, at this point, those schools are something of a luxury the district can't afford. I have always wanted to see this programming expand even more throughout the district but even getting the immersion schools that SPS has now was like pulling teeth. But I perceive that dual language immersion schools are more costly than other Option schools. Am I wrong?

I note that the story also mentions the many supporters of school librarians are going to Board meetings to complain about possible cuts to libraries in high schools. I think the support for librarians in all the high schools is fairly high and I can’t imagine even how it would work.

So then that brings me to this: the district has to find ways to save money.  Besides closing schools, what would you accept to close this gap?

- Transportation. This is already happening so no real discussion here. I'm not sure, though, that most parents know this will happen and it behooves the district to get that message out sooner than later. 

One item within transportation is how much does it cost to send kids to Option Schools.  I can't believe it's a lot because you can only go to an Option School that is in your region. Plus, the district is on track to end the cohort model in HC so that transportation cost will also go away. 

- Athletics. SPS now has voluntary athletic fees for high school but I have no idea how many athletes are actually paying. This is the first year for this program. 

- Consultants. I think the use of consultants has probably gone up at least one-third in the last 10 years. And, it appears that some of that consulting is on-going and not a one-off project. Council of Great City Schools (see AJ Crabill) is one and I suspect that former director Chandra Hampson is also in there for that purpose. The Moss Adams company also appear to be on retainer. I have a couple of public disclosure requests out for this information but it’s going to take a long time. 

- Dual language. I think one issue for trying to do away with dual language is there seems to be no clear data on how much it costs to run the program at each school. I did visit McDonald International School’s website and found this plea from their PTA (which I know to be true for John Stanford IS as well but it's not the same as for the other immersion schools). 

Seattle Public Schools (SPS) does not fully fund McDonald’s dual language program.

Our goal is to raise $450,000 this year.

Where do funds go?

77% pays for additional staff that provide immersion support, lower McDonald’s student to teacher ratios, and improves differentiated learning.

6% pays for other academic support such as classroom materials and professional development for staff.

7% pays for our community events and communication that keep us all connected and informed, including International Night, parent coffees, our weekly newsletter and website, and scholarships for students and families in need.

10% pays for fund-shifting support to CANSSPA & CESPA, organizations that support schools with lower fundraising opportunities.

The entire donation is tax deductible. 

Before anyone pipes up with "privilege" talk over that amount, I do want to point out a couple of considerations. 

One, the parents have to raise this every year to keep the program running. There is a LOT of stress to raise that kind of money. 

Two, the dollars are not just for staff but for PD and classroom needs. 

Three, they are giving 10% of that away to schools that don't have their fundraising firepower. 

What I would love to see is a breakdown of costs. Because clearly, parents are paying a lot to make the program work. How much extra is the district paying and if they ended dual language immersion schools, how much would they really save? 

I submit that, like closing schools, not that much. 

Deciphering the SPS Budget

Here's a link to this year's budget. Page 7 shows a pie chart of spending using "state activity" subjects. There's one - "Other Support Activities"- at 16.1% which is the second largest portion besides teaching which is the largest category. 

Going to the Washington Legislature's explanation, we then see transportation pulled out as a separate category (at 4%) which isn't in the SPS budget. As well, so is food services at 3% so SPS is probably lumping that in as well. Then, the WA state pie chart has 9% for other support activities so that all adds up to the 16% that the SPS chart shows. But looking at the SPS budget on page 35, we see that this category also includes:

Other support activities include the cost of building operations, including grounds, building maintenance, custodial services, utilities, property management, property and liability insurance, technology services, printing, mailroom services, procurement, and warehouse services.

All of that is done with 16.1% of the budget? Interesting. 

And do I believe that 5.5% for "Central Administration?" With those salaries? I do not. 

Page 49 of the SPS budget document also shows some oddities. Homeless support is budgeted to go down by $293,550 from 2022-2023 to 2023-2024. And then it shows it zooming up this year by $403,312. 

Family and Community Engagement is going up by $300,000 this year. How is that possible given how little the district and Board actually do? And how do they justify that? Along with that, you can see on page 54, that "Communications and Engagement" have gone up by more than a half a million dollars. What?!

And the School Board office went from $1.1M in 2022-2023 to $1.4M in 2023-2024 to this year, $1.5M. Why would that be? And what are they spending it on?

They are also going from spending $7M to nearly $8M on "Strategic Goals."

The bottom line is that the district and the Board don't have the right to ask voters for more money when there are many questions about their spending as is.