Seattle Schools Has Miles to Go Before It Powers Down, 2025

Update:

KUOW has a report of the work around next year's SPS budget. Takeaways:

- The Seattle School Board is looking again at how to handle an anticipated $104 million budget shortfall.

At a special session this week, district staff said Superintendent Brent Jones' preferred plan would use $42 million of the district’s rainy day fund to help close the massive deficit.

Additional state and levy funding and loan extensions would make up the rest, along with some job cuts at district headquarters.

Know what they did last use? Claimed to have used up the ENTIRE Rainy Day Fund. And yet they are going to somehow use it again. No idea what is happening there. 

- Director Michelle Sarju asked the district’s head of finance, Kurt Buttleman, about the budget beyond next school year.

“So in other words, we don't have a long-term solution for solving the deficit?" she asked.

“Yes," Buttleman replied.

“When is that going to happen?” Sarju asked.

After a pause, he replied: “That's the $100 million question.”

I thought they had a long-term plan but I guess that didn't work out. 

- Director Liza Rankin has got such a hive of bees in her bonnet around school closures and contends that's what's going to cause fewer dollars to some schools. One, she agreed to not closing schools. Two, it was proven that closing schools was NOT going to save that much and likely, the costs for physically doing that AND redrawing boundaries AND redoing transportation would negate most of the savings. 

end of update

About four weeks left in the 2024-2025 Seattle Schools year. Traditionally, the district powers way down in the summer but there is no rest for the weary this summer. 

I almost titled this post, "Promises, Promises" because that's pretty much all the district does. Either promise more of something or promise to do better. I don't see progress on either front. 

For example, on the Superintendent Search page for Spring 2025 it says:

School Board launches community engagement to gather input into priorities for the next Superintendent through a translated survey, interviews, focus groups, and forums with students, their families, staff, labor partners, and the broader community.

Engagement will be conducted online and in-person and in both small and larger group settings. These opportunities to provide feedback will be shared this spring.

In Summer of 2025, the Board is supposed to meet with an initial slate of candidates, pick finalists, etc. So they have about two months to get all this community input to guide their thinking. 

All of that is TBA and it's May 23rd. 

 All I see on the district calendar is a lone "Board engagement meeting" on Wednesday, June 25th. Don't know where or what time. It's a bit sad. 

Plus, during the same time period:

Board and HYA review community feedback to develop a District Leadership Profile Report to support the selection of the next Superintendent.

Tick, tock, Directors. 

Also, the 2025-2026 Budget work continues. I did not listen in on the Wednesday Board Special meeting where both the budget and the Strategic Plan were discussed. But here's a link to this two-part meeting. It is also available on the district's YouTube channel.

For the budget, it includes a lot of overview info like feedback from the three community meetings. 

As far as the legislative session, SPS got some relief in several ways. 

I saw a couple of interesting items on the page "Review Lessons Learned During the 2024-2025 Process." They were:

• Clarify Timing of Board Decisions
• Be Clear about Discussion v. Decision

I wonder what prompted those two thoughts.

Here's the District's Current Budget Situation:

• The District has a structural deficit (anticipated expenditures exceed anticipated revenue). The shortfall for 2025-26 is projected at approximately $100 million.

• The budget development process began in August 2024.

• In January, the Superintendent presented two budget scenarios to the Board.

• In February, Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved renewing the EP&O levy (81.98% approved) and BEX VI levy (75.78% approved).

• At the end of April, the Legislature adopted the 2025-27 Operating Budget,

increasing state funding for schools and providing authority for additional $500 per student in local levy collections.

Also, here are their Long-Term Challenges & Opportunities:

• The structural deficit will persist

• Enrollment is projected to continue to decline

• Anticipated increases in Legal, Utilities, Insurance, Transportation, Special Education, School

Mitigation Funds, etc.

• Contingency planning around uncertainty of Federal Funding

• Multiple expiring labor agreements

• Strategic Plan Task Force and community engagement

• Rebuild Rainy Day Fund

• Pay remainder of Interfund Loan

I would say that there are things - very public things - they could do to change that downward enrollment. Frankly, that's one place the Board could put their foot down and be direct. I'm thinking of Advanced Learning but I see there is some wording around that later.

And increases in Legal? How about having someone qualified in HR? How about Regional Executive Directors making sure principals communicate clear expectations to their staffs, especially around athletics? The district is bleeding money because, at the school level, district administration seems to be AWOL on oversight. Doing better here would ALSO lower insurance costs. 

Next Steps

• June 4: The Board is scheduled to hold Public Hearing on 2025-26 Budget

Recommendation

• July 1: The Board is scheduled to vote on 2025-26 Budget

• Late August: Review/Assess 2025-26 Budget process

• TBD: Strategic Plan Task Force Multi-year Budget Forecast

As for the Strategic Plan, I see Guardrail statements like this one and roll my eyes:

The Superintendent will not allow the existence of any learning environments that do not promote physical and emotional safety.

I say that not to be snarky but using the word "existence" seems overly dramatic as if the Superintendent would come in, see an environment he/she/they deem as lacking "physical and emotional safety" and close the school. 

Of course, maybe, on the other hand, they might use this guardrail to close some schools in the future. 

The Superintendent will not make major decisions or bring major recommendations to the Board without first implementing an engagement strategy that includes students, parents, teachers, and community members.

The district values stakeholder voice as part of decision-making.

The district moves at a snail's pace to get any community input. They really shouldn't say these things when their actions do not reflect this value. 

One item I do like is this:

The district will prioritize investments that guarantee consistent access

(across all regions and schools) to a high-quality, standards-based

educational program that includes accelerated and advanced learning

opportunities and supports for students based on their learning needs.

If families from diverse communities in every region of the city believe

their assigned school provides a great education that meets their

child’s specific needs; (and) if there is equal access to rigorous

advanced courses and accelerated learning opportunities in every

secondary school regardless of location; (and) if elementary schools in

every geographic region are high performing, then the school system is

successfully adhering to the community values reflected in Guardrail 1.

I like the thought in paragraph one but how it plays out is the question. In paragraph two, you see the need to ask parents if THEY think what their child has access to or gets at school to be "great education." 

But I guess the question is - if parents don't think this is happening, what are their options for relief? 

Their metrics include feedback from parents that there are more middle and high schools with "advanced offerings and sequences."