Wait. Are you trying to tell us that all those other tax increases you support mean that you are happy with the budget priories in Seattle, King County, and Washington? Because this is the first I've heard of you guys not supporting a tax increase just because you found some fat in the budget.

But really what I wanted to ask about was this:

Out of a budget of about $550 million, only $304 million funds schools, including teachers' salaries. They say that 80 percent of the budget goes to salaries—teachers and central administration—so you do the math yourself to see how much we're paying for central administration staff.

Can you do the math for me on this one, Dom? Because my answer is that administration salaries are anywhere from 0 to 134 million.

Can you tell us what the correct amount to spend on administration should be? And maybe post an org chart because I don't actually have a good idea myself how flat a management structure the school district ought to have. What's a properly managed school district look like?

Even after that web-site upgrade, seattleschools.org doesn't seem to have historical budget records. But by piecing together the results of Google searches, I get the following numbers:

2006 $478M (44K students)
2007 $490M (43K students)
2008 $519M (43K students)
2009 $556M (42K students)

It looks like, despite complaining about shortfalls and cuts every year, the seattle schools have managed to spend more every year, despite enrollment trending down. (Over this same period, inflation was just 6%.) As per the usual bureaucratic newspeak, "cut" means "less than we planed to spend", not actually "less than we spent before".

If the unthinkable happens and seattle schools really do spend $33M less this year than last, that will mean that they are only able to do ... everything they did in 2008. Quelle horreur.

I was part of the small minority calling for Goodloe Johnson's resignation or a vote of no confidence three years ago during the school closure hearings. Charlie thought we were crazy. All I can say now is "We told you so".

@4 So no one should ever vote no on a school levy no matter what? There's no need to even think about it or consider it?

@5 thru @8 have a point.

Face it, there are massive cuts in state funding.

The people who are saying No should man up and run for the School Board instead of taking it out on the kids.

First of all Elenchos, this is not a Stranger editorial but an op-ed by Charlie Mas of the Committee for Responsible Education Spending.

Second, it would be hard to say exactly what a properly managed school district would look like because it would be hard to say the last time we had one in Seattle. Bellevue is a good place to look.

Third, the point is priorities. This is district, first and foremost, is not running lean and mean as it should in these hard economic times. They claimed they froze the travel budget last year; I can name you at least 15 people who traveled around on non-emergency business. The district is spending money on consultants left and right. For Pete's sake, who throws a $7,000 party for 70 people when you are a school district crying poor?

It's interesting because I was having a conversation with a state legislator who told me that he was surprised about how much the district was making of the cuts because the Legislature tried very hard to stay away from education and made cuts much deeper in other areas. It's like the district is tone-deaf to the rest of the state having to make do with less.

Will, this is NOT taking it out on kids. What is taking it out on kids is not following federal regulations on grants (audit report: 7 out of 7 in non-compliance). What is taking it out on kids is not maintaining buildings ($500M in backlog maintenance and that's because the district has been spending less than they did in the late '70s). What is taking it out on kids is to turn the other way and pretend that all is well or better yet, saying if you don't run for School Board, then you can't criticize.

This levy is about priorities. Certainly we need to work on long-term projects for academic achievement but in tight times, it's about the classroom. The money in this levy will NOT restore school budget cuts nor cut class size. Most of the money in this levy, as outlined will NOT go into the classroom in any apparent way.

The 11th district dems have said no to this levy. The 43rd district dems voted to have no position as did the League of Women Voters. Even, unbelievable as it may seem, the Seattle Times said NO to this levy. (And both the LWV AND the Times supported the levies in Feb. They seemed to have wised up to the district's lack of financial oversight.)

You can, too. We need accountability for this district (and your tax dollars). Vote NO on this levy.

@9 WIS Charlie Mas has run for School Board. He lost but he ran a good race. He has manned up, you should shut the fuck up.

@11 - tl;dr

"They have spent $750,000 to a consultant to help them pick novels for high school students..."

Could I get some documentation of that fact?
I find it so hard to believe that, well, it's hard to believe and requires some evidence.

@13 - From the School Board Action Report: High School Language Arts Materials Adoption
February 2nd, 2010
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board…

"POLICY IMPLICATION - FISCAL IMPACT/REVENUE SOURCE
...Fiscal impact is estimated at approximately $1.0 million of books funded out of
general funds. These funds are alreadyallocated in the Curriculum and Instruction Budget for 2009-2010."

additionally, more money is spent, along with the cost of the books - from that same document:

"During the 2009-2010 school year, funds for professional development [training teachers how to work with Alignment and the books] will be budgeted from under-spent funds from the Curriculum and Instruction Department."

@13, from what I can gather from a few google searches, it looks like this is a reference to "curricular alignment" to make the high school standards match College Board standards -- see Page 7 on this RFP (PDF file!). As for exactly who got money to do exactly what for exactly how much, I haven't seen real hard evidence, though you see the $750,000 amount referred to here, unsurprisingly.

Here is the Board action that spent $750,000 to consultants to choose the novels for high school language arts classes.

It gets worse. If you watch the video of the Board, (go to the 77th minute) they take turns admitting that they don't know what they are voting on before they vote to approve the expenditure. Even the cheerleaders at the Seattle Times were disgusted by this particular vote.

There's a lot of talk about curricular alignment and updating the course catalog and blah blah blah, but all the consultants did was help choose novels for high school students to read.

@15, yes, the RFP you link to is the $750K consultant on curriculum alignment. It covered HS LA and the end result of that was a bunch of novels. No writing, rhetoric, poetry, non-fiction, short stories or any texts for spelling or grammar. Just a bunch of novels. Not so much a forward step in curricular alignment. Brought with a lot of wrath from teachers and students.

Now it's funding high school science curriculum alignment. Watch Wednesday's School Board meeting because the CAO is going to present that plan. In order to make all schools equal, the plan is to get rid of any innovative or creative science classes, such as marine biology at Garfield or the biotech program at Ballard.

Here's a link to that Times Editorial.

Here is a link to a blog by the Committee for Responsible Education Spending, the No on the levy group.

And a big fuck you! To Charlie Mas.

Thank you MrBaker for that insightful perspective. Now we see the quality of the Yes campaign rhetoric.

@16 It wasn't the books that were a waste of money, it was the $750,000 they paid the consultants.

"In order to make all schools equal, the plan is to get rid of any innovative or creative science classes, such as marine biology at Garfield or the biotech program at Ballard."

This is emblematic of everything that is wrong and has been wrong from day one of GJ's administration. She has an almost patthological hatred of innovation. The school closure nonsense three years ago was about her stamping her feet and saying no to alternative schools. Now she is targeting alternative programs at regular schools. The only way Seattle could have a super more out of touch with the parents of this city is if we hired GW Bush to replace her.

Among districts of more than 5,000 students, Seattle is the clear leader in Central Administrative Spending.

Check the OSPI website and find that Seattle spent 9% of a large budget on central admin. Clover Park SD spent 8% and that is $945/ student for central admin. Highline SD spent 7% and that is $727 / student for central admin. Guess economy of scale does not apply to Seattle.

2008-2009 data shows SPS spending $12,078 / student and of that $1122 is for central admin.

By comparison Olympia SD (6%) spent $572 on central admin.

DO NOT give these folks a 3% levy .... Give them a message.

In the High School Math Adoption, the school board was found to have excluded evidence that should have been considered in arriving at an arbitrary and capricious adoption decision.

On 2-4-2010, Judge Julie Spector remanded the decision back to the school board for reconsideration using all the evidence. The Superintendent refused to have the board reconsider their decision using all the evidence and four board members supported her refusal. The SPS spent more $$$ to appeal this lost decision to WA Appeals Court on 3-5-2010 (likely to be heard next Spring).

No one should give this crew more money. MGJ, Carr, Maier, Sundquist, Martin-Morris are all in favor of excluding evidence provided by the public in decision-making. These folks are out of control as they regularly ignore laws as noted by the State Auditor.

for Charlie Mas:

I'd like to know what the ramifications of a failed levy would be:

– How would a failed levy affect my kid's teacher's ability to do her job? What about his teacher the next grade up?

– The good and useful things requested under the levy--would those be gone forever or would they be proposed in another levy, and if so when?

– Most importantly, would a failed levy be interpreted as a repudiation of MGJ's leadership, and would she be tossed out on her can? Or is the board stacked w/ MGJ disciples?

Oh, and one more thing: how much $ does it cost to run for school board? :)

Dear NorthBound,

(1)The current 4 directors elected in 2007 spent a combined total of around $480,000 to win in 2007. Prior to that spendfest the most ever spent by a winning candidate was less than $40,000.

Peter Maier spent around $165,000 in 2007.

(2) What good and useful things that were requested in the 3% levy are you referring to?

Northbound,

-the failed levy would not affect your teacher's ability to his/her job. In fact, the teachers signed their contract knowing that if the levy failed, they would not get their raises. They could have put the screws to the district and demanded it if the levy failed but they didn't. I actually just spoke to the head of the teachers union (SEA) and she said most of their membership didn't care about the raise but about how they are evaluated.

- one thing to understand about any levy - the things they say they will do with the money in the voter's guide are just things. Once voted in, the money is the district's to spend on any operation item. So the "good and useful" things like the books, could be proposed in another levy. If this one fails, the district could bring it back in 3 months (but make it more classroom focused). (Because of the length of this ballot, it is not costing the district much to be on it.) And on the issue of books, please understand that the district has NO line item in their budget for books. That this district has books this old is a choice they made for the students of this district despite books being a classroom staple.

- No one can say what the district or Board will believe about the outcome of the levy. No one can say why voters voted the way they did because, of course, everyone's vote is personal. But yes, I think after a 99% vote of no confidence from the teachers, a terrible state audit that calls out her leadership, lack of engagement with parents, well, the Board may believe it is time to exit her. That said, the Board has never voted against anything she has put forth (they are in her thrall or scared of her is my take).

That the Seattle Times says no even as they have supported her should tell you something. The district needs a wake-up call and right now. Any money needs to go into the classroom where the cuts are being felt now. That the levy is not going to put money in the classroom either to help class size, restore cuts or improve buildings means this is a levy to say NO to.

When this was posted it said by Dominic Holden. And then some hours later you change the byline to some other guy, Charlie Mas?

Fuck you, Dominic. Fuck you, Stranger. Fuck you, Charlie.

Thanks Charles Mas. I will follow up.

As to @31, why all the FYs?
It read to me immediately as posted by Holden but written by Mas.

Charlie and others:

I just read that RFP and it's mostly gobbledygook. There is probably a germ of commonsense in there but it is so covered up with jargon and blah-blah-blah that it seems worthless. GIGO.

Further, don't experienced teachers _know_ those stuff? Ok, so you get a group together and the teachers work out the differences and reconcile (align) the differences.

Weird stuff. My mother was a public school teacher and she never had high regard for the administrators. And that was 50 years ago, so same-old same-old.

@33. And yes, that RFP was for three quarters a million dollars.

The only clear item in the levy resolution is textbooks, but note that the $6M for textbooks includes more consultants to help chose them AND coaches to teach the teachers how to use them. Do teachers need or want coaches to tell them how to use new textbooks?

@1 and @31. Evidently HUMP ticket sales overwhelmed their server and the slight error in who wrote the piece didn't get fixed fast enough for you. Get over it.

To answer your original question. The SECB endorses this levy. As justification of why it is for the kids they claimed that 80% of the District budget (of $550 M) is for salaries. I believe Charlie is pointing out that the budget for schools is only $304M, which includes all books, supplies and teacher salaries. So something like 25% of the salaries go to central administration? Or something. Regardless, only 55% of the budget goes to schools. So if you vote YES because you want to support teachers and avoid feeling guilty, think again.

I'll chime in - my kids are both students in the Seattle public schools. I love their teachers. They (the kids) love their school. I've never, in 30 years of voting, voted "no" on a school levy.

But I'm voting no on this one. It's true that times are tough and budgets are tight -- this means that the district has to make every penny count, and maximize what they can put into the classroom, because after all, that's what schools are all about. When administrators stop buying themselves fancy parties on the public dime, I'll think about taking their austerity talk seriously, but they haven't done it yet. Maybe a no vote on this levy will shock them to life. We can but hope.

As someone who has been part of Seattle schools for the last few years, I'm voting no.

Charlie's points are all valid, but in addition the simple fact is the raises and stipends promised if the levy passes are written as to be unobtainable. Very, very few teachers will be eligible for the extra money, and it's all at their principal's discretion. Most money hinges on moving to high-needs schools, but to maintain the position and stipends the teacher must continue to receive exemplary ratings. It's very difficult to change schools, and unlikely that a teacher will continue to receive a qualifying rating after a move. It's unclear when the stipend would end (mid year or end of year lower rating), and it will create a situation where teachers will continually move around as their ratings change year to year, or more likely will opt out of the stipends in order to maintain their current placement.