S2 E6 - Cold Feet on Closures

In this episode, we discuss Seattle Public Schools' revised plan to close 5 schools instead of 17-21, and the renewal of Superintendent Jones' contract with modified evaluation metrics. We reflect on feedback from our previous episode and emphasize continued advocacy for education funding.

See our Show Notes.
Contact us.

Transcript

Copy

S2 E6 - Cold Feet on Closures

[00:00:00] Christie Robertson: Welcome to Seattle Hall Pass, a podcast with news and conversations about Seattle Public Schools. I'm Christie Robertson.

[00:00:13] Jane Tunks Demel: I'm Jane Tunks Demel.

[00:00:15] Jasmine Pulido: I'm Jasmine Pulido.

[00:00:17] Christie Robertson: And today we thought we would do something a little different and just do kind of a hot take of what is going on in Seattle Public Schools, as news is hitting us left and right. So in that vein, what is going on, Jane?

[00:00:33] Jane Tunks Demel: Well, yeah, for all of you who are Seattle Public Schools parents, you had an email land in your inbox that says that next year there will be 5 schools closing instead of the previously announced 17 or 21. So I think most of the community feels very energized by this. They feel that their advocacy is being heard. 

I personally felt some sadness because my neighborhood school is one of the schools, that might likely be in the five. I think it's great that they're trying to do this in a more thoughtful way, but for me, I just felt like I needed to grieve even more because of those five schools that are left.

[00:01:15] Christie Robertson: I'm sorry about your school, Jane.

[00:01:17] Jane Tunks Demel: Thanks.

[00:01:18] Christie Robertson: I guess the idea is probably that there's going to be one per region and it'll probably be a small school with poor building condition, not an option school because that was the other thing the letter said was that option and K-8s are not going to be in consideration for this round.

[00:01:37] Jasmine Pulido: Yeah, what an about-face! 

[00:01:39] Christie Robertson: I know! And actually, Jane, you said “more thoughtful,” but in a way, it's like they've spent nine months getting to this list of 17 and 21, including all or almost all of the option schools. And now it feels like a scramble to have a whole different approach to pick 5 schools. And that means they need to close a much bigger budget gap, which means there's going to be cuts in other areas. 

[00:02:08] Jane Tunks Demel: Hmm. 

[00:02:09] Jasmine Pulido: Yeah. 

[00:02:11] Jane Tunks Demel: And also I think as we can all see by how these options were when they rolled them out, they definitely weren't very well thought out. And so I'm just wondering how well thought out are all the other cuts they're considering? It seems a little bit like slash and burn, and I hope they take this opportunity to reset and take more time to look at things. 

[00:02:34] Jasmine Pulido: Well, first I want to say that I do feel like the email that was sent out — the most recent one and even the one before that — that was incredibly apologetic. I felt like both of those emails had a much different tone than a lot of the previous emails that we have received regarding closures. But this current one, the one that announced the five schools closing … Well first, the criteria is different now, in that there now is some language around the communities being together as much as possible, when they do the closures, and then the idea that option schools aren't closing. There was one other thing that the email said, oh, they moved the proposals to the end of October instead of October 9th, which is the next school board meeting. That's only a month to come up with that. And so, yeah, I agree, Jane, how well thought out will they be able to do that, especially as they consider other places they'll have to cut the budget instead?

[00:03:37] Jane Tunks Demel: Now that they're only looking at five schools to close, I hope that they really... For example, my school is Sacajawea. I know it's a target. And I don't think any of the decision makers have ever even been to Sacajawea. So it would be great if for all of the schools that they closed, they could actually go visit the schools and get to know the communities that at least they can listen to the community and try to do it in a way that honors them so I hope that this smaller number helps with that.

[00:04:10] Christie Robertson: Yeah, I think one of the biggest things that they may have realized after they released the list of schools was the complications involved in each individual community. Where are the kids going to go? What are those programs that are specific to that school? What are the particularities of that community and what they might need for a transition? Hopefully they will be able to handle 5 transitions better than 21 transitions. 

[00:04:39] Jane Tunks Demel: They also noted that a third-party expert will validate the evaluation process to ensure transparency and accountability. So I really wonder who that third party expert is.

[00:04:51] Christie Robertson: And for that end of October announcement or presentation, I wonder if that will just be the five schools, with a very vague, “Here's how much else we have to cut.” Or will it be a rundown of what the other cuts are going to be? That's going to be really complicated. But that's really important information. 

[00:05:15] Jasmine Pulido: Interestingly enough, the email came out right before our curriculum night for middle school and elementary school. As you know, principals weren't allowed to talk about the proposals. My middle schooler is at Salmon Bay K-8. We went to the curriculum night and all the parents were there. Our principal hasn't been able to say anything. She was like, “Did you check your email?” We're like, “Salmon Bay's going to stay open next year.” The energy in the room was pretty amazing. Everyone was just so excited that our advocacy was going somewhere for all of our schools. 

I have two thought, though. One, I always knew that there could be a smaller-scale option. And I wonder about whether we are more open to accepting that because the first proposal options were so drastic and severe. And that has also made me wonder about what advocacy would look like. So for instance, are we now saying we still want all schools to stay open and are we still behind that? I heard some schools might want to consolidate. right? And so I'm not actually sure yet about the public response to the scaled-down option. I think everyone is trying to regather their bearings about what is our message as a whole community and district to this proposal. So I'm really curious to see what direction that goes. 

And then my second take on it is, I was having a conversation with a friend yesterday and I said, “I kind of feel like, you know when you're in like a bad relationship, and they treat you really terribly for a long time, and then they do something really nice, and you're like, you like the nice thing, but you're also really skeptical, like you're just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Like, okay, it sounds like they're listening. Right now for like the first five minutes.” 

I definitely have this paranoia of waiting for the other shoe to drop. 

[00:07:15] Christie Robertson: Yeah, I mean, there's definitely that part of: you said we had to close 20 schools. Is that not true anymore, or was that not true ever? What does this mean?

[00:07:28] Jane Tunks Demel: I'm hoping they made that decision with some information. They said 21, like it “has to, has to, has to [be 21].” Now it's five. So now I'm questioning the $30 million.

[00:07:38] Christie Robertson: Oh sure. I was always questioning the $30 million. 

[00:07:41] Jane Tunks Demel: I guess I kind of don't believe anything they say now.

[00:07:44] Christie Robertson: I know, which makes it hard to trust. 

 So should we talk about the Special Board Meeting that happened?

[00:07:51] Jasmine Pulido: Yeah, I wasn't there. So I'd love to hear what you got from it.

[00:07:55] Christie Robertson: Sure, so what did we have: a week's notice or less that this meeting was happening? 

[00:08:01] Jane Tunks Demel: It was before the weekend, 

[00:08:03] Christie Robertson: This was a meeting that just had two items on the agenda, the renewal of the superintendent's contract for two years and the “instrument” for evaluating his success for the next two years. And that was it. 

It was an extremely short meeting. It was less than half an hour. It left me pretty dissatisfied, I guess, because I feel like there's a lot more to that conversation than what happened in public. I feel like there were maybe a lot of discussions behind closed doors. 

For example, I heard the board was split about whether to renew his contract. I know that the evaluation instrument had just a lot of numbers that seemed like they came out of nowhere, and there were very few questions asked in public, so it felt, just, secretive even though the vote was in public. 

[00:08:50] Jane Tunks Demel: I agree with everything you just said, Christie. It was a remote meeting. And so that made it harder for the directors to talk to each other. And also it was a Special Board Meeting. And so that means there was no opportunity for public testimony. I just want to remind everybody that this is the first year in a while that the school board is only having one legislative meeting a month. And those are the only meetings that they can hear public testimony. 

Also, most board actions, which, anything they vote on is a board action. Usually they introduce it at one meeting and then vote on it at the following meeting. But they did both introduction and action at the same meeting, further limiting any opportunity for public comment on it, whether by email or any other venue. That I think is unfortunate. And although the superintendent and his new contract is a 4 percent salary increase, which is the same cost of living adjustment that went to all administrators at Seattle Public Schools. 

And for all of you that actually track every penny, like I do, we know that that's not keeping up with inflation these days. 

[00:10:15] Christie Robertson: The term “cost of living” for a $300,000-some salary is a little bit funny.

[00:10:20] Jane Tunks Demel: Yes, exactly, but Superintendent Jones did, to his credit, volunteer to take five furlough days every year, and those are basically unpaid vacation days, so there will be some savings on that. I guess I don't feel too sorry for him since he's making about $350,000.

[00:10:40] Jasmine Pulido: So what you said about the introduction and then the actual voting of the thing, is there a certain protocol that they usually follow?

[00:10:48] Jane Tunks Demel: You can do an introduction and an action in the same meeting. But it's preferred that they do it at different meetings. I think since they really wanted to make sure this contract was signed, that they were hoping to do it earlier, that's probably why they did it. And I think to be transparent and get the community fully onboard, I think they shouldn't have done it.

His previous contract, it's kind of like a lease. It just automatically renews for another year. So it becomes year to year instead of like month to month for a rental lease. So he's already under contract for the [current] year.

[00:11:25] Christie Robertson: There were substantive changes to the contract. And President Rankin went over them, but it just felt like there was more to what she was saying than what she actually said. She said that the board had been using the district lawyer to write up the contract. 

So you have the person who's working for the superintendent writing the contract for the board to employ the superintendent. So it was a conflict of interest. So the board went and got their own independent lawyer to do the contract, which makes sense.

But I’m just curious why that happened now and what was it they were trying to solve. And one of the things that the new lawyer suggested was that they get rid of this automatic rollover of the contract. So now they have to renew a contract every January.

Here's the Board Action Report language: “The proposed employment agreement removes the automatic extension language and requires an affirmative vote of the board in January to extend the term of the agreement.”

There's no automatic rollover anymore. That just seems kind of important, and I don't know all the implications of it, and I just wish they had discussed it more.

[00:12:47] Jasmine Pulido: Is the Superintendent's evaluation tool different than before?

[00:12:52] Christie Robertson: Yeah, so under SOFG, Student Outcomes Focused Governance, the superintendent is supposed to be evaluated only on the outcomes of students. And so it's basically is a list of all the goals and guardrails set by the board and a list of percentages for each metric that the district is supposed to meet and that's what's supposed to determine how the superintendent is doing and whether they renew his contract. 

So the old version had just insanely high goals of going from like 30 percent of Black boys meeting standards in third grade reading and seventh-grade math to 70 percent. They just wanted to be really aspirational in the previous set of goals.

The actual outcomes that happened were that reading and math scores went down or stayed flat. It makes me really disappointed in the implementation of student outcomes focused governance to see that they've had these goals for years and have made no progress and don't really intend to make any significant progress.

On top of this, they never discussed the Superintendent’s evaluation results that were introduced at an earlier board meeting this year. That evaluation was just attached as an informational item. It just feels to me like more and more is being skipped or going on behind closed doors, even the stuff that's supposed to be core to their governing framework focused on student outcomes.

[00:14:34] Christie Robertson: And not unrelated, they've dropped a lot of progress monitoring sessions. The whole point of student outcomes focused governance is that the board is supposed to look through the numbers regularly, like monthly. And if progress is not being made, they're supposed to say to the Superintendent, “You need to change your strategy. Your strategies aren't working. And that's where I feel like the board has really … I don't feel like they've been really doing their job there of saying, "This is not good enough. We want to do better by the Black boys in our system and we're not." They're just kind of accepting that they're not really going to make any progress.

[00:15:23] Jane Tunks Demel: I will say when I've looked at other school districts that are using a student outcomes focused governance, they do have a much more modest goal. 

So I think that the initial goals they had were too ambitious.

[00:15:37] Christie Robertson: That's the problem with overly ambitious goals. You can't make them and so I feel like often you end up giving up.

[00:15:43] Jane Tunks Demel: And so, I actually give them credit for keep trying. And yes, they did lower their goals, but if they're more realistic about the goals, maybe they'll actually achieve them instead of like, there's no way they're going to make a 40 percent increase in five years.

[00:15:58] Christie Robertson: For sure. But speaking specifically to the Superintendent’s evaluation tool that was in this meeting. There's no basis for what the numbers are in the goals. We can't even see what the baselines are. It's almost like there's just a bunch of random numbers in there is what it looks like. 

[00:16:17] Jane Tunks Demel: Yeah, and Director Clark actually asked about that. Here's what she said.

[00:16:22] Sarah Clark: If we don't have the current information on where we are right now, then should we be approving an evaluation, like, how do we know that the metrics that are in this evaluation tool are actually accomplishable, meetable. 

I don't want us to end up in a situation like we did this year where we had really lofty goals. I don't want to go through that again. So I just want to make sure that we have all the right information that we need in front of us. 

[00:16:56] Jane Tunks Demel: In the end, it felt to me like this vote was rushed. Director Topp and Director Clark and some others had questions, and no one really knew the answer to them, but they still passed it anyway, so hopefully they'll figure it out as they go. 

[00:17:13] Christie Robertson: There just should have been a lot more questions and a lot more discussion.

[00:17:18] Jasmine Pulido: The other thing I had on my mind was: the turnover rate of our superintendents is pretty high. And now that we are going to potentially do this phased approach of closing schools, it sounds like the timing of this is around securing a Superintendent so that that consistency is there as they roll out these plans that they're about to vote on.

[00:17:45] Jane Tunks Demel: Yeah. And they mentioned that in the Board Action Report.

[00:17:48] Christie Robertson: Here's what the board action report says: 

“Continuation under the terms of the existing employment agreement is not recommended. In a period of systemic change and challenge, stability and leadership will provide some consistency and is shown to have a positive correlation with student achievement.”

[00:18:09] Jasmine Pulido: I can understand how the timing is upsetting with the school closures happening and then suddenly it’s like … And the outcomes, we don't know what they are, and the outcomes are may be terrible, and we're going to give you a raise. I can see that being something that's going to rub the community the wrong way.

[00:18:32] Christie Robertson: Yes.

[00:18:33] Jane Tunks Demel: Yeah, and don't forget about the October shuffle that's coming up.

[00:18:37] Jasmine Pulido: Oh, that's true.

[00:18:38] Christie Robertson: I think the actual shuffle happens in mid-October. 

Listeners, if you're hearing at your schools about numbers for the year and whether you're expecting to get teachers or lose teachers, email us at hello@seattlehallpass.org.

And lastly, here, we wanted to mention that, we got a lot of attention to our previous episode, the “Story of How We Got Here” which was written by Jasmine and described what's happening and what brought us to where we are in a few different story threads. So if you haven't heard that one, definitely go listen to it.

[00:19:16] Jane Tunks Demel: It's our most popular episode ever.

[00:19:19] Jasmine Pulido: Yeah, it's pretty exciting. One of the ideas we were talking about is how there are a lot of people who are activated by the fact that 20 schools are closing, but not everyone knows exactly how we got there. So it is really, exciting to see that the community is really engaged on this issue and wants to be informed about what is going on.

I just wanted to mention some of the feedback that we got on the previous episode. First, the listeners are so insightful, and I really enjoyed getting to hear feedback, so please keep sending us feedback. We really appreciate it. 

One of the things that was pointed out was that the K-5 closures is actually affecting other outcomes, too. So, for instance, it's going to be affecting middle schools, which means it's going to affect 7th-grade math outcomes. 

It did start to get me thinking about, well, the third outcome is college and career readiness, and if closures actually do affect lifetime outcomes, as was concluded in the research from Education Week, that it's going to affect that outcome, too. 

So it's just interesting to think about because of the way it was framed around K-5 and because it was never brought up in the school board meeting, it is really easy to think, oh, it's just going to be third-grade outcomes we need to think about. But those other outcomes are being affected as well.

And then the other piece of feedback that we got was around the legislature and pointing out that it can be historically difficult to get funding from legislature. And I will tell you my take of this feedback and I'd love to hear what you think, Christie and Jane. 

I do think it is important to know that it's not just a matter of asking, right? And even the fact that the underfunding of public education is statewide, it still hasn't necessarily moved the needle on funding for the legislature. I don't think that that means we should not advocate for legislature. 

What I want to point out is the end of the episode is really about opening that door about what could happen if we decided to do something about it. And so I did feel that we pointed out what is the reality and still offered potentially an empowering take on what we can do about it. What do you think?

[00:21:52] Jane Tunks Demel: I think we definitely have to advocate at the state legislature. That's the only thing that's going to solve it. And I'm so grateful for all the people who have already been doing that for years and years. And I've heard from them how hard they've worked and how discouraging it is. But maybe it's time for a different group of people to do it. 

[State Senator] Jamie Pedersen is going around talking to [Seattle] school PTAs about how the state can give more funding to schools. And he's even talking about lifting the levy lid. So I think that there's opportunity for this to happen. 

And I think change never comes when you just don't try because someone told you they've already tried and failed. 

[00:22:36] Jasmine Pulido: Good point. 

[00:22:37] Jane Tunks Demel: So everyone keep trying. Don't get discouraged.

[00:22:42] Christie Robertson: Yeah, certainly the closure plans have woken a lot of people who didn't really have the legislature on their radar. So there's a larger movement. That's always better. There's more people thinking through stuff like the [People’s] Big 5. Everybody should look that up. A movement that's really picked up steam for what to advocate for in terms of educational funding in the legislature. I think our legislators have heard from a lot of parents, keep emailing them about, look what you're making our schools have to think about. Look at all the disruption that might be caused by you not adequately funding our schools.

I was really curious, Jas, I keep thinking about the end of the episode where you said that beyond the state legislature, it might be like the system that the state legislature is part of. And I am curious what that means or what you were thinking there.

[00:23:41] Jasmine Pulido: There's a lot for me to learn regarding how the system functions. I wanted to keep it open-ended because I wanted to hear what other people were thinking about that idea and open the conversation for that. But I will say the things that I was specifically thinking about was the funding formula is not equitable, and that's definitely part of that system. And so just thinking about what are the pain points in the system that we're currently functioning in. I definitely was thinking, “Wow, I would really love to research this more and for us to do an episode on it.”

[00:24:18] Jane Tunks Demel: We should totally do a deep dive. 

[00:24:24] Christie Robertson: Thanks for listening to Seattle Hall Pass. You can see our show notes at Seattlehallpass.org and you can donate to contribute to our costs. We are part of the way toward funding our costs, but we're not quite there. So we really appreciate any help that you can lend us by subscribing to our podcast. 

[00:24:45] Jasmine Pulido: I'm Jasmine Pulido

[00:24:46] Christie Robertson: I'm Christie Robertson.

[00:24:48] Jane Tunks Demel: I'm Jane Tunks Demel. 

[00:24:49] Christie Robertson: And we'll see you next time on Seattle Hall Pass.