The Seattle Public Schools ‘parent tax’ is one step too far
If you're a school parent, you know about the move a thon
UPDATE: Seattle Public Schools announces they are rescinding the 3.3% parent tax. THIS is the power and spirit of community organizing!
(original post here)
One of the more challenging and rewarding aspects of being a member of the House Education Appropriations Committee, the panel the writes the education budget, is the moral and public obligation I feel as the only Seattle legislator on the panel. Due to timing and age, I’m still the only Seattle legislator (1 of 18) with my children currently in the Seattle Public School system.
That role weighs on me to do my best to passionately, actively and thoughtfully work to represent the best interests of students, parents, teachers, administrators, activists, business leaders and other advocates of public education in Seattle.
U.S. Senator Patty Murray started her illustrious career as a regular “mom in tennis shoes” fighting for public schools. Most other parent activists and volunteers don’t achieve such impressive public success, of course, but we do take great pride in helping to build community and educational excellence in our neighborhood schools.
As is the Seattle way, we dutifully volunteer tens of thousands of hours building our schools into better places each year. We stand in the rain waiting for a late parent to pick up a neighboring kid, we clean out the childrens’ cubbies, we sit in the hallways with a distraught child, we stand in line for events, we work hard to raise money to supplement our school in a way that no civilized society should do. We raise a lot of money through Move a Thons, auctions, bake sales to fund basic programs–music, art, language and so much more.
Parent volunteers, activists and community organizers are part of the soul of education. The Alliance for Education, League of Education Voters, Stand for Children and every other parent association/organization/group started when a bunch of moms and dads in tennis shoes decided to make a difference.
The reward from Seattle Public Schools?
PTAs across the city have recently discovered that Seattle Public School District ‘central office’ made a unilateral decision to require a new, 3.3% parent tax that PTA’s must pay from the money we raise at auctions, bake sales and other fundraisers to support grant administration by the district. They need to begin collecting the tax on the money we raise so that they can pay administrators in the central office to…manage the paperwork of the contracts for music, art and language teachers enabled by the money we raise.
I know times are tough all over–I voted yesterday for a $800 million tax increase to fund critical state programs like education–but a parent tax on our bake sale and auction money to fund the institutional bureaucracy rather than teachers, supplies, art classes and other ‘supplementary’ programs?
For the record, it seems that parents must pay an administrative fee of 3.3% of the money raised to pay for grant administration in the central office so that they can efficiently send our own money back to our schools to pay for enhancements like music teachers, full time librarians, art classes, after school projects, field trips and other parent-supported priorities.
We obviously have an extremely diverse range of schools across the city with different capacity for fundraising. Some schools raise more than $200,000 a year and others barely $5,000. Just as a guess, if the average amount a PTA raises citywide is $25,000, that equals $2.4 million raised by parents to support basic services in our schools. And that does not count, of course the value of literally hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours. If the district takes 3.3% for administration–as they do for other grants–in order to create the institutional infrastructure in order to send the money back to schools in the form of authorized enrichment programs, that is $79,000. And that’s on top of the other grant administration fees the district charges everyone else. So parents are paying at the very least what amounts to a full time administrator in the central office to shuffle paperwork of how parent groups’ money should be structured?
The Seattle School District has been repeatedly and aggressively criticized by everyone from the state auditor to legislators to regular folks for the continuation of a large central office administration. This parent tax is one more symbolic representation of the district’s unwillingness to hear the depth of frustration behind this larger, more systemic problem. This parent tax is tone deaf to the community’s hard work, countless hours of volunteering and dollars raised to make our schools better.
It’s hard not to feel that the district lives in a world where schools across our city–and the parents who support them–exist to serve the bureaucracy instead of the other way around.
This model must change. We need a servant leadership approach in the Seattle schools. We need to empower principals to lead their buildings with courageous honesty, support, infrastructure and resources. As you may recall, I feel strongly that they need the authority and accountability to do their jobs.
Instead, Seattle spends 15.10% of the overall budget on pure administrative overhead, not even including operational costs like transportation, food, etc. It’s the highest administrative overhead of the major districts in Washington. On the other side, Seattle spends only 57.5% of the budget on classroom teaching, easily the lowest percentage in the state among the 16 major districts.
How can I successfully fight as a legislator for more support for Seattle schools when as a parent I believe the Seattle Public School District makes policy decisions that are completely disconnected from today’s reality?
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
This issue has been a hot topic over at the blog I write for, Save Seattle Schools. Bravo, Rep. Carlyle.
Here’s a couple of other thoughts on this topic. One, the PTSA has moved from enhancement and enrichment programs to downright funding at schools. Some schools pay for staff and some pay for fixing up rundown schools that just aren’t getting fixed. And that would be because we are nearly $500M in backlog maintenance due to the district continuing to cut back on basic maintenance. Basic maintenance costs far less than costly repairs down the road but that point has been lost to our district administrators. (I would like to thank Rep. Carlyle for his interest and concern about this issue of SPS facilities during the recent school levy election. He was the ONLY Seattle legislator to response to my information sheet and he doesn’t even represent me.)
It is NOT the job of PTSAs to fund staff or fix schools. It just isn’t. It is just wrong and yet the district is counting on them to fill gaps. And now they want to charge us for that help.
Two, Rep. Carlye is exactly right. Please understand that the State Auditor has told them they spend too much on administrators over several audits. They claim they have changed that but a recent report by Meg Diaz (SPS parent and financial analyst) showed that they haven’t. We need them to get that we want the money in the classroom, not in the district headquarters. (And speaking of the actual building, SPS wants to sell $34M in school bonds to basically “refinance” the debt on the building that is an albatross around our neck and for which we were promised there would be great savings to consolidate all the district offices into one.)
With all due respect, the hallmark of Dr. Goodloe-Johnson’s time here at SPS has been her tone-deal attitude.
I have been running a weekly bake sale at Lawton to raise money for the 5th grade trip to Islandwood requiring no paperwork from the central office.
The money is sitting right here. I am more than happy to give them a baggie full of pennies we received from little kids in exchange for a cookie, made by their mom or dad.
I have no anwser for you Reuven, it is simply mindboggling that SPS thinks they can get away with taxing tax deductible contributions….and cookies.
Reuven – and others – I so appreciate your comments – especially the informaton on Seattle having such high overhead.
What do you propose as the most effective things parents should do to express their outrage and reverse this decision? My initial thoughts are to raise this to the school board members and to send letters, emails, and make phone calls to the superintendent. Every parent in Seattle Public Schools should call/contact these outlets.
Other suggestions?
Thanks,
Suzi
Reuven – and others – I so appreciate your comments – especially the informaton on Seattle having such high overhead.
What do you propose as the most effective things parents should do to express their outrage and reverse this decision? My initial thoughts are to raise this to the school board members and to send letters, emails, and make phone calls to the superintendent. Every parent in Seattle Public Schools should call/contact these outlets.
Other suggestions?
Thanks,
Suzi LeVine
Mr. Carlyle, it’s so nice to hear someone in a position of leadership has a similar take on the Seattle School District. In addition to this overhead on parent-raised funds, the district is centralizing pay-for-K. I have some comments that apply to both. First, if this is an attempt to spread funding more equitably across communities of different socioeconomic statuses, it’s a fine idea. It’s hard to imagine the PTA 3.3% will accomplish much, but it appears we are losing at least 30% of the funds we have been collecting from our K parents. Where is this money going? By my math, it’s about enough to scholarship every FRL student outside of Title 1 schools, which get special funding for this purpose. Which leads to point comment 2: The lack of transparency/accountability and therefore trust in the district’s handling of money. Meg Diaz, Melissa Westbrook, and others have no trouble coming up with discrepancies that are ignored or brushed aside by the district.
Finally, I wrote to all state representatives last week about the state education bills. I pointed out that a big driver of inequality is parent-funded basic education where we can afford it. A big driver of parents having to fund basic education in public schools is chronic state underfunding. As someone who would pay income tax in another state, I have noticed a correlation between income tax-free states and the “bottom of the education barrel” we seem to inhabit. When will our leaders step up and address the causes of the disease rather than slapping on the latest fashionable band-aids? It may cost you an election, but generations of future Washingtonians stand a great benefit. And with all other states pursuing Mr. Duncan’s unproven reforms, people and therefore business might just start flocking to Washington for our rich and successful public schools.
Slight clarification. I believe that the money subject to this tax is the money that the PTAs and PTSAs give to the schools to put in their budget. So the tax would be on the money raised that funds the librarian or extra teacher for reduced class sizes. However, money that the PTAs and PTSAs generate and spend on their own (like the Islandwood example) would not be part of this at all. It’s only money that goes through the central administration that is subject to this.
Reuven – Thank you so much for your honesty in examining this issue. I would respectfully ask that you include the districts brand new centralized Pay for K program in your analysis of new parent taxes.
As part of SPS New Student Assignment Plan, the district will now collect one uniform fee from every family to pay for Kindergarten. While I understand the intent to create a uniform fee now that choices for K families are limited. this centralized accounting is creating yet more unnecessary administration. Moreover, at my children’s school, this fee is both higher than the one we previously charges and will pay for significantly less services.
Under the old plan, our school collected $200 per month to pay for the half of Kindergarten not funded by the district. This amount created enough fund that we were able to offer “just ask” scholarships for middle class families that did not qualify for FRL but still found the fee to be too much for their family.Under the new plan, there will be no opportunity to help families near the cut off.
This is yet another parent tax. Additionally, there is no transparency on what those additional funds will be paying for but clearly, this will preserve more jobs in central administration.
Bravo to someone who gets it! I moved here from the eastside which does not have such problems and a highly ranked system. This is disgusting to hear, as the parents do most of this work through volunteer/unpaid hours, as well as hours off their “real” jobs, yet now they are taking money away from the real needed programs! So Bravo to someone who is in a position of power. The key is to get more of you on board, and rid our school board of those that don’t have any “skin in the game”…Further evidenced by no one listening to what kind of school the parents wanted at Old Hay…they made another unilateral decision on this school as well….
The question is…would the eastside have taken this long to decide what kind of school to have? Would the eastside take this sitting down?…absolutely not…and there are plenty of equally as wealthy parents here…
We do need to fight!
The superintendent has many positive qualities but these are outweighed by her consistent, complete failure to respond to parents in the district. It is three years that she has treated us with an imperious attitude and policies that do not address our concerns. Heck, she doesn’t address us period. She acts like we are mute serfs. This is the final straw. Please help by talking to local and state politicians and socializing the idea that it is time for a new leader in Seattle. She is bright but she is an awful fit for the parents in this community. I get it t being a major city school superintendent is tough. Really tough. But we should be able to find someone with educational strengths, administrative strengths and also compassion, sympathy and social skills befitting this community. The superintendent does not have, and has shown little inclination to learn, that last point. Get her out.
$800 million here, $800 hundred million there, a 3.5% tax over there.
It’s pretty easy to take and spend other people’s money. But sooner or later the people with money will say “Adios, I’m out of here”.
Then what?
Reuven nice that you get it.
“It’s hard not to feel that the district lives in a world where schools across our city–and the parents who support them–exist to serve the bureaucracy instead of the other way around.”
Of equally great interest should be that MGJ as secretary to the school board and the school board regularly violate RCW 28A 645.020. This group fails to provide an accurate administrative record in regard to school board decisions. Decision making by whim no evidence required. Rarely are evidence and relevant data provided by the public used in school board decision making. This is a violation of state law and it occurs with great regularity.
The way things are there is little the public can do. Outside of expensive legal action.
Unfortunately even when legal action is taken some King County Superior Court judges fail to act on these frequent and ongoing violations of 28A 645.020
School closures like Cooper
which is under appeal and without the transcript required by RCW
still drags on …. why?
The Student Assignment Plan also under appeal and without a satisfactory transcript drags on why?
The superintendent supported by four school directors, in regard to the High School Math adoption, has appealed a King County Judge’s Order of Remand.
All evidence supplied by the public was excluded. The board made an Arbitrary & Capricious decision. The Judge ordered the board to repeat the decision-making process using all the evidence including 300+ pages sent to them by the public that they excluded in making their decision on May 6, 2009.
Since these four board members and the superintendent rarely use evidence provided by the public or even concern for the public in making any decision, these 5 agreed to appeal. This appeal will likely cost the plaintiffs an additional $7,000 to $9,000.
I hope this makes my point that when a school district loses an appeal based on an article IX violation, the district should pay the winning plaintiffs’ legal fees up to a maximum of $20,000 and if the School District chooses to appeal and loses then the maximum for legal fees is raised to $50,000.
This group of four and “Super” makes five needs “Intensive Therapy” or removal, as their behavior is unacceptable as well as illegal.
In 2008-09, the district received some $12m-ish in grant donations (at least according to a public records requests about grants), excluding state and federal grants. And they need to have $400k or more worth of people in the central office to manage the private donations? I doubt it.
Thanks Reuven, for giving this issuem a platform. It’s wrong that parents are asked to raise funds to pay for basics–funds that our legislators have chosen not to provide. But we do it anyway, because they’re our kids, and we want to give them everything we can. But then for the District to add this tax on top of everything else, and to add it in the dead of night at the last minute. Shame on everyone.
How would the SPS administration look if we could start with a blank slate today? Then how could we get there from here? What’s stopping us?
The primary effect of this will be to reduce PTA donations. Parents will perceive it as unfair and cut their contributions.
Dear Ms. Louisa Clayton,
You said: “How would the SPS administration look if we could start with a blank slate today? Then how could we get there from here? What’s stopping us?”
Very easy answer to this fine question. There is a 5 person impediment STOPPING us.
When this 5 person impediment is given the opportunity to start over they refuse to do so.
History lesson from Superior Court decision on February 4, 2010
Order of Remand given to the SPS.
The Board did not use all the evidence in making the math textbook decision (excluding all evidence submitted by the public). Judge says: You board members must reconsider and decide again but this time using all the evidence.
To which MGJ said: “NO I appeal” and the Rubber-Stamping Four said :”We support our Superintendent.”
When given the opportunity these folks have no desire to start over and follow the Law. The are very comfortable violating RCW 28A 645.020 on a regular basis and see little reason to change as very few of the King County Superior Court Judges have thus far required them to follow the law.
I think your Idea of starting over is excellent it just will NOT happen with these 5 involved as they do NOT wish to start over and have made that abundantly clear.
===========================
Here is a plan to start over as you suggest and the PTAs can participate and NOT be taxed by the “Defenders of the Schools”.
#1 A Writ of Mandamus will be filed with the WA Supreme Court on 3-26-2010 alleging that the school board does not keep the administrative record that the law requires them to keep and that the KC Superior Court has thus far on more than one occasion not required the SPS to do so in the timely manner required by law.
#2 The Writ would like to see the court require the SPS to follow the law and the KC Superior Court to hold the SPS accountable to follow the law. Since several School Board decisions are under appeal and the board has no proper administrative record in those appeals, they have no defense because a defense requires the proper administrative record. Thus the Supreme court should rule in favor of the appellants in all cases under appeal that are without the Legally required administrative record, which will be all cases under appeal.
#3 If #2 happens as outlined above (no one knows about court decisions) then the SPS will be guilty of many violations of state law.
#4 Particularly repugnant actions were:
a) .. May 6, 2009 The high school math decision which on that date used zero pages from the public although over 300 pages were submitted to the board.
Voting for Chow, Sunquist, Maier, Carr
b) .. The appeal of the Spector decision of February 4, 2010 by MGJ supported by
Sundquist, Maier, Carr, Martin-Morris
c) .. February 3, 2010 the approval of the $800,000 NTN Contract. The Legal firm hired by the district in this appeal has already asked for an extension beyond the legally mandated 20 days to provide the administrative record. If the district had an administrative record that contained the evidence used on Feb 3, 2010 would it really take more than 40 days later to provide it. March 25 is the 50th day. Thus far the district has not provided the contract that was approved on Feb 3, 2010 as public records requests indicated it was still being negotiated. This 4-2 approval found
Sundquist, Carr, Maier, Martin-Morris voting in the affirmative.
#5 It appears that Sundquist, Carr, Maier, and Martin-Morris would certainly easily qualify to be recalled.
#6 A recall petition request is filed with the elections office now located at Boeing Field (K. C. airport)
#7 A judge reviews the petition and approves the printing of the petitions which are prepared from information submitted to the elections office. The director under recall can appeal for reconsideration the writing of the document and it may be revised. ( same applies to the petitioner for the recall.) {Joy Lynn Anderson is ready to file for the recall of all four directors should the appropriate time come … note her child attended the now closed Cooper School (New Pathfinder – kick out Cooper kids replace with others) which is still under appeal and does not have the proper administrative record in regard to its closing decision. No idea what information the Judge is waiting for to rule.
#8 Approximately 32,000 valid signatures are required to place each director on a recall election ballot. Directors are recalled individually.
#9 Elections are held 30 to 60 days of the date that the recall petition is certified as meeting the valid signature requirement.
#10 a recall is just an up or down vote there is no other candidate, The vote is to retain or expel from office (recall = return to general population of non-board members in this case)
#11 when a candidate is recalled their office stays open until the next general election for that seat. If all four directors were recalled those four seats will be open until November 2011
#12 The Board will then consist of three directors: DeBell, Patu, Smith-Blum
#13 Since the Superintendent is also the School Board Secretary, she is to some extent responsible for the ongoing violations of RCW 28A 645.020 and perhaps could be fired with cause as in NO BUY OUT.
#14 Then Louisa Clayton … “We could start with a blank slate.” but not today.
Note I am not an attorney and the above may be grossly misleading and inadequate for some…… but it is the best I can do at this time to answer Louisa’s question.
Thank you Rep. Carlyle for getting behind this effort! One more thought though:
Let’s not forget about the newly centralized requirement to pay for full day Kindergarten.
The fee for next year is set at $207 per month. When I first heard about this 3.3% fee it became clear to me where that odd number came from. It was apparently set at $200 per month plus the handling fee. Shouldn’t the price go down to $200 per month now that the fee on parent grants has been rescinded?
Our parent group would be willing to collect and process the fees ourselves and send the District one check to cover the price of our own 1/2 FTE K teacher. (That would save our families about $2000 annually in fees) As is, by creating a centralized Pay for K system, SPS has created the need for someone downtown to process about 20,000 personal checks a year and collect $140,000 to pay that someone, in addition to the $4,000,0000 to pay for the (about) 80 1/2 FTE K teachers to actually teach the kids (*).
In such a tough budget climate, it seems like we should do what we can to use parent volunteers to cut down on administrative costs.
(*)I’m estimating 4000 K students, 50% required to Pay for K, 25 kids per class, 1/2 of the classes already paid for by the general budget
Congratulations on getting the tax rescinded! In light of the conversation about fundraising, PTA and PTOs across the country have been using the Adopt-A-Classroom program to supplement fundraising efforts. This is a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting teachers and students since 1998 and has raised over $11 million on behalf of teachers. It’s a user-friendly web based program that anyone can use to donate funds, essentially a mini classroom grant, to any teacher anywhere in the United States. All schools are already listed on the site and schools in Seattle are here: http://www.adoptaclassroom.org/adoption/LocatorCity.aspx?State=WA&City=Seattle&Private=0&inter=0
We need some data here Reuven. They need to hold their admin bureaucracy to a performance standard that is measurable. We can’t manage what we can’t measure. If we know the normal percent that goes to this for a lean green education machine and for a bureaucratically obese inefficiency machine, we can let them know where they are on the meter and suggest a performance improvement plan in terms of paring it down to something acceptable or even respectable.
-Kate
the public schools on our district can really give some good education to young kids. they have high standards ,,.