Report finds Seattle school spending top-heavy on administration
The Seattle School District has the highest administrative costs in the state, according to a district parent's study, putting pressure on Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson as new budget work begins.
Seattle Public Schools spends three times more on non-teaching support staff and administration than shown in the budgets presented to the School Board, according to a study by a former business analyst — who also is a school district parent.
The study, presented to the board earlier this month by analyst Meg Diaz, has prompted members of the board’s audit and finance committee to ask Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson and Don Kennedy, the chief financial officer, to explain the discrepancy. As Diaz puts it, “The lack of consistency between the budgets presented to the board and public and the budgets filed with [the Superintendent of Public Instruction] masks excessive growth in central administration."
Kennedy has promised at least a preliminary response to the Diaz study at the committee’s Nov. 5 meeting, according to board member Steve Sundquist, the committee chairman. Sundquist, who is retired from an executive position at Russell Investment Group and also has a finance background, described Diaz’s study as “a thorough job” that “raises a number of questions.”
Getting answers from the district is important, according to Sundquist and Michael DeBell, the School Board president, because the district will again need to cut costs to balance next year’s budget, and the board will need to have a clear picture of what’s being spent on administration.
“If we see things that don’t make sense to us or suggest we have an overstaffing issue,” then the board will look for budget cuts, Sundquist said.
DeBell said he first raised the issue with Kennedy in August, based on “a gut feeling that we weren’t telling the whole story about our central administrative costs” and concern for a $16 million deficit already on the horizon.
Diaz, who lives in Madison Park and has two children in Seattle Public Schools, spent about six weeks in September and October doing the comparison between the two versions of the budget and between Seattle and nearby districts. Before taking time off to raise her children, Diaz was an analyst with a business consulting firm.
Comparing the district’s $556 million 2008-2009 budget (PDF) as approved by the school board and the budget as reported by law to the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) , Diaz found more than $45 million spent on non-teaching supervisory and teaching support, compared with only $15 million for “core administration” shown in the board-approved budget.
The budget totals are the same, but the $30 million internal discrepancy arises because, as Diaz wrote, “many administrative costs (Supervision of Instruction, Supervision of Nutrition, Supervision of Transportation, and Supervision of Buildings) have been assigned to other categories without explanation. All other districts examined report these costs as Central Administration.” In fact, at more than 8 percent of its operating budget, Seattle has the highest administrative burden of any large district in the state, according to the OSPI data Diaz gathered.
The largest growth has been in supervision of instruction, up 129 percent since 2004-2005 while the amount spent on classroom teachers, including pay raises, has risen only 22 percent in the same period, Diaz shows.
Comparing Seattle’s reports to OSPI with the same documents (a form F-195) filed by sister districts, Diaz also found that:
- “Central administration FTEs (full-time employees) have increased 48 percent since 1998. Enrollment in the same period has declined 7.5 percent
- “Central administration cost growth is 96 percent in the last decade, well out of line with growth in the overall operating budget and other budget sectors
- “The growth trend has not abated since state auditor called attention to top-heavy administrative structure.”
Viewed using the OSPI format, Diaz's data shows that between the 2000-01 and 2008-09 school years administrative employment has risen more than 17 percent, while the number of classroom teachers has fallen more than 4 percent. Since a 2008 state audit said that “SPS has 39 percent more executives, managers, and supervisors per student than the average,” district officials have not reformed. They’ve added more than 50 new administrative employees.
Goodloe-Johnson and Kennedy are not the first to move supervisory costs out of “administration.” Diaz found that the practice goes back to previous administrations, but the discrepancy between what the district calls administration and what OSPI guidelines categorize as administrative costs has grown on their watch, according to her research.
Nor is Diaz’s study the first to call attention to the Seattle district’s high administrative costs. When the state audit noted the problem, district officials replied as they have for years that Seattle is different, claiming primarily that its student body is ethnically more diverse and lower-income than in surrounding districts.
However, by looking at OSPI data to compare Seattle with other metropolitan-area districts, Diaz shows those claims are simply no longer true. Tacoma, Kent, and Federal Way school districts closely match Seattle’s demographics in all respects and Spokane, Vancouver, and even Bellevue have similarly high percentages of minority or low-income students.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 7:35 a.m. inappropriate
“many administrative costs (Supervision of Instruction, Supervision of Nutrition, Supervision of Transportation, and Supervision of Buildings) have been assigned to other categories without explanation. All other districts examined report these costs as Central Administration.”
As someone who looks at many, many F195 and F196 reports, and who certainly isn't a fan of management in most cases, I'm a little skeptical about this claim. Just taking a quick look at Auburn, for example, I see "School Food Services" listed under the broader "Support Services" category (page 14, later on page 86), Pupil Transportation also listed as it's own subcategory away from Central Administration, etc.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 10:17 a.m. inappropriate
The bloated SSD administration was exposed 20 years ago by Linda Jordan, Barry Samet, and others in a group called People for Ethical Government. Seattle media have long been mere cheerleaders for SSD both as reporters and editors. Construction cost overruns and countless redundant administrators have been a long term negative drain on quality and gravy train boon for political hacks and campaign contributors. Thus, stagnant enrollment for SSD and a massive increase in private school enrollment. No real new news here.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 10:45 a.m. inappropriate
Ryan- you're correct that transportation and nutrition are listed under Support Services in the F-195s. However, the supervision of those categories is under Central Administration (for Auburn, too). The operation of a district-wide function like transportation is a district-wide function and shouldn't be billed as a central administrative function, but the supervision of it IS part of central administration.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 12:02 p.m. inappropriate
Somehow Mike McGinn’s suggestion that the City consider taking over the School District’s administrative functions has been lost in the clamor over the viaduct and other issues. Is this a suggestion that warrants further discussion? There does seem to be a least a reasonable degree of suspicion that school districts are typically less efficient that other branches of government.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 1:04 p.m. inappropriate
Bravo to Meg Diaz for once again doing the sound analytical work that the Seattle School District should be doing itself.
Diaz's meticulous report demonstrates that something is seriously awry in Seattle Public School District's central office. It clearly needs to be audited again, and its budget cut to be more in line with other districts -- especially in this economy which the district has used to rationalize cuts it made this year that directly and negatively impact the children of Seattle's public schools.
Thousands of Seattle Public Schools families were affected by the rushed and reckless school closures, splits and mergers imposed by Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson and approved by 5 members of the board (directors Bass and Martin-Morris had the foresight to vote no) back in January, all done in the name of "budget crisis.”
Yet, as Diaz's report demonstrates, while the district cut away at our kids' schools, programs and teaching staff, it continued to hire excessive numbers of administrative staffers at its central office.
I have heard that a number of these staffers earn over $100,000. Meanwhile, the superintendent is paid $264,000 -- significantly more than the mayor of Seattle or even the governor of Washington. I am quite certain that Seattle Public School parents would rather money be spent in the classrooms than on adding to John Stanford Center bureaucracy.
Also, as Diaz's report shows, the district's claim that it is somehow 'special' and therefore needs 39 percent more staffers than similar school districts throughout the state doesn't hold up when you look at the facts.
As for the district's curious mis-categorization of expenditures, this appears to be some kind of shell game the SPS central office is playing, and should be immediately investigated.
By the way, Meg Diaz's first analysis of the superintendent's "Capacity Management Plan," which the district used to rationalize school closures and upheavals, also proved to be prescient and correct (see: “Analysis of Final capacity Management Proposal” (http://andrehelmstetter.com/Capacity_managementfinal_analysis/Capacity_managementfinal_analysis.htm).
Diaz, and many others who opposed the closures, said back in January 2009 that neighborhood demographic trends indicated that schools would be needed and should not be closed. Her first report also questioned the $3 million cost savings promised by the district.
Sure enough, the closures, mergers and splits resulted in costs that cut into these alleged savings. What's more, only a few months after closing 5 schools to allegedly save $3 million because it claimed enrollment was down, the district has announced it wants to reopen 5 schools -- for a cost of $48 million(!) -- because enrollment is up.
Unbelievable.
Here's the follow-up $280 million question that hopefully diligent reporters like Dick Lilly will ask:
Will Seattle voters be willing to hand over more money to the Seattle Public School District in light of all this incompetence, mismanagement, excessive central office spending and questionable bookkeeping when the next school levy vote comes up in February?
(http://www.seattleschools.org/area/levy-info/index.dxml)
Sue Peters
freelance Crosscut contributor
Seattle Education 2010
http://seattle-ed.blogspot.com/
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 2:42 p.m. inappropriate
Regarding the question of mayoral control, exaclty how do you think that the mayor's office and the city bureacracy that goes with it would better be able to manage the finances of SPS?
Anyway, the issue of mayoral control has more to do with controling the entire school district, no longer having a school board elected by the voters and one person having the final say regarding the main issues of running a public school system.
In most cities where you see mayoral control, you will also see school boards that are populated by members who were selected by the mayor. You will also see a mayor who can be influenced greatly by business interests rather than educators, parents and students.
See:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/03/fenty_to_mayors_school_boards.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/gates_mil_lesson_ekjA6OeXIrxZjDATHPbkuJ
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/opinion/10ravitch.html?_r=2&ref;=opinion
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 3:19 p.m. inappropriate
I’m not necessarily advocating for mayoral control, rather I posed the issue as point for discussion. I think that most will agree that our current system of education has failed to meet the needs of a large percentage of the population and that some form of dramatic change is in order, particularly with regard to big city school districts.
Having said that, I feel that elected officials with more notoriety, and higher profile offices (the mayor and city council members) have more to gain from realizing improvements in the City’s educational system than those who currently occupy school board positions. Furthermore the city could benefit from a full integration of its land use, economic development and educational policies. That’s not to say that the abolishment of the current “school district” system would ensure this, but rather to suggest that given the proper motivations such an action could have positive results.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 4:37 p.m. inappropriate
" a full integration of its land use, economic development and educational policies "— a scary thought, given the state of the first two items on that list.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 4:39 p.m. inappropriate
" a full integration of its land use, economic development and educational policies "— a scary thought, given the state of the first two items on that list.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 7:08 p.m. inappropriate
Only Clover Park spends a higher percentage of budget on Central Administration at 10%. Seattle's 9% equates to almost $1000 per child for central administration expenditure. If Seattle had the same per child spending for Central Admin as Olympia SD. the savings would be more than $20 million annually.
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 4:44 p.m. inappropriate
Ummmmm, Taylor, re your "In most cities where you see mayoral control, you will also see school boards that are populated by members who were selected by the mayor. You will also see a mayor who can be influenced greatly by business interests rather than educators, parents and students."
Just whom do you think provides the money and backing and endorsements to elect the members of our current school board? Hint: it ain't "educators, parents and students".
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 11:03 a.m. inappropriate
How deliciously ironic to have Mr. Lilly writing the story but perhaps a writer with a bit more objectivity might be advisable.
My read of Meg's report indicates origins of this problem were present during the entire time Mr. Lilly was on the Board of Directors and back when he was still reporting for the newspaper. Why did'nt he notice this himself back then? Its not like this just happened.
Culture-bound perhaps?
What ever happened to "if you are'nt part of the solution, you are part of the problem"?
Also, did'nt Mr. Lilly and his cohort Don Nielsen have a big hand in bringing us this current administration from South Carolina?
Parents like us seem to recall that bit of history as well.
Wake up and smell the stink Mr. Lilly!
Rex
Perhaps a nea culpa is in order Mr. Lilly, at the very least.
Posted Mon, Nov 2, 3:59 p.m. inappropriate
The central administration of Seattle Public Schools is a textbook example of Parkinson's Law. The administration grows at a constant rate, completely independent of the body it administers. The administration has grown even as enrollment and the number of schools has shrunk.
It is time for a re-definition and narrowing of the central administration's work. They have suffered from mission creep to the point that they are now writing lessons and deciding on reading lists for high school English classes. That's WAY outside their mandate and demostrates how bloated they have become.
Almost all of the excess growth has been in "Teaching Support" with some in the IT department. It's not in HR, transportation, nutrition services, or enrollment services. First, the District has got too many coaches and curriculum experts.
But you can forget the idea that the Board can or will do anything about it. The Board does not have a role in writing the budget. None. They do approve the total appropriation and they do approve large contracts and expenditures, but they don't have a role in shaping the budget. The Superintendent does that all by herself. And now we know that she does it without any effective oversight whatsoever.