Last night the Kent School District decided not to cut physical education and music programs for kids.  Our op-ed, available here, provides budget and other figures for the Kent School District.  We argued that the grown-ups in the district could find cuts that wouldn't hurt kids' programs. 

The Seattle Times' editorial Tuesday addressed the proposed cuts in Kent and asked this great question: "Why are classrooms always the focal point of budget-cutting exercises?"

It appears the grown ups in Kent have decided to protect programs for kids and instead cut the positions of four assistant principals, reduce the pay of other administrators through furlough days, and reduce the number of other positions.  A total of 100 positions will be affected, but it is unclear which positions will be cut.

I have a graph for the 2009-10 school year from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction which provides a breakdown of Kent school personnel for last year, by duty.  This graph shows that 1,190 elementary and secondary teachers work in the district out of a total of 2,592 employees.  The graphs shows another 210 are "other teachers."  So only about half of all employees in the district are teachers. 

The central mission of our schools is to educate students.  While many support positions are helpful and necessary to run a school, responsible grown-ups deciding layoffs could avoid cutting teaching positions and find savings elsewhere. 

A better and more compassionate way to achieve needed savings is for everyone involved to take a small reduction in their pay or benefits. In that way, everyone could stay at their jobs. 

Now that Kent School district  leadership is avoiding cuts to kids' programs, where are the grown-ups in the Kent Education Association?  Have they come forward and  offered to take a small pay and benefit reduction, in order to protect the jobs of public school employees?  If not, why not?