Over the weekend I noticed new examples of the Seattle School District telling the public that its new budget represents a cut of $45.5 million: see 97.3 KIRO FM’s Ross and Burbank Show and Sunday's Seattle Times editorial.
For example, Dave Ross interviewed the President of the Seattle School Board, Steve Sundquist, and asked him if the $45.5 million budget cut is actually a cut. Steve Sundquist answered like this: “I think that this is at some level a debate about language…..a better term is a $45 million budget gap between the cost of delivering an equivalent level of services that we got last year.”
So I did some digging and discovered that this $45.5 million figure is actually based upon anticipated spending increases from Initiative 728 and Initiative 732 spending, and not upon the cost of delivering an equivalent level of services from last year. See page 6 of the Seattle School District's “Guide to Understanding the Operating Budget,” November 2010.
Let’s review. Back in 2000, voters passed Initiative 728, known as the classroom reduction size initiative, and Initiative 732, the teacher cost-of-living increase. The Voter Guide to these initiatives promised voters that these initiatives would not raise taxes, and could be funded from budget surpluses.
The Legislature funded these initiatives from existing budget surpluses between 2001 and 2008, providing these surpluses to school districts across the state. Backers of these initiatives have repeatedly sought voter approval to increase taxes, so as to provide a permanent funding source for these initiatives. Voters, however, have repeatedly rejected these requests. See 2004 election results of I-884 and 2010 election results of I-1098.
When budget surpluses evaporated in the 2008 recession, the state stopped funding I-728 and 732.
The last time the Seattle School District received funding for I-728 funding was 2008-9, three budget cycles ago. But school district officials in Seattle and across the state are still creating graphs—dream graphs-- showing the funds they feel they should be receiving from this currently nonexistent funding source.
Seattle's actual cuts in revenue from the state are a far cry from $45.5 million. They amount to $5.4 million for grades K-4 class size reductions, and $4.0 million for reducing K-12 staff salary allocations. These cuts are offset by increases of $7.0 million for enrollment growth, $2.9 million for pension rate changes and $0.9 million for grade K-3 class size reductions in high poverty schools.
The District’s Ending Fund Balance has dropped to $20.1 million in 2011-12 from $51 million in 2009-10. This raises concerns that the spending trajectory of the current budget is unsustainable.
Frank and open discussions about school budgets are impossible if past spending decisions are not examined and revenue cuts are exaggerated.
Most of Seattle's operating budget, or 83%, is spent on the salaries and benefits of its employees. Total salaries paid by Seattle to certificated employees (teachers and others with college degrees) increased from $269,648,376 in 2008-9 to $280,959,609 in 2011-12 (budgeted), a 4.1 % increase. Salaries for classified employees decreased from $95,612,353 in 2008-9 to $93,184,833 in 2011-12, a 2.5 % decrease. And benefits and payroll taxes for all employees increased from $108,242,926 in 2008-9 to $113,701,322 in 2011-12 (budgeted), a 5% increase. (See OSPI's 1801 reports, linked here.) Average teacher pay in Seattle in 2010-11 was $70,850 for a ten-month work year. (See this link)
During the collective bargaining talks of last summer, the district obligated itself to pay its teachers a 1% pay increase for the 2011-12 and 2012-3 years. This may sound small, but it amounts to a $2-3 million spending increase each year.
KIRO's Dave Ross got to the heart of the matter when he managed to elicit this statement from Mr. Sundquist: “We can make this (budget) work.” The schools will open and be fully staffed in September. And, to his credit, Mr. Sundquist also said “This budget has forced us to get serious about prioritizing our spending.”
