Author: Robert Cruickshank

On Tuesday night, Seattle Public Schools leaders went on stage before an auditorium full of hundreds of families, educators, and community members at Roosevelt High School to present their plan to close 20 elementary schools. The district did not show the audience any data or financial analysis to explain their claim that mass school closures would create more resources for other schools. Their failure to do so, or to even take questions on the stage, left the public furious.

But SPS does have some numbers now available on their website under an FAQ section, though they chose not to present them on Tuesday night.

Perhaps it’s because the numbers don’t add up.

Seattle Public Schools has a $129 million deficit for the 2025-26 school year. According to the SPS FAQ, closing a public K-5 school would save between $750,000 and $2,000,000. As the district is talking about closing 20 schools, their claims suggest a savings between $15 million and $40 million. 

Based on the estimate of a $129 million deficit for 2025-26, this would still leave anywhere between $89 million and $114 million to cut from the budget. Even under the best case scenario, assuming maximal savings and minimal enrollment loss, closing 20 public schools would still leave a whopping $89 million to cut from programs and staff at the remaining schools, ensuring they won’t actually be well-resourced. Instead, they’ll all be worse off than before, with more students in larger classes with fewer resources and a lot less teachers.

That’s under the rosiest scenario. In reality, evidence from across the country shows that a mass closure of schools creates more financial instability, causes a significant increase in families leaving the district, and causes great harm to student outcomes and equity. From the numbers SPS has shown so far, this is what we should also expect to happen here. The district’s mass school closure is a plan for catastrophe.

SPS offers no answer to the remaining budget deficit, instead hoping the state legislature will close most of it. If the legislature doesn’t, huge budget cuts will follow anyway. 

The data around school closures suggests that such closures should not be part of the district’s budget plan. The only solution that does not worsen the financial crisis, hurt student learning or equity is to make the state legislature step up with the ample funding our students are promised in the state constitution. We ought to demand the legislature close the whole $129 million deficit, and avoid the damage that a mass school closure and widespread budget cuts would cause.

Uncertain savings from closing a school building

SPS’s headline number of savings from closing a school is not actually spelled out in line item detail, so we have no way to assess their accuracy. Here’s what the district says in their FAQ:

“The estimated savings of between $750,000 and $2,000,000 + per school consolidation reflects budgetary saving in the following areas: administration, transportation, support staff, and building maintenance/operations.”

Without specifics, the public is unable to properly examine these estimates. Which administrators and support staff are being discussed, and how much do they currently make? What are the maintenance and operations that would still have to happen if a school building is no longer being used for a public elementary school, given that there would still be maintenance and operations needs?

The question of student transportation is a particularly significant one, and is left unexplained. Presumably, many students will have a longer commute to and from school when their current school is closed. One would assume that will require more spending on transportation. In the FAQ, SPS notes:

“SPS is not changing the eligibility criteria and ride times in the Transportation Service Standards. Consistent with our current standards, students who live inside the attendance area and outside the walk-zone for their assigned school will be eligible for transportation. Students who receive transportation as part of their IEP will continue to receive that service.”

It is possible that SPS will change the definition of the walk zone and attendance area in order to save money. If so, that would mean more kids would be driven to school, creating safety problems for elementary students and undermining the city’s climate action goals.

Ultimately, the public has no way to judge the veracity of SPS’s school closure savings claims based on what they have presented so far.

Savings from closing schools do not create new resources

The heart of SPS’s pitch is that closing 20 public elementary schools could create more resources at the remaining schools. But, given that there is still a budget deficit of $89 million to $114 million to solve, that is simply not possible. A dollar saved by closing schools simply shrinks the deficit. That dollar cannot also be used in a different school. This is not acknowledged in the district’s FAQ. 

Nevertheless, SPS claims:

“Additional students in a building will result in a proportionate increase in teachers to maintain current student:teacher ratios.”

Yet they present no actual evidence to explain how this will happen, especially if there is $90 million or more in other budget cuts coming. If staffing ratios stay the same, then there is no actual guarantee of additional resources for the remaining schools, particularly if additional staffing cuts are required to balance the district’s budget. 

SPS relies on the following chart to specify some of the resources the remaining schools would presumably have (though they do not mention the additional deficit that must be closed):

SPS says they want to have K-5 schools with enrollment of about 400. That is notably not shown here, and would fall in between the second and third columns. We can assume perhaps one more teacher per grade level, maybe a nurse at the school 2 days out of the week rather than 1, some special education intensive service classrooms but likely less than 3, and perhaps some more counselor and art/music teacher time. 

Again, that all assumes there isn’t a budget deficit of at least $89 million to close, which would make even these small gains impossible to achieve. Nowhere are specific numbers given to explain how these estimates were reached.

From what we’ve seen so far, SPS has not fully shown how they arrived at their estimates for savings from closing public schools, nor have they shown how that translates into these specific new resources, nor have they mentioned there’s still the enormous budget deficit still out there.

SPS hasn’t analyzed the impact on enrollment

So far, SPS has not shown any analysis of how their mass school closure plan would impact student enrollment in the future. They do not appear to have considered the strong possibility that by closing 20 public schools, including redrawing the entire elementary attendance map, they will provoke more families to leave the district. That’s what happened in Chicago and other cities that closed numerous schools, causing those districts to have further budget deficits. If the same thing happens here, SPS will get less money from the state, and we’ll be right back where we are now: facing a budget deficit.

The state legislature gave SPS $100,000 to study the causes of its declining enrollment. The district has no real understanding of why families left, whether the decline was mostly in the early years of the decade during the coronavirus pandemic, whether the decline has stalled, or what they could do to welcome families back to the district. 

Proceeding with a mass school closure plan that could jeopardize its enrollment and potentially provoke another budget crisis by pushing out more families would seem like a reckless decision.

Why not just ask Olympia to cover the whole deficit, rather than most of it?

Clearly, the remaining budget deficit of $89 million to $114 million is of central importance to this discussion. SPS has no specific plans to address it aside from asking the state legislature to do it for them:

“If the recommendation to consolidate schools is approved, will the district still need to make additional budget cuts? 

Whether SPS will need to make reductions, school consolidations, and a change in bell times will depend largely on the outcome of the 2025-26 Legislative session.   

We will be developing different budget scenarios in the fall and winter of the 2024-25 school year, which will prioritize where additional reductions or reinvestments would be made depending on the outcome of the Legislative session.”

This tells us three things: SPS’s mass school closure plan is no guarantee whatsoever that the remaining schools will be well resourced, that they are still relying on the legislature to solve their budget problem for them, and that they surely have a backup plan to impose major budget cuts and teacher layoffs if the legislature fails to act.

Which raises a crucial question: why close schools at all? If the district needs $89 million to $114 million from the state legislature, why not ask for $129 million and avoid closing schools entirely, given the known damage to students, equity, communities, and district finances that mass closures cause?

After all, the state constitution states that “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.” Nobody can credibly argue the state is making ample provision. In fact, the state’s failure to do so is causing budget deficits in districts all over the state. It’s not just Seattle.

SPS cannot justify its school closure plan by pointing to the budget deficit, which the closures will not solve, nor to a credible plan to deliver more resources to the remaining schools, which the budget deficit prevents. 

SPS’s alternatives will happen regardless of school closures

After SPS presented their mass school closure plan at a May 8 board meeting, a strong public pushback began. More than 800 people signed an open letter opposing the plan and instead urged the district to present alternatives backed by rigorous data and analysis.

SPS’s FAQ does mention possible alternatives, but only vaguely and without any details or hard numbers:

“If Seattle Public Schools does not consolidate elementary schools and make a change to bell times, staffing throughout the system will have to be reduced — resulting in layoffs. Specific decisions have not been made. A list of potential other options Seattle Public Schools could explore is below:  

Examples of high-dollar reduction options (est. > $5 million each):​  

Additional class size increases (K-12)​;  

Changes to labor contracts.”

SPS has been steadily increasing class sizes for years, and will do so again for the 2024-25 school year. As to “changes to labor contracts,” this likely refers to the 2022 contract with the Seattle Education Association that gave educators a raise to help them afford the skyrocketing cost of living in Seattle.

SPS goes on to list what it calls “Examples of medium-dollar reduction options (est. $1 – $5 million each),” which include cuts at the Central Office, reducing or eliminating athletics, “consolidate non-traditional schools,” and other reductions in staffing, including school specialists such as art, music, and PE.

They further list “Examples of low-dollar reduction options (est. <$1 million each)” that include additional reductions in senior leadership, a travel freeze, and moving out of the district’s SoDo headquarters.

As with the “high-dollar reduction options,” items in these two categories are presented without any detail or explanation, so that we have no way to assess the tradeoffs between these options and closing schools.

Without more funding from the state, however, most of these options have already happened and will continue to happen in the years ahead. School closures do not take any of these options off the table. SPS surely has done internal planning for what they would cut in the event the legislature once again fails to provide more funding, so they likely have some idea of which of the “reduction options” they intend to use in 2025-26. Again, these options will all ensure that the schools that remain after 20 K-5 schools are closed will have fewer resources than schools have now.

The only way out of this is more state funding

SPS’s financial problems can not be solved by closing schools. Closures will not create well-resourced schools at the remaining buildings. The only way to solve the deficit is to finally make the state legislature come through with the ample funding that they are required to deliver under the state constitution. 

Given the damage to student learning, district finances, equity, and communities that closures would cause, it is not only reasonable to ask the legislature to cover the full $129 million and avoid closures – it is essential.

SPS should be told in a strong, unified public voice that they must abandon this reckless school closure plan and instead work with the community to make the legislature amply fund public education, in Seattle and across the state. 

We know a lot of progressive Seattle voters wait until the last minute to fill out and return their ballots. (They’re due by 8 p.m. on Tuesday, November 7 — here’s a list of dropboxes where you can return your completed ballot!) So we thought we’d offer a short voter guide if you or anyone you know still needs help to complete their ballots. This is especially useful given that we believe the Stranger got it wrong on two of their school board endorsements – progressives should instead vote for Debbie Carlsen and Ben Gitenstein.

Our overall perspective: 

Seattle Public Schools is in serious trouble and without a course correction we could see our public school system unravel. Our fellow progressive parent, Sarah Nau, wrote a fantastic op-ed in the Seattle Times last week making the case for change. We couldn’t say it any better than she did:

“We need to ensure those we elect to the board are committed to building a great school district in partnership with community input, one that is committed to addressing mismanagement and championing true transparency. We need to work with others across the state to ensure our Legislature fully funds public education, looking to opportunities like the nearly $1 billion in capital gains tax revenue as an example of how to help distribute a small portion of the immense concentration of wealth toward an investment in our future. 

The Nov. 7 election gives us a chance to challenge the status quo. We need to make sure those in positions of power are fighting for our kids like they promised.”

We agree! Below are our picks for Seattle School Board Directors in 2023. One note: We’ve written more about Debbie Carlsen and Ben Gitenstein because we believe their elections will be most important in shaping the future direction of the district.

Debbie Carlsen

We’re supporting Debbie Carlsen, who brings years of effective advocacy for students and schools, especially LGBTQ+ students, to Seattle Public Schools. Debbie will bring the public back into the management and operation of our public schools, critical during the district’s current budget crisis. The incumbent, Liza Rankin, wants “ruthless” budget cuts that will close as many as 20 schools, and wants it done without sufficient community involvement. Debbie Carlsen thinks school closures should be an absolute last resort and wants to push hard in Olympia to lobby the state legislature to use as much of the$1 billion windfall of capital gains tax revenue to prevent cuts and closures in our schools. Liza Rankin, in contrast, is on the record as saying Seattle Public Schools shouldn’t expect more money from the legislature, undermining progressive advocacy before it’s even started. We’re voting for Debbie Carlsen, who will make community engagement, transparency, and accountability a priority.

Debbie is endorsed by some of Seattle’s most effective progressive leaders, including City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, former City Councilmember and mayoral candidate Lorena Gonzalez, the Seattle Education Association, and MLK Labor (the central council for King County’s labor unions). Debbie’s future colleague on the board, Lisa Rivera Smith, has also endorsed Debbie. 

We were also impressed by a strong letter of support of Debbie from teachers at Dunlap Elementary School in Rainier Beach. We have no idea why the Stranger refused to publish it.

Click here to read our full endorsement of Debbie Carlsen

Lisa Rivera Smith

We believe Lisa Rivera Smith does a great job asking tough and important questions of the Seattle Public Schools administration and makes listening to families a priority. She is running to improve transparency and accountability, provide more and better mental and behavioral health supports, and ensure the district conducts authentic community engagement and a deep budget analysis. All of these are good and necessary things our school district needs.

Ben Gitenstein

Ben Gitenstein will lead the fight to save our schools from closure and resist the district’s push for austerity, which will harm kids and drive even more families to abandon public education. Together with our other endorsed candidate, Debbie Carlsen, Gitenstein has held town halls across Seattle, bringing members of the public together to discuss common problems, articulate collaborative solutions, and chart a better course for our public schools.

Gitenstein has support from nearly every Democratic Party organization in the city, along with key legislative leaders like Rep. Frank Chopp and Sen. Jamie Pedersen. An unprecedented list of former school board members, including former presidents and progressive champions Leslie Harris and Sue Peters, are backing Gitenstein. Christie Robertson, a progressive candidate who we endorsed in the primary, has also endorsed Gitenstein for this position.

Click here to read our full endorsement of Ben Gitenstein

Gina Topp

Gina Topp has pledged to fight in Olympia for the funding we need to close our budget gaps and prevent cuts and closures. Although we’d like to see her take a stronger position against closing schools, we would welcome her help in pushing legislators to step up and fulfill their paramount duty to amply fund our public schools. Gina is also endorsed by the Seattle Education Association. 

As Seattle Public Schools enters a spiraling crisis of mismanagement, underfunding, and the possible closure of schools, the school board needs a new leader with a strong background in data-informed problem solving, coalition building, and effective advocacy. That’s why we’re endorsing Ben Gitenstein for District 3.

Ben Gitenstein will lead the fight to save our schools from closure and resist the district’s push for austerity, which will harm kids and drive even more families to abandon public education. Together with our other endorsed candidate, Debbie Carlsen, Gitenstein has held town halls across Seattle, bringing members of the public together to discuss common problems, articulate collaborative solutions, and chart a better course for our public schools.

Gitenstein brings two decades of experience working to pass legislation and obtain funding needed to meet the needs of Seattle residents. When Gitenstein served as director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance in the 2000s he proved his ability to build coalitions to make major progress on affordable housing. “Though he served as Executive Director for less than two years, from 2006 to mid-2008, Ben Gitenstein moved mountains in the work of renewing the Housing Alliance,” according to the Alliance.

His work led to the Washington State Housing Trust Fund growing to more than $100 million for the first time, as well as the passage of nearly a dozen bills to help house the homeless and protect renters.

These skills will be absolutely essential for a member of the school board in this urgent moment. The board desperately needs leadership that knows how to work with the legislature to obtain the funding we need to avert devastating cuts that will hurt our kids. Gitenstein’s track record proves he is the candidate in the District 3 race who can win the funding we need in Olympia. 

Gitenstein has support from nearly every Democratic Party organization in the city, along with key legislative leaders like Rep. Frank Chopp and Sen. Jamie Pedersen. An unprecedented list of former school board members, including former presidents and progressive champions Leslie Harris and Sue Peters, are backing Gitenstein. Christie Robertson, a progressive candidate who we endorsed in the primary, has also endorsed Gitenstein for this position.

The other candidate in this race, Evan Briggs, lacks the experience needed to succeed on the school board, especially compared to Gitenstein and particularly in this moment of crisis. Briggs is aligned with the current majority on the school board and was recruited by Chandra Hampson to take her place and uphold a failed status quo. We cannot count on Briggs to fight against closing public schools or resist the anti-union, pro-austerity financial policy the board is considering.

The outcome of this race may decide the future of public education in Seattle. We can’t afford to get it wrong. Vote for Ben Gitenstein for District 3!

Once again, a potential strike by workers at Seattle Public Schools could impact the first few days of the school year. This time, it’s the workers at IUOE Local 302 who are preparing to strike. Local 302 represents custodians, culinary workers, security teams, and school grounds crews. While a strike by these workers would not delay the start of school, a strike could result in impact to school meals, as well as to cleaning and maintenance at school buildings.

Coming on the heels of the 2022 strike by Seattle educators, which led to a weeklong delay to the start of the school year, it’s another example of how SPS is not very good at managing labor relations. Discussion at the August 30 board meeting further revealed deeper problems with SPS’s mismanagement of contract negotiations, as well as a stunning lack of oversight by a board using a new governance model known as Student Outcomes Focused Governance (SOFG) that increasingly makes it no more than a rubber stamp.

SPS argues this is just business as usual. In an email sent to families late last week, SPS Chief of Staff Bev Redmond claimed that “It is not unusual to go past the contract end date for these negotiations.” That’s not true when it comes to other school districts around the Puget Sound region. Compared with them, SPS is unusual for its persistent failure to settle labor contracts before the end of summer break. Nearby districts such as Bellevue and Highline are routinely able to reach such agreements in early summer.

What is not unusual is for SPS to drag out contract negotiations until a strike becomes inevitable. The district has a long history of failing to reach a contract agreement in time for the school year, especially with teachers. In fact, every negotiation since at least 2013 with educators represented by the Seattle Education Association has either resulted in a strike or very nearly led to a strike:

• 2013: SEA and SPS reached an agreement on Sunday, September 3, just three days before school was slated to begin on Wednesday, September 6. The Seattle Times described it as “contentious contract negotiations that raised the possibility of the first teachers strike in the city in decades.”

• 2015: Seattle educators went out on strike for the first time in 30 years, a strike that lasted for five days. Educators sought better pay, equity teams at each school, and longer recess times for students. The district instead threatened to sue to block the strike, but backed down in the face of public pressure.

• 2018: After authorizing a strike, SEA announced it had reached a tentative agreement with SPS on the Friday before school was slated to begin.

• 2022: Seattle educators again went out on strike, this time for a week, as SPS had refused to budge on wages, benefits, and providing minimum staffing ratios for special education services.

SPS’s approach to labor relations has also drawn criticism from state legislators. Rep. My-Linh Thai, a Democrat from Bellevue and a former Bellevue School Board director, pointed out in September 2022 how problematic SPS’s approach to negotiations had become:

Given SPS’s need to get more funding from the state legislature, it’s a bad sign when state legislators are critical of SPS’s bargaining tactics.

One of the most consistent ways that SPS mishandles negotiations is its constant delays in providing proposals to its labor partners. For example, Local 302 pointed out that they did not receive an economic proposal (regarding wages and benefits) from SPS until August 23, just nine days before the contract expired. There’s no way to reach a reasonable settlement in such a short amount of time.

Looking back at the last ten years, it appears that SPS’s go-to tactic is to try and force workers to go on strike in hopes that the public will turn against them workers and push them to accept less than they’d been seeking. That tactic has never succeeded. Seattleites support workers and especially educators and other school staff. SPS will never convince the public to take their side against striking workers.

The School Board Must Step In to Fix a Broken System 

Of course, it’s the school board that is ultimately responsible for the district’s operations. While SPS administrators are clearly unable to conduct effective labor negotiations, it’s up to the board to correct the district’s ineptitude and set a better course. Judging by the August 30 school board meeting, however, the board has been kept in the dark about the woeful state of bargaining at SPS.

In fact, a board policy states that SPS’s chief negotiator is to keep Board Directors informed about all labor negotiations — but they aren’t. This is just one of many policies that the board has failed to enforce over the years.

Prior to the board meeting, Director Lisa Rivera Smith asked administrators about the lack of updates on labor negotiations: 

“According to Board Policy 5020, ‘The Board shall establish a strategy for collective bargaining negotiations with the properly designated bargaining units…’ I do not recall this work being done. Furthermore, BP5020 says, ‘The Superintendent is authorized to appoint a chief negotiator to represent the district. The chief negotiator shall advise and inform the Board regarding the progress of negotiations and shall negotiate within parameters established by the Board.’ Again, I do not recall being advised and/or receiving information and/or updates from the district’s chief negotiator regarding the progress of negotiations, prior to receiving this Intro/Action Board Action Report.”

The district’s written response was, as is typical, a vague non-answer:

“We recognize the provisions of Board Policy 5020 and, in accordance with our past practices, typically notify the board about any challenges during bargaining that might affect the district’s daily operations. We also note the application of this policy has varied among our labor partners. We will continue to strive to establish a more consistent approach to communicate with the board about negotiations with all our labor partners.”

At the board meeting itself, directors put a sharper point on this. Director Leslie Harris asked, “Please tell me why I have to find out about this in the grocery store,” before asking SPS’ Director of Labor Relations Tina Meade “why we [the school board] haven’t been kept apprised” of the course of negotiations with labor partners?”

Meade replied that she started in her current role last August and that she hadn’t been briefed that updating the board was part of her role. Hear for yourself in this audio clip from the meeting. 

It’s stunning but unsurprising that SPS did not provide updates to the board, even though policy clearly requires it. SPS administrators do not believe they should be accountable to the school board or to the public, and routinely seek to limit their responsiveness and accountability to those bodies. The result is SPS mismanagement grows worse, with negative impacts on students and workers, as we’re once again witnessing with the Local 302 negotiations.

Despite this exchange and the larger problems with SPS contract negotiations, board members did not indicate there would be any consequences for administrators having violated board policy, nor did they suggest fixes to SPS’s process that would ensure better negotiations and fewer strikes. 

Defenders of SOFG claim that the board should focus on shaping policy and ensuring it is correctly implemented. In practice under SOFG, the board may set policy but then doesn’t enforce it or hold administrators accountable when policies are broken or operations are mishandled. The result is that administrators learn there are zero consequences when the district just does what it wants. The lack of board action so far on SPS labor relations is just another indication that SOFG truly does turn the board into a powerless rubber stamp.

The school board’s unwillingness to address SPS’s broken approach to labor relations is even more surprising when you consider that board president Brandon Hersey himself works full-time for a labor union. Hersey is the Political Director for PROTEC 17, the union representing 9,000 public employees across the Pacific Northwest, including at the City of Seattle. 

Hersey and PROTEC 17 are no strangers to difficult contract negotiations. PROTEC 17, along with other city unions, are locked in a prolonged bargaining with the City of Seattle that has not produced movement in nearly 11 months. It is reasonable to expect Hersey to take a leading role in improving SPS’s labor relations, rather than defer to the administration. So far, we haven’t seen any signs that he plans to do so. His silence at the August 30 board meeting on this issue was notable. 

Debbie Carlsen, a candidate for the school board who we have endorsed, as well as by MLK Labor, offered an excellent and strong public comment at the August 30 board meeting urging SPS to fix its broken approach to labor relations:

We’d like to see the current school board take the lead in finally addressing the problems with SPS labor relations. As with so many other issues, however, it’s clear that change and improvement will only come by electing new board members, including Debbie Carlsen. Our students and our workers deserve better.

Beth Day created this map of enrollment data and building utilization for neighborhood elementary schools in the Seattle Public Schools district. The enrollment data is based on student counts as of May 1, 2023. The school building capacity is based on buildings that are open as of fall 2023, which include the new buildings at Viewlands and James Baldwin (formerly Northgate).

For the best viewing experience we suggest using Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge. Users have reported problems viewing the maps in Safari.

Beth Day has been live tweeting the “well-resourced schools” meetings SPS has been holding. See the following links to view her threads:

• August 8, 2023 at Garfield High School
• August 10, 2023 at Madison Middle School
• August 14, 2023 at South Shore K-8
• August 15, 2023 at Nathan Hale High School
• August 17, 2023 at Robert Eagle Staff Middle School (live tweeted by Stephanie)

Starting on Tuesday, August 8, Seattle Public Schools will be holding a series of community meetings that are intended to, in their words, “envision what a well-resourced school looks like.”

Nowhere on the website for these meetings does SPS mention this discussion is happening as part of their plan to close an unknown number of schools across the district for the 2024-25 school year. An email sent to families on August 7 merely states that “Your feedback will help guide future district planning.” The district’s website includes the same sentence but adds “This fall, we will review your feedback and develop an inclusive and equitable plan.”

What isn’t made explicit is that in October, Superintendent Brent Jones is slated to propose schools the district will close. Here’s the key slide district admins showed the school board back in May: 

Note that the “engagement” that was promised to begin by June is only beginning in the middle of August.

The stated intention behind these meetings is for the public to tell the district what a “well-resourced” school looks like. It appears that SPS will then come back in the fall and use that feedback to claim that, due to budget shortfalls, the only way to provide “well-resourced schools” is to close schools (SPS chooses to use the term “consolidate” instead).

These community meetings are therefore designed to manufacture consent for school closures. District leaders will defend their closure plans by claiming, “To be able to deliver a well-resourced school, we need to close schools. We’re merely following your guidance.”

The public ought to attend these meetings, but refuse to play along with the district’s rigged, misleading conversation. Instead, we need to flip the script on the district and demand the public make the decisions about how to manage SPS’s budget, including whether to close schools at all.

At no point has SPS asked parents, students, or community members whether school closures should be considered. Given the central role that schools play in our neighborhoods and our communities, and knowing that school closures are proven to have a negative impact on students, school closures should be a last resort for managing the district’s budget needs.

SPS faces a shortfall of at least $53 million for the 2024-25 school year, perhaps as high as $100 million. The primary reason for this is the lack of ample state funding as guaranteed by the state constitution. Districts all across the state are facing budget shortfalls; it’s not just in Seattle. The state legislature underfunds most aspects of public education, including teacher salaries, special education services, school buses, and more. 

Seattle voters are asked to make up for this difference with our local levies. But the state also imposed a cap on how much money those levies can raise, a cap that is below the actual cost of providing a good public education to every child in our city.

Rather than decide amongst themselves how to respond, SPS administrators and school board directors must come to the public and ask us how to address the budget shortfall. The public should also press the legislature in the 2024 session for more funds, and finally push Seattle’s delegation to step up and fix our district’s financial woes — woes that, after all, the legislature inflicted on school districts statewide.

SPS has not been clear about how much money would be saved by closing schools. The initial estimate from SPS last spring was that closing schools could save $28 million. 

When KUOW interviewed Assistant Superintendent of Operations Fred Podesta in February 2023 about school closures and the $28 million savings, he said, “this number is very speculative.” He then went on to list such potential “efficiencies” as fewer lunchrooms, custodians, and reducing the number of school sites that need to receive various deliveries. 

Six months later, we still have not seen any further details from SPS about what savings would actually materialize. The $28 million estimate also did not include the possible cost of lost enrollment if families decide to leave the district rather than simply accept school closures. 

Declining enrollment has also been cited as a reason to close schools. But we’ve been here before. In 2007 SPS closed five schools, claiming the need to save money amidst declining enrollment. But critics had claimed SPS’s projections were flawed, and they were right. By 2009, as enrollment began to rise again, SPS reopened most of those schools. 

SPS’s enrollment declined during the pandemic. But it has shown signs of stabilizing over the last year. With local employers requiring workers to return to the office, it is possible that enrollment will soon rise. Here again, SPS needs to ask the public whether closing schools is the right way to handle fluctuating enrollment, rather than decide that for us.

It’s also worth noting that some SPS leaders believe closing schools is a good idea, regardless of budget needs or enrollment concerns. “We believe that consolidating into larger schools that have the resources they need is a good strategy, whether you have money problems or not,” Podesta told KIRO TV earlier this year. Whether the public believes this is a good strategy is unknown.

By closing schools, SPS will send the wrong message to families. Closures could trigger further flight away from SPS, accelerating the movement toward a two-tier educational system in Seattle, where the privileged pay to supplement their children’s public education with tutors or even private school while the less privileged are forced to accept a lower-quality education or a long commute to and from school each day.

Rather than close schools, it would be wiser for the public to press the legislature to properly fund our schools.

When attending these public meetings this month, Seattleites should not play along with the SPS script. Instead, the public should insist the district agree to the following:

• School closures must be an absolute last resort for managing the district’s budget and enrollment needs.

• SPS must convene a series of participatory budget public meetings between now and spring 2024 in order for the community to determine its priorities for dealing with any budget shortfalls.

• SPS cannot proceed with any plans to close schools without a clear and explicit mandate from the public to do so.

• If SPS receives that mandate, public meetings must be convened at every school in the district to discuss families’ needs and the potential impact of a closure before any list of schools is drawn up. These meetings must explicitly mention the possibility of school closures when they are advertised to the public.

• SPS must provide a detailed financial analysis of the impact of closures on budget and enrollment. 

• SPS must publish a timeline by which school closures would be considered, including dates of public meetings and board votes. 

• Any school closures or consolidations that may take effect in the 2024-25 school year must be announced before ballots are mailed on October 18. 

• The board must not vote to close any schools between Election Day in November 2023 and the date in which a new school board is sworn in.

• The school board directors must vote to approve any plan to close, consolidate, or change the location of student instruction and school programs. SPS administration cannot simply decide and implement changes without board approval.

Updated for the general election

We’re supporting Debbie Carlsen, who brings years of effective advocacy for students and schools, especially LGBTQ+ students, to Seattle Public Schools. Debbie will bring the public back into the management and operation of our public schools, critical during the district’s current budget crisis. The incumbent, Liza Rankin, wants “ruthless” budget cuts that will close as many as 20 schools, and wants it done without sufficient public involvement. We’re voting for Debbie Carlsen, who will make community engagement, transparency, and accountability a priority.

Debbie is endorsed by some of Seattle’s most effective progressive leaders, including City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, former City Council member and mayoral candidate Lorena Gonzalez, the Seattle Education Association, and MLK Labor (the central council for King County’s labor unions). Debbie’s future colleague on the board, Lisa Rivera Smith, has also endorsed Debbie. 

Debbie is a nonbinary queer person whose family is neurodivergent, mixed race and LGBTQ+. Debbie brings extensive experience with education advocacy and government operations to the job. Their experience includes serving on the Best Start for Kids Advisory Board, serving on the Seattle Housing Levy Oversight Committee, and on Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. 

Debbie is also an educator, teaching early learning. They also taught English as a Second Language at Renton Technical College for 5 years and was a proud union member. Debbie has also been active in their school PTA, is on the executive board of the 46th Democrats as a Co-Policy & Advocacy Chair, and is part of the leadership of the National Women’s Political Caucus as its Fundraising Chair. Debbie also works in the nonprofit sector.

Debbie’s deep political experience has given them plenty of insight about how to improve operations at SPS and manage the district’s financial crisis in ways that help, not hurt, students and families. They want to hire an independent auditor that reports directly to the board so that they can have a good understanding of the financial issues facing SPS, rather than having to rely on the administration’s often flawed or incomplete analysis. 

Debbie put it well in their response to a question from KUOW: “Because the district is not transparent with how it spends its dollars, many state legislators, even among the Seattle delegation, do not believe SPS is spending its money wisely. To help daylight the district’s spending, I will support a biennial independent audit of the budget that will be reported directly to the board. This independent budget audit would happen in a timely manner to provide the space for the board to analyze, ask questions, receive answers, and provide feedback to the district.” 

Seattle is not as immune from the right-wing attack on LGBTQ+ students as we may think. In July 2023 KOMO news launched an attack on gender-affirming care being offered through wellness centers at Seattle Public Schools. Right-wingers nearly succeeded at gathering signatures to repeal the state’s new law protecting trans kids. Parents report a growing problem with LGBTQ+ kids being bullied at Seattle schools and that the district is failing to properly address it. Carlsen’s experience will help provide much needed leadership for SPS to protect and support kids in an increasingly reactionary time.

Liza Rankin has alienated families across Seattle and especially in District 1 by embracing the district’s top-down decision-making process that excludes families and ignores their concerns. Rankin infuriated families at Ingraham High School after a recent shooting by not quickly or fully responding to concerns about student safety and mental health, and by failing to hold the district administration accountable for their own failures and slow response.

Rankin also was dismissive of families during the October 2023 teacher reshuffle, telling the Seattle Times it was “routine” and has not stepped up to help schools prevent the loss of teachers. Nor has she held district administrators accountable for what has been reported as a clerical or computer error that the district claims caused these reshuffles.

While we admire Liza’s work on ending isolation and restraint in Seattle Public Schools, we find her eagerness to close schools and exclude the public’s voice in district operations disqualifying. Carlsen has also advocated for the needs of children receiving special education services, and does so by putting the community’s needs at the center of the conversation – not at the side.

Rankin made anti-union statements during the 2022 teachers’ strike, claiming that the teachers’ demand for minimum staffing ratios was racist. Minimum staffing ratios are, in fact, a core demand of striking workers, from nurses to Hollywood writers. Progressives do not make anti-union statements like this.

Nor do progressive elected officials work to systematically exclude the public from district operations. Rankin refuses to hold community meetings that are open to anyone, instead only meeting with carefully chosen insiders. District 1 parents have been told by the school district to email the board representative for their geographic region directly, only to get an automatic reply from Rankin that says she does not respond to individual emails.

Rankin is a leading force in pushing the board to cede its power over district operations to the administration and eliminate most regular committee meetings. These changes have the effect of making it difficult for the public to hold board members and administrators accountable and be responsive to community concerns.

We strongly encourage progressives to vote for Debbie Carlsen in District 1.

Christie Robertson is the standout candidate in the race for District 3, with strong backing from students, teachers, unions, and other progressives. And it’s for good reason. Christie is one of the smartest, most insightful, most dedicated school board candidates we’ve seen in a long time. She is deeply knowledgeable about the district and its policies, follows the board and the finances closely, is committed to improving special education, and is determined to restore community input.

Christie has served on the executive board of the Seattle Special Education PTSA for the last two years. In that time she has become an expert on the policies of the Seattle Public Schools, knows the district budget well, and has advocated for improvements to special education services. This experience will serve her well on the school board and has prepared her to effectively advocate for Seattle families.

Her campaign is guided by the principle “Nothing About Us Without Us,” ensuring that those most impacted are involved in the decision-making processes. This is a welcome and much needed change from the status quo, where decisions are made behind closed doors and announced to the public without real public involvement. Christie will help establish a system for parents, teachers, school leaders, and students  to participate in planning and decision-making, with a focus on the communities most impacted.

Although Christie has experience beyond special education, it is important that the school board have progressive members who understand special education. Special education is one of the fastest growing parts of the district’s budget. Special education was at the core of the 2022 teachers’ strike. And a universal design for learning effort, which turns the values of inclusion into daily practice, impacts all classrooms and needs an advocate who can help lead it to success. Christie is the only candidate in this race with the skills and knowledge who can do that.

Christie has also pledged to increase transparency in district operations. She is proposing that the district hire a budget analyst that reports directly to the board, so that they can understand how dollars are spent. This is important because at the moment, as several school board directors, past and present, have told us, the district is truly not used to being held accountable by the board and regularly refuses to give board directors information that they request. 

Progressive community groups that have endorsed in this race have uniformly lined up in support of Christie Robertson. Her endorsements include the Seattle Student Union, the Seattle Education Association, MLK Labor (the central council for King County’s labor unions), the 43rd District Democrats, the 46th District Democrats, the Progressive Voters Guide, and many others that you can see on her website. 

Ben Gitenstein is a good candidate as well, asking the right questions about SPS’s financial woes. Christie brings even deeper familiarity with SPS policy, and has stronger support from the wider progressive community.

Evan Briggs is aligned with the current majority on the school board, recruited by Chandra Hampson to take her place and uphold a failed status quo. Briggs lacks the experience and familiarity with district policies and finances that Christie has. The Seattle Student Union and the Seattle Education Association took a close look at her candidacy and endorsed Christie instead. We agree. Vote for Christie Robertson for District 3.