Can cuts in Seattle schools avoid the "ugly list"?

At a recent meeting where Seattle School District administrators made their case for closing schools, one parent tallied the numbers and raised her hand. The estimated savings, she noted, weren't enough to keep the district in the black. So what else, she asked, was going to be cut?

Budget director Linda Sebring's answer was short and direct: No one knows.

School choice — one of the hallmarks of Seattle Public Schools — is being discussed as a luxury the district may have to scale back to be able to afford. So is keeping small schools, with enrollments well below the average in neighboring districts. Seattle principals, who enjoy more control over their budgets than many of their counterparts, may lose some of that control. There's even talk of eliminating some sports.

And even if all these controversial proposals were approved, the district might still have to make more cuts to avoid a $20 million shortfall come fall 2006.

"We have to look at infrastructure. We have to look at transportation. We have to look at our choice system," Superintendent Raj Manhas said. "And if that's not enough, we have to look at our programs."

School closures could provide up to $9 million of the $20 million in expenses that need to be trimmed in the 2006-07 school year, according to district estimates. The proposals to limit school choice would yield at most another $6 million in transportation savings.

Beyond that, district finance staff have a list of about four dozen other possible cuts. They call it the "ugly list." It includes eliminating sixth period at high schools and, thus, many electives. It includes laying off teaching assistants who work with bilingual students. It includes eliminating sports teams — or charging for participation.

It's not that closing schools or limiting choice aren't ugly, too, says Finance Director Steve Nielsen. He said it comes down to which ugly choices the School Board wants to make.

"We're really at a crossroads right now," said Lisa Bond, president of the Seattle Council Parent-Teacher-Student Association. "Depending on which road we take, the future of the district could be very different."

Similar problems

Seattle is not the only district facing financial challenges. Across the state, many schools' expenses are rising faster than revenues. Many districts complain about inadequate funding from the state Legislature, which is constitutionally mandated to pay for what's called "basic education." In one recent analysis by the national Education Week newspaper, Washington ranked 42nd in the nation in per-pupil spending.

Seattle's situation is compounded by past problems of its own making. Two years ago, the district essentially overdrew its checking account. Poor communication, accounting practices and oversight led to a $35 million deficit over two years. The district then largely drained its savings and laid off central-office staff, among other things, to avoid the kinds of cuts now under consideration.

Officials then hoped for better times, which haven't come. Enrollment — which drives how much money the district receives from the state — remains flat, and is expected to stay that way the next decade. Grants are down. And the economy remains tight.

State voters also rejected a ballot measure that would have raised the sales tax to provide schools a new infusion of money.

The possibilities for raising more dollars — including better marketing of Seattle schools, or going to court to get more money from the state — are long-term and uncertain.

Meanwhile, expenses are going up. Gasoline, heat and health-care costs are all rising.

Last summer, the district agreed to give raises to its teachers so that Seattle wouldn't be the worst-paying district in the region. That will cost, too — $5 million in 2006-07 alone.

And recently, the School Board voted to reopen its transportation contract due to concerns about labor relations with one of its bus contractors. That's likely to cost the district more, too.

The district isn't in financial trouble yet — it ended the last two years in the black, and will do so again this year. But it must do something now to avoid trouble ahead.

The easier cuts have already been made.

"We've gone through the fat, and we've gone through the gristle, and we're down to the bone now," said School Board member Jan Kumasaka.

Closing schools

Manhas thinks closing schools should be part of the solution. It's simple math, he said. Districts like Tacoma and Spokane have roughly two-thirds the students that Seattle has, and yet operate 50-55 buildings to Seattle's 94. That means, he says, those districts have proportionately more money to spend on teachers, class materials and books.

"I understand people's emotions and feelings and attachments to facilities and buildings," Manhas said. "But I do believe, at the end of the day, it's not right for money to go into buildings, brick and mortar, versus the students, the classroom.

"I am personally in favor of doing everything possible to protect the classroom," he added. "There is no sacred cow in my mind."

The board of the district's teachers union supports Manhas' view.

"We're in a position where, in order for us to thrive as a public school system, we're going to have to do school closures," said Wendy Kimball, union president.

The decision, however, lies with the School Board, and many of its members are not convinced closing schools is the way to go.

Some think Manhas might be right: Closures are necessary.

"The way I see the numbers, I don't think it's avoidable," said Board President Brita Butler-Wall. "I hope I'm wrong."

But others want to look at more options and to better weigh all the costs — financial and otherwise.

"If it [closures] creates more problems than it solves, and it doesn't save money, it's a lot of pain for naught," said board member Darlene Flynn.

Board member Dick Lilly is fighting against closing schools. He's convinced it will have, at best, short-term savings, and do long-term damage to parent support and community vitality. Personnel costs, he says, are what's causing the problem — especially the ones state government doesn't cover. (The state pays the base salaries for a certain number of teachers and other school employees — related to the district's size. Most districts, however, employ more than that.)

Instead of closing schools, Lilly says, the district should reduce its work force through attrition. That would mean class sizes would go up, but Lilly contends — although Manhas pledges he won't let this happen — that closing schools would result in larger class sizes, too.

Board member Sally Soriano also thinks closing schools would be premature at best, and said she won't consider voting to do so for the 2006-07 school year. Board member Mary Bass said closures should be a last resort.

"People are aware that this hasn't been thought out fully enough," she said.

Board members also have mixed views on limiting parents' choice of schools. Lilly is willing to consider that. Kumasaka has reservations. Flynn has concerns, too, especially whether any changes will be equitable to children all over the city, and whether limiting choice would erode parent satisfaction.

"To the degree that we can maintain and keep [parent] goodwill, I prefer to have it," she said.

In May, the district staff intends to come up with some concrete alternatives for board members to consider.

Final decisions — at least on school closures — are scheduled for July. But it's not an issue that can be decided in isolation. The number of schools — and where they are — affects busing and choice, and any number of other things.

"This is a puzzle, and we need to pull all these pieces together," said Manhas.

Until some decisions are made, however, a lot is up in the air, including some moves that might otherwise be routine.

At a recent School Board meeting, for example, the board struggled with whether to put the brakes on a remodeling project at Maple Elementary, even though it's ready to go, and has been in the works for years.

Parents and teachers showed up at the meeting to explain the need to replace the portable classrooms that they say don't warm up on cold days until students are ready to go home.

Yet, with school closures a possibility, the board made no promises.

"It's a time of uncertainty," said Flynn. "I don't think we can soft-pedal that."

Linda Shaw: 206-464-2359 or lshaw@seattletimes.com