|




 
 

 

 Ex  


‡  

 

  

 
 

ʊ SPS¶ own figures point to a persistently elevated level of central spending
ʊ Other WA districts have more successfully reduced their administrative burden during the economic downturn
ʊ Dec 2010 staff rosters point to ~25% higher Central Administration staff levels than planned for FY11

‡   

 
 !  

  


ʊ Several ostensible cuts to Central Administration have simply shifted JSCEE-based staff to other departments ± accounting changes
mask other increases in administrative spending
ʊ Lack of consistent reporting requirements make budget comparisons over longer periods difficult or impossible for the public
ʊ Cuts made to Central Administration appear to be significantly lower than when announced in March 2010, or than SPS continues to
claim ± appx. 34 actual cuts vs. 90 announced (later revised to 85)
ʊ Spending impact of administrative cuts was further offset by raises for several high-pay administrators ± including several whose
positions were eliminated but apparently chanced to find equivalent or higher-paying new jobs

‡
 


"
 
 

 # 


  $ 
       
 



ʊ Clarity of actual administrative staffing and spending will allow the board to make budget cuts that best protect schools and students
ʊ Full rosters for all departments should be published on the SPS web site to allow better accountability and transparency of Central
Administration staff levels and reductions
ʊ Differences in planned vs. actual budget reductions should be reviewed and shared with the public
ʊ More rigorous financial reporting standards should be adopted to make comparisons of budget levels over time more meaningful

2
 ý%  # &
 
 



 
 


 
 

÷
 

   
 

  




    

  

 


    


CAGR
 Seattle 4.0%

Central 7
Administration
Spending
( of Total Tacoma 2.5%
Operating
6 Vancouver (0.5%)
Budget)
Evergreen ( .9%)
Spokane (2.8%)
 Bellevue (2.2%)
Kirkland (0. %)
Federal Way (2.0%)

Kent (3.8%)


 '()*+

67 7   

3

School Year

  
 

      
 
 

± Sources: F-195 reports, 200 -0 through 2009-10, F-19 reports for same period. Upward correction made to Kent to reflect difference in apparent spending and budgeting 3
 ( 
,, 


! % 

 
 
 
 $ %  
  #%  

  




In
 
SPS shifted over $ M in







Administration costs to Teaching, then
 

claimed Administration costs shrank

   


Central  






Administration

Spending
( of Total

Operating O




Budget) 














 


 

   

 
School Year

 ý
  
 


# 




!    
,, 


  
%

 
± Sources: F-195 reports, 1/2 /2011 Budget Workshop presentation, 1/2 /2011 4
 .   
 /,  # 

 

0


   
Ë 
  
- 

C r r C

2,-
ƒ
 
     ‡        

 



     
1(,1(* # 
  
$ %% & "   
/,
R
'$ ()
*+ ! %
C . ʊ &F r ,N v b r
1- ʊG r b ,F
ʊ r ¶ L ,L r R Q r ry
U!
"" U ,D b r
# $  % . ʊ L vy r ,F
0-
45<675897:
‡  
     /,%

O r  
$ 2(/*
B;-: ʊ J ry b w rk , - C r
( )
/- r .
ʊT v r v
  
Crr  
C r r

C  .      C  .
‡  
     
   
.- 
    
  

ʊM $ .5M r b r
ʊW r r ±b
b v r b r v r v j
,-
., 2,- 22 .,,3- 2,
4



 %



# ý

!
  
,,  
 
= =
± Sources: 1/2 /2011 Budget workshop presentation, 1/2 /2011 ³FY 2009-10 Expenditures and FTE Comparisons (dollars),´ ³FY 2009-10 Expenditures and FTE Comparisons (as a percentage of total),´ November 5, 2009
³Review of Central Administration Levels´ by Duggan Harman, 11/30/2010 ³Centrally Funded Positions by State Duty Code,´ December 2010 ³Superintendent¶s Listening, Learning & Responding Quarterly Update,´ fall 2010 5
³Levy FAQ,´ ³11/2010 ´Guide to Understanding the Operating Budget´
 4 )* 567E081(  
 
  


3
 (|
 
± - 
v C±

  

   * 

  

9.9FT
#"_$%'

 * 


($m.) .9FT
   ($5.)


_
 


   
 




      !"#$% 

 










& 



   
'



m  




'  

  
( 


 )



FT

 y 



 v 

 33. FTE
 
 
 ($2.3M)

 








 

 



 
    

 


   
  

 


 


 



  

T 

 ý
 
"   

 #
 % 
  %

  % 

  
 
> >
± Sources: S2 5 personnel report December 2010, March 2010 central office cuts list, public records request, S2 5 2009 personnel report m
  %



  
%  ,

 $  
8
  

 '
+( Ex  ' +

 Ë   

 
Nw 
   frfrr 

!"$ R Dr
r
 r
‡  r

 & rr  È$119K




 *


 
Drr   wDrf
  r
-!!4K È$18K
 r
‡ Nwj
r
r

f
&

rr


 ‡ F frr
r
r
‡ !8Kr

!"#

 
 Dr
r 



JDr
r Dr
r r-r
 f
r
 
   È$45K
‡ 4$K
r r$F
 

 IrGC G

r C -!!K È$2K


D  %
 

" f 

r

r D ffr
 r -!!#K -$mK

-!#K -$13K

  r

  r


G
D
 D
 - 8K 0

r
r 
r
r

ErFrG Hr D ErFrG Hr D %
 r f r - $K 0
F
- K 0

?@A ?BC? ?@A ?BC?







D r D D r D ,82/9 :81)9
%r   
& 
± Sources: S2„5 personnel report December 2010, March 2010 central office cuts list, public records request, S2„5 2009 personnel report „

 

  
 -


 
#
% 
=6*
   #
 ):7E '
EE

'
EE
 ;
 %
, ± ±

#)6)
KLLM NOPQ RSO
XV[S ]/N\OOS ]
KYORZ[WN/ XU\\
W L Pt
TUPVOV
,

^ UVtLM RYZ _  YR`a

+ de 8 NOS UPRt [

 RVS.

LOt ]OQ
OP cM^LYS
R` OV
) XP^Yf .\RbtYZ .YZ KU`M] <

' ( 

' ( '  .  * Ot (  * ' (

G(  (

 ý
 
  
 

   &

%    
 


 

±
NLU(SOV: bOSObO( fg hg Nf„5 \O(VL``OZ (O \L(a, M RVt(RSa L(iY`R,Ya RL` S ]Y(aV, (LVaO(V, hh/3g/fg hg ³'O `a(YZZ[ + U`MOM XLV Rt RL `V b[ NtYtO bUt[ 'LMO´ 8