Seattle School Board Director Liza Rankin has put forth a controversial proposal advocating for a new round of austerity within Seattle Public Schools (SPS), reviving discussions about significantly closing public schools and what she terms “strategic abandonment” of district functions.
This proposal emerges at a crucial juncture for SPS, coinciding with the hiring process for a new superintendent, the development of a strategic plan, and upcoming elections where voters will choose four out of seven school board members.
Rankin’s memo may be aimed at influencing these critical decisions as the district grapples with persistent budget deficits that have plagued many schools across the state.
While some members of the community and state lawmakers advocate for solutions like a wealth tax to alleviate these fiscal issues, Rankin seems to be doubling down on austerity measures that could adversely affect students.
Recent surveys reveal that the primary concern of Seattle residents regarding schools is not further budget cuts, but rather enhancing the academic quality and rebuilding trust in the system after previous proposals to close multiple schools met with significant backlash.
The 2024 proposal to close 21 schools was particularly contentious, leading to a subsequent retraction from the district after community outcry.
In her memo, Rankin dismisses the prospects of increasing student enrollment or seeking new revenue streams to tackle the district’s financial difficulties.
Instead, she suggests that the district consider mass school closures, articulating her ideas in ambiguous corporate jargon such as “right-sizing,” a term that raises concerns among many parents and education advocates.
Rankin has not engaged with reporters to clarify her proposals, which have ignited debates about fiscal responsibility within the district.
Austerity measures are familiar territory for SPS, which has enacted multiple rounds of budget cuts since federal stimulus funding ended in 2022.
Support staff, school administrators, and central office personnel have all seen reductions in recent years, leading to larger class sizes, particularly in middle and high schools.
The current financial struggles of SPS are not a result of overspending or a steep decline in enrollment; rather, they stem from the state’s ongoing failure to adequately fund public education, in line with constitutional requirements.
Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal has indicated that schools are underfunded by approximately $4 billion each year.
However, the assertion by SPS that it has a $100 million annual deficit has been met with criticism and scrutiny from independent analysts.
Community members suggest that the actual deficit might be lower and that the district has not thoroughly examined nearly $400 million in spending at the district office level.
The elimination of SPS’s fiscal committee, which had limited the board’s ability to monitor district spending, has further complicated the financial oversight process.
In response to these growing concerns, the school board recently announced plans to establish an ad hoc budget committee, chaired by board member Sarah Clark, which will include Rankin and fellow director Joe Mizrahi.
This committee aims to provide insights into budget development timelines, improve transparency in the budgeting process, and analyze district finances more comprehensively.
In the meantime, SPS officials are once again contemplating permanent school closures.
Administrators, including interim superintendent Fred Podesta, have indicated that closing schools is a viable strategy, regardless of financial constraints.
In a podcast earlier this year, Rankin acknowledged that closing schools may not yield significant savings.
Historical precedents in other cities have shown that mass school closures often lead to declining academic performance and negative outcomes for students, including lower test scores and increased dropout rates.
Seattle’s earlier proposal to close 21 schools suggested it could save just $30 million from a projected $100 million deficit.
Additionally, school closures can exacerbate enrollment declines, as families may leave the district if their local schools close, leading to longer daily commutes for students and the potential for increased traffic congestion, undermining efforts towards safer routes to schools.
Although a slow rise in enrollment has been noted recently, the trend remains below optimal levels, primarily due to significant declines in choice among families over the past decade.
The 2024 proposal to close only four schools garnered a dismal projected savings of less than $1.5 million, illustrating the limited financial impact of such closures, which were quickly abandoned following community backlash.
A survey conducted recently indicated that many families cited concerns about the quality of education and curriculum changes as reasons for withdrawing their children from SPS activities, suggesting these factors might be addressed to win families back into the district.
Public opposition to school closures in Seattle has been substantial, with thousands signing petitions against such plans and extensive community rallies demonstrating against the decisions made by school officials.
Polling has consistently shown that Seattle residents oppose school closures, with a notable October 2024 poll indicating that 54% of voters were against closures compared to only 27% who supported them.
Moreover, while Rankin has previously advocated for school consolidations, she remains steadfast in her belief that maintaining the current level of school capacity is fiscally responsible in light of current financial challenges.
Rather than focusing exclusively on ending educational programs or services, Rankin has laid out a vision that emphasizes what SPS should stop doing, dubbed “strategic abandonment.”
In her memo, this includes calls for a comprehensive evaluation of school effectiveness and facility conditions, potentially opening the door for the district to close schools that do not meet certain performance criteria.
While a community committee is proposed to better address these potential school closures, questions linger regarding the actual educational needs of students and whether they will receive additional support rather than simply being cut off.
The notion of “strategic abandonment,” as framed by Rankin, risks mirroring detrimental experiences elsewhere, where schools have eliminated vital services, such as arts, music, and athletics, leaving students deprived of a well-rounded education.
Rankin’s proposals appear to prematurely yield to the prevailing narrative that austerity must replace more robust funding solutions like a state-level wealth tax or other progressive revenue options.
In her memo, she expressed a belief that the district has run out of options, given state funding dynamics, and dismissed the idea of “magical thinking” in hopes for increased state revenue or enrollment spikes.
However, potential new funding sources, particularly a wealth tax targeting high-income individuals, have gained traction among voters and officials alike.
For instance, a significant financial intangibles tax proposed by the Democratic caucus in the Washington State Senate aims to generate $4 billion annually for public education, which reflects a growing support base among both legislators and the public.
Polling indicated that strong majorities of voters in Seattle favor increased funding for public schools, identifying numerous avenues that might be explored rather than resorting to cuts and reductions.
If SPS proceeds with austere measures—such as school closures and budget cuts—it could undermine public support for progressive taxation efforts, as critics emphasize cost-cutting as a means to balance budgets over increasing taxes.
As SPS continues to address its financial realities, the demand for greater investment in education must remain at the forefront of discussions, especially as the ramifications of austerity persist and funding gaps widen.
Rankin’s austerity proposal signals a wider need for community dialogue around school funding, resource allocation, and prioritizing student outcomes.
As Seattle schools prepare for the hiring of a new superintendent and the upcoming school board elections, these important discussions must inform candidate positions and drive decision-making processes.
Ultimately, it is vital for SPS to leverage the expertise of the newly formed ad hoc budget committee to comprehensively assess district needs, ensuring that decisions align with community priorities and fostering a more cooperative relationship with local families.
Moving forward, it will be crucial for local leaders to advocate for sustainable educational funds and support initiatives that focus on equitable access to resources rather than a path of austerity that jeopardizes the future of students.
image source from：theurbanist
