SPS By the Numbers - $40M shifted out of schools since 2013

Note: There are some data entry and math errors in the section on Instructional Professional Development and Supervision - instruction. It should 101 FTE and 137 FTE respectiverly. The main point still holds.

Also, if you are coming from the medium post about The 31% No One Talks About, that post uses 2024-2025 numbers where this letter was done on 2023-2024. The numbers are similar but not an exact match.

(sent Fri apr 11, morning)

To: schoolboard@seattleschools.org, bjones@seattleschools.org, bredmond@seattleschools.org, ratorres@seattleschools.org, fhpodesta@seattleschools.org, sjpritchett@seattleschools.org, krbuttleman@seattleschools.org

Subject: Since 2013, SPS has shifted ~$40M in annual funding from schools to the "District Office"

Dear Seattle Public Schools Board,

I’ve been analyzing SPS budget trends and will be publishing the information publicly soon—but given that you are making budget decisions right now, I want to share a preview of some crucial bits.

Over the past decade, there’s been a quiet but dramatic shift in how we spend our money. Since 2013, nearly $40 million has moved from School Allocated staff—teachers, assistant principals, librarians—into District Office positions, including roles like program supervisors and curriculum coaches.

This change has never been publicly debated or clearly justified. Yet this shift is larger than the most optimistic savings estimate from closing 21 schools—a move that prompted months of public outcry. Why, then, has this far bigger budget change happened with little scrutiny?

Why Are We Cutting the People Closest to Students?

Today, just 66% of SPS staffing (around 4,700 of 7,100 full-time equivalents) are allocated directly to schools. That means one-third of our workforce—roughly 2,400 positions—exists outside the day-to-day work with students.

Though student enrollment has fluctuated since 2013, the ratio of Total Enrollment to Teaching FTE has remained fairly consistent.

The number of District Office FTEs that support the teaching staff has dramatically changed. For example, in the 2013-2014 school year, there was one FTE allocated for every 120 teaching FTEs for “Instructional Professional Development”. In 2023-2024, this ratio is one FTE allocated for roughly every 30 teaching FTEs. A similar change happens with “Supervision - Instruction”

There are significantly more District Office FTEs now than a decade ago even though we have very similar enrollment numbers. Here’s a table of actual numbers:

In a decade, we’ve added:

+93 full-time staff for “Instructional Professional Development”
+65 full-time staff for “Supervision - Instruction”
–228 teachers (compared to the 2019 peak)

Even more striking:

There are now nearly as many staff in Instructional Professional Development roles as in Supervision - Instruction.
The ratio of teachers in each non-classroom category is roughly 30:1, a stark difference from the 2013-14 school year. For a point of reference, middle school and high school classrooms often have a 30:1 student:teacher ratio.
In 2023-24, we paid for 142 FTE in these non-classroom, District Office roles. That’s 1.4 times as many as we have principals (107 FTE).

These are expensive choices.

A $55 Million Annual Decision—With No Public Debate

In 2023-2024 alone, these two non-school-allocated categories amounted to over $55 million in compensation

$29.8M for Instructional Professional Development
$25.6M for Supervision - Instruction

If we returned to 2013 staffing ratios in these categories, we could save $17.7 million per year—without touching a single position in school buildings

Some of these roles surely add value. But has this enormous investment been worth it? Have student outcomes improved accordingly?

These questions should be discussed publicly instead of focusing on trying to shave off a handful of assistant principals, librarians, or teaching staff.

Let’s Widen the Lens

Our current Budget Book places the spotlight almost entirely on School Allocated staff, leaving nearly 2,400 FTE in the shadows. That lack of visibility steers discussion toward trimming librarians instead of questioning why we added more than 158 district-level FTE in categories like the above with unclear direct impact on students.

Naturally, discussions tend to focus on what’s easiest to see and understand—school staffing. But that may not reflect where the most impactful reductions can be made.

Older SPS budgets (example: 2002-2003 budget book) provided clear breakdowns across all staffing. We should return to that level of transparency.

My Request to You

As you build the 2025-2026 budget, I hope the board will prioritize looking for reductions in these 2400 positions before we start manipulating enrollments to shave one assistant principal, or attempt to short a school of librarians, nurses, art teachers, etc.

I’m more than happy to assist however I can. I have more detailed breakdowns of expenditures and staffing and would be happy to walk through it with anyone. My only goal is to ensure everyone has the best information possible so they can ask the right questions.

Thank you,
Albert

P.S. Here is a spreadsheet [link removed from online version of this letter as it has staff names. Email if you need it] detailing these figures, including a list of all staff in “Instructional Professional Development” and “Supervision - Instruction.” All data is sourced from district filings with the state and official SPS budget books.

P.P.S Shout-out to the small army of data-oriented parents that helped sift through this data.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse