SaferWatch at SPS: What Sac Families Should Know

Last Monday, caregivers of students in Seattle Public Schools received an email introducing SaferWatch, “an innovative way for our schools to ensure the safety of all staff and students.” The email asked families to download the SaferWatch app (and, perplexingly, to give the app always-on location tracking access). It also linked to an FAQ about the new safety and surveillance system.

If you ignored the mail, or just missed it completely, you’re not alone. If you read it and decided you just don’t want to deal with yet another app, you’re not alone. If you read the materials and thought SaferWatch seems creepy, I am right there with you! I was concerned enough about the privacy implications of the system to do a deep dive on it. I did not come away reassured.

Between the district’s email and their webpage, there’s a lot to read about SaferWatch. 

Here’s what’s most relevant to Sac families:

1. The district may send emergency text notifications from three new Florida-based numbers that you should white list in your phone.

If you’ve enabled filters that screen calls and texts from unknown numbers, adding the numbers to your contact list will ensure that emergency messages reach you. Having the numbers labeled ahead of time will also minimize confusion. In an emergency, caregivers may not remember or trust that a Florida-based number is communicating legitimate information about our Seattle-based children.

• (561) 448-6611

• (561) 349-4025

• (561) 220-8440

If you’re wondering why the numbers aren’t local, it’s because they belong to SaferWatch. The company is based in Palm Beach, Florida.

2. The phone number for reporting safety concerns to the district—including ICE activity—has changed.

The new number is (206) 222-4357. The old version of this number is how SPS recently asked the community to report suspicions of ICE activity near schools. If you had entered the old tip line into your phone, you should update it to the new number.

3. The SaferWatch app has two features relevant to caregivers of elementary students: emergency notifications, and anonymous reporting.

First, the app may be used by SPS to send notifications and messages in the event of an emergency. SPS’s email implied, but didn’t state outright, that existing text-based messaging systems would also remain active in an emergency.

Second, the app allows anyone in the community to report suspicious or concerning behavior via the app. Reports can be anonymous. They can come from anyone with the app, including students, staff, administrators, and families or caregivers. 

The reporting could be useful to you as a Sac parent if you have a concern to report, especially if it’s not something you are comfortable sharing with your student’s teacher, or with Principal Fisk, or Ms. Ximena. Since it’s not clear where the SaferWatch reports go, however, it’s unclear what actions your report might trigger. SaferWatch marketing materials indicate that reports go first to a 24/7 SaferWatch safety team, and that some reports may go straight to law enforcement.

SaferWatch could also affect you as a Sac parent if anyone uses the app to report a behavior or incident involving your child. Again, since it’s not clear from the district’s materials where the reports go, it’s difficult to say what this experience would entail. 

For example:

• How will parents be notified if their child is named in a concern? 

• What types of report could trigger law enforcement involvement? 

• What happens if you believe your child has been falsely reported in an anonymous submission?

4. If you have a high school student, you may want to ask them whether they followed district instructions to allow always-on location tracking in the SaferWatch app on their phone (see photo below).

High school students received the same email invitation as families last week. Middle and elementary schoolers appear to have been skipped. In the SPS installation guide, users are directed to set location sharing to “always allow” in the app. Doing so enables SaferWatch constant access to fine-grained location monitoring of a user’s phone.

Screen shot of the SPS SaferWatch installation guide directing students, staff, and families to enable always-on location tracking.

The district messaging and SaferWatch marketing materials explain that user location is used to attach location to reports of concerns, to pinpoint individuals in an emergency. For staff, location is also used to disable panic button features when off-campus. 

Online safety experts generally caution against allowing always-on location access to any app. Even if the app is trusted, location data is still vulnerable to hacks by malicious third-party actors. Even the NSA agrees!

In fact, malice is not even required. In 2025, a SaferWatch deployment in Florida accidentally exposed users’ names, email addresses, phone numbers, and real-time locations. SaferWatch later released a statement that apologized for the multiple notifications users received, but did not apologize for the actual data or privacy breach.

Beyond Sacajawea

The remaining SaferWatch features highlighted by SPS are less relevant to Sac. The additional components include:

• Law enforcement access to live video and audio inside schools: As far as I know, Sac doesn’t have video cameras or microphones inside the building.

• The ability for students to anonymously report on their peers: Sac students are mostly too young and phone-free for this to be an issue. At JAMS, though, there is a poster in the hallway encouraging students to report concerns to the app. Frustratingly, the poster doesn’t ask kids to consider talking to a teacher or counselor first. See photo below.

• Panic alerts that let staff enable instantaneous lockdowns: It’s unclear (to me, at least) what would happen at Sac specifically if someone on staff were to trigger such an alert. We know that Sac occasionally goes into shelter-in-place mode, so clearly there is already precedent for something along these lines.

You can read more on the rollout of SaferWatch at SPS in my Bulletin article about it. 

As always, if you have questions or corrections I can be reached at advocacy@sacpta.org.

An SPS+SaferWatch poster in the hallway at JAMS. It encourages students to report directly to SaferWatch instead of to a trusted teacher or counselor.

Join me at Next Week’s Superintendent Listening Session

Since his hiring was announced, Superintendent Shuldiner has been vocal about his plans to engage the SPS community. To his credit, he has been doing so.

One pillar of this commitment to listening is his ongoing community engagement tour. He is hosting eight regional listening sessions: one in each of the seven regions from which board directors are elected, plus a final, virtual session. 

The engagement session for Sacajawea’s region—Region 1—is Thursday, March 26, 6:30pm-7:30pm, one week from today (this is unfortunately the same time as Sacajawea’s Athletic Skills Night). I would love to see our Sacajawea community well represented at the community meeting.

Join me if you’d like to ensure that your own voice, and that of our community, is heard! The meeting is at James Baldwin Elementary, just past the Northgate Target. I can drive anyone who needs a ride (just email me at advocacy@sacpta.org). If we fill up all the seats in my van, I’ll buy milkshakes for everyone on the way home. 😉

An RSVP is not necessary, but you can respond to help with planning. 

Read on to find out:

• Why should I attend?

• What should I expect at the community meeting?

Why should I attend?

Many participants in the community meeting echoed my own observation that the meeting had a similar format and feel to the disastrous “Well-Resourced Schools” meetings of 2024. The 2024 series was a transparent attempt to manufacture consent for school closures. 

I believe the 2026 listening series is being hosted in good faith. With a new superintendent, and four new board members, the district has a chance for a reset. It makes sense for Shuldiner to be listening widely and often at this moment of transition.

Here are some reasons why I think it’s worth attending our Region 1 meeting:

• Share your opinions. If you have thoughts about the three questions driving the meeting, you should get those thoughts into the world! We have limited opportunities as a community to share our thoughts in low-stakes environments like this. 

• Reinforce the idea that community engagement is valued. Nearly everyone at Sac has at some point bemoaned a lack of community engagement from SPS. How tragic would it be if the district finally put effort into such engagement, only for us to not show up? It will be hard to make the case for future engagement if we don’t take the opportunities currently on offer.

• Show the new superintendent and the district how the Sac community shows up for SPS broadly. We are more credible as a community seeking change when we demonstrate that our desire for a better SPS extends beyond our desire for a better Sacajawea. I know many of us are already active in district-level work, and many more of us have opinions whose impact extends beyond Sac. Let’s show up with that!

• Meet the new superintendent. Shuldiner stuck around after the first meeting for short, informal discussions with community members. It’s a chance to share a quick personal story if you like, or just to get a sense of how he operates.

• Connect with like-minded folks. When I attended the first meeting in this series, a woman in my small group had similar concerns to mine, so we got to talking afterward. She introduced me to her like-minded friend. Now, my network of education advocates includes two more friendly faces. Maybe you’ll meet your next activist buddy, or reconnect with a neighbor, or just take comfort in hearing from someone experiencing similar things to you!

What should I expect at the community meeting?

I attended the first engagement session, back in late February, to get a feel for what to expect. The full meeting was an hour, spent mostly in small groups of 5-10 people discussing three guiding questions.

Each table had a member of central district staff present to take notes to be summarized and combined afterward. During the last 10-15 minutes of the meeting, Superintendent Shuldiner offered a community speaker from each table the chance to share out highlights of their discussions with himself and the full audience.

The three guiding questions were:

• What’s working well?

• What isn’t working well?

• What do you think SPS should do differently?

Themes that I noticed emerge from the share-outs in the session I attended:

• Increased transparency and clearer communication. Some folks phrased this as not wanting surprises from the district; others said they wanted to understand how decisions are made, and to hear the reasoning behind them.

• Requests for specific elements of a well-rounded academic program. There were requests for increased arts funding and library funding; a call for foreign language at every middle school; a plea for evidence-based curricula, especially in reading; and one group expressing their hope for covered playgrounds.

• Calls to stop closing schools. One person speaking out against closures pointed to Seattle being the “richest city around.” Others cited the protection of small, neighborhood schools, especially elementaries. Several speakers paired their desire for the end of closures with requests to execute closures with more clarity, accountability, and transparency about the reasons and benefits, if future closures must occur.

• One group called for the return of homework to elementary schools, a request that received a spontaneous, boisterous round of applause from the full room!

As a final reminder: the meeting is Thursday, March 26, 6:30pm-7:30pm, at James Baldwin Elementary. I hope to see you there, and please let me know if you want a ride (and maybe a milkshake)! I’m at advocacy@sacpta.org. 

Sac Teacher Roster to Shrink Next Year

Every March, SPS provides individual schools in the district with enrollment projections for the following year, and the staffing allocations that the district will provide to support the students in their projections. Sacajawea’s enrollment is projected to drop next year, which means we will be losing a few important staff positions for 2026-27. Specifically, we are set to lose:

• One general education homeroom teacher. This drops Sac to eight, from the nine that we’ve had for the past several years.

• Either our art or our music teacher. This leaves us with only two specialist roles instead of three (PE being the third).

We will gain one instructional assistant position for special education programs, taking us from ten to eleven. All other staffing levels will remain the same (front office, library, social work, preschool, special education homeroom leadership, our 1-day-a-week nurse, etc.).

This loss of staff is happening because the district projects significantly lower enrollment for Sac next fall: They expect only 184 K-5 Sac students, compared to the 202 that we have as of the most recent count in February. For context, Sac’s K-5 enrollment has been consistent in the years since the pandemic, ranging from 196 to 202.

Below, you’ll find answers to:

• What is Sac losing (in more detail)? 

• Why are we losing staff allocations?

• Why are Sac’s enrollment projections so low?

• Can the PTA mitigate these losses? (an addendum)

What is Sac losing (in more detail)?

The two difficult changes for Sac are the loss of core instructional staff: one homeroom teacher, and one of our three specialists.

Loss of a gen ed homeroom allocation

Losing a gen ed homeroom allocation next year means that one of our core homeroom teachers won’t be returning. Generally, the teacher to go is whoever has least seniority with the district, unless another teacher volunteers to leave. 

As of this writing, I haven’t been able to determine who among Sac’s homeroom teachers has least seniority; whether anyone might volunteer to transfer; or whether the likeliest outcome for the lost teacher would be a transfer within SPS versus the loss of their job. Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty here!

Regardless of who Sac loses, the classroom split situation is likely to become more complicated. As we all know, Sac is already relying on many split-grade classrooms to compensate for staffing allocations that don’t get the job done cleanly.

In the coming weeks, Principal Fisk will determine classroom configurations, in a process that includes the Building Leadership Team (BLT) and a full-staff vote. This is when next year’s split situation will become clearer.

The final classroom configuration determines which cohorts of students get grouped where: How many second-grade classrooms, how many 2/3 splits, how many kindergartens, etc. Classroom configurations do not assign specific teachers or specific students to each bucket. That process comes much later, over the summer.

Loss of a specialist

Sacajawea will lose either our art or music teacher allotment. That choice is made at the school level. For Sac, the decision will be (or possibly already is) made by a staff vote, but it isn’t yet public. 

For many years, Sac offered only PE and Art. Music class was added back in only a handful of years ago (I believe it was in 2022, though I could be off by a year).

Historically, SPS has prioritized art over music. The Gold Book—an SPS document that provides general guidance about budget implementation priorities—used to include a directive to staff PE and art before music. That directive is gone now, but many families and staff, including the Sac community, have recent, direct experience of a school that offers art and PE without music (versus the other way(s) around).

Why are we losing staff allocations?

I’ve split this into a short version for folks with robust, fulfilling lives (what is that like?), and a longer version for my fellow nerds.

The short version of lost staff allocations

The district expects Sac’s K-5 enrollment to drop meaningfully next year, to 184 from our current 202 (202 is per February’s P223 monthly enrollment report). That’s a 9% drop in our K-5 population.

The district uses a formula to allocate teacher slots to buildings based on the student population. The expected population decrease is significant enough that the formula yields one fewer teacher.

Specialist roles (PE, art, music) are allocated as a multiple of the number of FTE gen ed teachers. The drop from nine teachers to eight pushes Sacajawea below a rounding threshold, resulting in the loss of half of a specialist role. Because our art and music specialists are already half-time, and because PE must be full-time for Sac to remain compliant with rules relating to student exercise, we will end up losing either art or music.

The nerdier version of lost staff allocations

Every March, SPS releases enrollment projections for each school site, broken down by grade (see below for Sac’s projections). The district uses a formula called the Weighted Staffing Standard (WSS) to compute the number of teachers that each site will receive, based on the number of students in each grade. Different grade levels have different funding ratios: K-1 students receive 1 teacher allocation for every 21 kids, while the ratio is 22:1 for grades 2-3, and 28:1 for grades 4-5. All of this is outlined in what’s known as the  “Purple Book”.

Sacajawea’s 2026-27 enrollment projections, from the Purple Book

[A side note on WSS ratios: The WSS funding ratios above have changed this year. In all grades except 2-3, the district has increased the count of students that “earn” a teacher allocation. For example, last year, the K-1 ratio was one teacher allocation per 20 students; this year it’s 1:21.

These WSS changes do not affect Sac’s 2026-27 situation (I ran the numbers to verify). But they will certainly lead to fewer teachers being allocated district-wide. Indeed, that is the point, as the ratio change was described as saving roughly $8.5 million in staffing costs, in a board budget meeting on March 4.]

How do gen ed teacher allocations work?

For those who want to get really nerdy, here’s how Sac ends up at 8 teachers:

• 47 projected K-1 students at a 21:1 ratio yields 2.238 FTE

• 59 projected 2-3 students at a 22:1 ratio yields 2.681 FTE

• 78 projected 4-5 students at a 28:1 ratio yields 2.786 FTE

• That’s a total of 7.705 FTE, which gets rounded up to 8 teachers.

In order for our allocation to increase to nine gen ed homeroom teachers next year, our projected enrollment would have to yield 8.51 FTE in the WSS formula. This would require one of:

• 17 more K-1 students; or

• 18 more 2-3 students; or

• 23 more 4-5 students; or

• Some weighted combination of the above

Clearly, the distance between our projected enrollment and what we’d need in order to receive nine teachers is more than just a handful of kids.

How do specialist allocations work?

Specialist roles are allocated at 12.5% of the school’s gen ed teacher allotment. We are being allocated 8 gen ed teachers, so we should be getting 8 x 0.125 = 1.0 specialist slots. In fact, we will be receiving 1.5 specialist slots. SPS is doing Sacajawea a favor on this one!

It turns out that SPS has actually been doing Sac this favor–the favor of a bonus 0.5 specialist role–for several years now. For the current 2025-26 academic year, we qualified for only 1.5 specialist FTE, but we’ve received 2.0. I only realized this as I was working through the numbers for this article. So, no, I have no idea (yet?) why Sac has been–and still is–getting this small bonus.

Sacajawea’s 2026-27 staff allocations, from the purple book.

Are the enrollment projections accurate?

In the past, SPS enrollment projects have been wrong for Sac. Those of us who were around in 2022 recall the “October shuffle” in which we gained not one, but two additional teachers, because enrollment was so much higher than the projections made in the Purple Book. 

That said, I suspect the projections may unfortunately be accurate in this case. The next section explains why.

Why are Sac’s enrollment projections so low?

SPS doesn’t provide rationale for the Purple Book’s enrollment projections, so we can’t say for sure.

But.

I suspect that this is a consequence of the changes made this year to the choice program–more specifically, the increase in capacity at Hazel Wolf next year. I predicted this enrollment drop here when the choice changes were announced back in December.

There are three reasons why I believe Hazel Wolf accounts for the significant decline in Sac’s projected population:

First, SPS projects that Hazel Wolf’s enrollment will increase by 87 students next year–a 13.2% increase. Hazel Wolf is very close to Sac–closer than Sac is, for many families. 25% of Hazel Wolf’s K-5 students live in Sac’s geo-zone. Worse, 32% of Sac-zoned students attend Hazel Wolf instead! Clearly, there is an appetite among Sac’s neighborhoods to attend the newer Hazel Wolf, whose future is less uncertain.

Hazel Wolf’s population has been kept artificially low until now, but next year the building will be used to its full capacity, and this opens up a lot of new spots for Sac-zoned families who haven’t been admitted in the past.

Second, recall that Hazel Wolf is a choice school. Families apply to send their students there. SPS has those applications–and indeed, by this time of year they already know who they’ve assigned to each choice school. The district already knows which additional Sac-zoned families it is allowing to switch to Hazel Wolf next year, and they would have factored that into Sac’s enrollment projections.

Third, a comparison of Sac’s current enrollment vs. next year ‘s projections shows that SPS expects the population loss of 17 kids to come from the students who are already attending Sac today. This is not a matter of an incoming kindergarten cohort that doesn’t replace the students completing 5th grade. SPS projects Sac’s incoming kindergarten class next year to have 22 kids; our current 5th grade cohort has 23 students.

While some annual student movement is normal, to my mind only something systemic could account for the loss of 17 already-enrolled students from Sac in one year. The sudden increase in capacity at Hazel Wolf fits the bill. I can’t think of anything else happening in our area that would explain such a sudden, large potential population drop. If you can, please let me know at advocacy@sacpta.org!

Why does it matter whether Hazel Wolf is the reason behind Sac’s possibly dwindling population? 

If the enrollment drop is indeed caused by students leaving for Hazel Wolf, this means that Sac’s struggles are the result of district policy choices–it’s not an organic thing, and it’s not inevitable. Policies are choices, and choices can be made differently.

Sac’s current building state–not great, we all agree!--stems from choices the district made, over and over, to neglect the building. A building crumbles organically, but the decision not to intervene–that’s a choice. Cancelling rebuild plans is a choice. 

Hazel Wolf opened in 2016 in Sac’s backyard; Olympic Hills, just to our north, opened in 2017; the new John Rogers opened last fall (2025). To construct these huge, nearby schools in an environment of long-term enrollment decline–that’s a series of choices. To do this without any rezoning to balance the student populations across the schools over a decade–that’s also a choice.

The new school choice policy that allows more flexibility for families is also–you guessed it–a choice! In my opinion, this new policy is one that is actually good for the district. We need more flexibility for families. Still, if I was able to predict the effects this change would have on Sac, surely someone at the district predicted them as well, right? To yet again ignore the negative consequences for Sac–well, that’s yet another disappointing choice. 

I am beyond tired of watching the district make choices that leave the Sac community with fewer resources, more deterioration, and less clarity about our future year after year. Why are we squeezing families into a false choice between their neighborhood school and a fully-staffed one?

I’d like us to remember: The problem is not that our community is organically withering. The problem is that we are being strangled by the district’s choices.

Can the PTA mitigate these losses?

This section is an addendum, written to answer the many questions I received after the original post was published. Most of the questions related to whether the PTA can use its money hire back some of the lost staff.

Overall, the answer is no, the PTA can’t really help here. Read on if you’re interested in the nuances!

How much would it cost for the PTA to hire back a half-time specialist or full-time teacher?

The cost of 0.1 FTE is roughly $20,000. So, the cost of restoring a half-time specialist would be over $100K, and the cost of hiring a full-time teacher is over $200K. Positions half-time or more earn benefits, which the PTA would have to cover, which makes them cost even more.

$100K or more is simply beyond the capability of our PTA. Even with a specialized fundraiser focused on this, I do not believe that we could raise this level of funds. For context: Sac’s PTA has raised a total of around $50k so far this year, and our major fundraiser—the direct ask—is behind us.

If we had the funds, could the PTA hire back the lost staff?

Maybe. There’s a philosophical issue here, and a logistical one.

Philosophy

The philosophical issue is whether the Sac PTA is comfortable spending its budget on staff. Several years back, the we had a pretty strong stance against doing this. The stance was rooted in an equity concern: Many schools do not have the PTA resources to cover staffing gaps in this way, so it’s inequitable to buy our way into improved staffing when others can’t. It’s been a few years since we discussed this as a group, so I can’t say how today’s PTA membership would feel about it.

Our PTA has, however, funded 0.1 FTE (a half day) for a reading specialist, in the past few years. This brings the Sac reading specialist up to 0.5 FTE, which provides more time with the kids and also more stability in the role itself. It is difficult to retain staff in a 0.4 FTE position, especially since such positions do not come with benefits.

Timing

The timing issue is that Principal Fisk needs to finalize the budget and staffing by late March. So, if we wanted to hire back any staff, the PTA would have to make that commitment in the next week or so. Specifically, we’d have to commit before we had the time to explore fundraising options or understand how effective we could be at raising those funds. That would be hugely risky.

That said, nothing prevents us from starting a discussion or fundraiser now with the intent of addressing any likely, similar staffing gaps for the 2027-28 academic year.

Superintendent Shuldiner Talks with Sacajawea Parents

On Monday evening, Superintendent Shuldiner joined a handful of Sac parents in our library for an open discussion. The round table focused primarily on two issues important to Sac: The future of our building/community, in the context of our recent proposed rebuild-turned-closure; and special education at Sac.

A huge thank you to Superintendent Shuldiner, who is matching his actions to his vocal commitment to community engagement. It’s a stance that is markedly different from SPS leadership’s posture in recent years. Here’s to more of this!

And, of course, a huge thanks to the community members who came out to share personal perspectives! The group included several parents of Sac students in the Distinct and Extended Resource programs; several parents of HCC-designated kids who have chosen to remain at Sac for community reasons; and several parents who were deeply involved in the 2024 fight against Sac’s closure, including one who was on the building redesign team.

Read on to hear what Shuldiner had to say about:

• What might Sac’s future look like?

• Special education at Sac and SPS

What might Sac's future look like?

Spoiler alert: Sac’s future remains uncertain!

Naturally, Shuldiner had neither answers nor promises, being only one month into his new role. He did candidly share his thoughts about many topics that will affect Sac’s future, though, including school closures, new building construction, and the viability of small schools.

Closures are not off the table (but they might be approached differently)

Shuldiner was clear in our meeting—as he has been elsewhere—that, “We will have to close schools, eventually, probably.” Sac is not magically exempt from closure considerations. Indeed, everyone from district staff looking at building scores, to Sac staff in under-heated rooms, to parents traversing the distressed asphalt in our parking lot acknowledges that Sac’s building is at the end of its as-is life. Something’s got to give.

Closures as mergers

Shuldiner said that any potential future closures would most likely be mergers. He advocated for the merging of schools in a hypothetical example where the schools share adjacent, walkable geo-zones and low enrollment. This thinking echoes the 2024 SPS process, which was merger-based for the four schools that were seriously targeted for closure.

Of course, merging Sac’s population into John Rogers per the 2024 proposal would not have created a walkable solution for any Sac families. Nor would it have kept our community together, since John Rogers offers neither a Distinct program nor a developmental pre-K.

Community involvement

Shuldiner acknowledged that the 2024 closure process was handled atrociously: “A textbook example of how not to do things.” Hearing this stated out loud was refreshing. Even after withdrawing the 2024 closure proposals, the district has never acknowledged the disruptions it caused or the hasty, ad hoc, and disrespectful way the process was handled.

In Lansing, MI, in his previous role as superintendent, Shuldiner oversaw a set of closures (he calls them mergers, and they are, but each of them still involves the closure of a school building). He emphasized that, in those cases, the community was involved in a 6-month-long process prior to the closure. The principals of the two merging schools were present, together, throughout. Not everyone got what they wanted, Shuldiner said, but nobody was met with surprises, either.

A rebuild is not off the table (but it would not happen immediately)

Shuldiner wants to rethink how SPS builds schools. This is a welcome change, but a temporary pause in new projects means that Sac’s promised rebuild is certainly no guarantee.

A brief history of Sac’s rebuild journey

Most Sac folks know already that Sacajawea had been slated for a rebuild since 2018, when the design was added to the BEX V capital levy. The funding for the actual construction was then part of the BEX VI capital levy, right up until its rebuild language was changed from “Sacajawea” to “an unnamed NE elementary school” in Nov 2024 due to the closure threats.

The BEX VI capital levy was passed by voters in Feb. 2025, leaving SPS with a tidy pile of money for elementary school construction and with little clarity on what to do with it.

Re-evaluating the way SPS approaches building

Shuldiner told the group on Monday that he has asked Director of Capital Projects Richard Best to pause the planning of new construction for a bit.

Shuldiner is unhappy with the design of the new SPS constructions he has recently visited, characterizing them as adult-focused rather than student-focused. He cited the 4-story atrium at Rainier Beach High School, which all but begs students to throw things over the edge. He referenced a “hallway to nowhere” at Wing Luke Elementary that ends in a two-story drop protected by a partial railing that a child could fit through.

For the district overall, this pause is probably good news. The abundance of levy money specifically earmarked for new construction has led SPS to build prolifically and extravagantly in recent years. This includes giant new elementary schools that can host 500-600 kids, in a known environment of long-term enrollment decline. Indeed, critics believe that the poor optics of the brand-new, mostly-empty John Rogers building were one of the drivers behind the 2024 proposal to move Sac students there.

What about a Sac rebuild specifically?

For Sac specifically, any significant pause in new construction is a warning sign for our future. We likely cannot go on for more than another handful of years in our current building.

If a rebuild is off the table in that time frame, then the only other realistic option will be to shut Sac down. [Author’s note: Shulidiner did not say this on Monday; it’s my own conclusion.]

Small Schools are not inherently problematic (but they are difficult to fund)

The issue of small schools—specifically whether they viable or not—was another focus of the evening, in large part because Sac’s small size was cited as a reason for closure by the district in 2024.

Shuldiner emphasized that he has no problem with small schools—a refrain that differs from the rhetoric of 2024, in which SPS leadership repeatedly said that Sacajawea was being closed because of its small size.

That said, Shuldiner also repeated familiar thinking about smaller schools being more difficult to fund under SPS’s per-pupil funding model (he did not indicate that he would be changing this model). With fewer students come fewer dollars, and the type of overall school programming that can be funded with the smaller budget may not be what a community wants. While this is true, it’s also true that choosing between a huge, appropriately-funded elementary school miles from home and a small, walkable elementary school with inadequate programming is also not what most communities want.

Special education at Sac and SPS

A third of current Sacajawea K-5 students receive special ed services, compared to 17% of students district-wide. Many students attend Sac specifically to access services that are not available at their own neighborhood schools.

With such a large proportion of Sac families accessing--and being largely satisfied with—special ed services, the conversation turned naturally to what Superintendent Shuldiner thinks is working and what might change under his tenure.

The value of small community

Every community member speaking about special education at Monday’s meeting led with some variation on appreciation for the small community offered at Sac. Written statements from Sac’s two Distinct teachers (Isaiah and Brittany) and one of our developmental Pre-K teachers (Kara) echoed this as well. For folks on the ground, it’s clear that the tight-knit community is central to the success of Sac’s special ed programs.

Shuldiner, however, appeared skeptical. He wondered aloud if it’s the adults involved—and not the building or its size—that is the source of the program’s success. This is a, “yes, and!” situation. It’s absolutely true that Sac’s staff is fabulous, and critical to special ed success. And…

As parents pointed out, it’s also true that a school with 500-600 students cannot provide peer support and integration in the same way as a school where all teachers and fellow students know the names and needs of the special ed students. A large school also has stairs and noises and crowds that many special ed kids would not be able to navigate with the same ease as they do Sacajawea.

It’s difficult to quantify the value to special ed of a small environment, especially for higher-needs programs like Distinct. If anyone has ideas or knows of research that has tackled this, let us know at advocacy@sacpta.org!

Resourcing special education

Shuldiner shared a handful of insights into how he’s thinking about special ed, in the Monday meeting.

First, surprising many of us, he pushed back on the narrative that SPS special ed is under-funded. He said that special ed at SPS is far better resourced than special ed at any other place he’s familiar with. He went so far as to say, “Other districts would kill for the ratios you have!” Importantly, he also acknowledged that those resources are not necessarily always put to effective use, citing the district’s struggles getting IEP response times within the 30-day mandated timeframe.

Second, he mentioned his suspicion that SPS special ed is over-enrolled. The discussion shifted to different details before we had a chance to dig into what over-enrollment means to him or what might be done about it.

Third—and along the lines of structural change—Shuldiner pointed out that special ed best practice is to host all special ed support pathways at each school that offers special ed services. This is decidedly not the case in SPS today, where schools offer seemingly random patchworks of programs.

Sac, for example, offers rungs 1, 2, and 4 of the 4-rung service ladder but we don’t offer the third rung (for those familiar with SPS pathways, that means we offer Resource, Extended Resource, and Distinct programs, but not Focus). Neighboring Olympic View offers rungs 1 and 3 (Resource and Focus) but not 2 and 4 (Extended Resource and Distinct).

Looking Forward

Sac continues to exist in limbo, and presumably we will for a while longer. I’ll keep listening to board meetings and report back here on anything that points to one outcome or another for Sac.

In the meantime, at least we can enjoy the bright, new painted lines in our bumpy old parking lot, right?

SPS Budget Update: Revenue Hopes & Proposed Cuts

In this issue:

• Proposed millionaire’s tax is our best hope for increased funding, but we need a K-12 commitment

  This state tax proposal  is our best hope in a long time for increased funding, but without changes, the money won’t be earmarked for K-12 education. Write your legislators in support with two clicks here.

• A menu of possible cuts for balancing SPS’s 2026-27 budget

  Proposals that would affect Sac directly include bell time changes and different bussing support

Proposed millionaire’s tax is our best hope for increased funding, but we need a K-12 commitment

If you’re only going to read one paragraph: 

The new “millionaire’s tax” proposal in the state legislature is our best hope in a long time for increased state K-12 funding, but it’s got a major problem: The additional revenue isn’t earmarked for K-12 education as lawmakers had previously hinted that it would be. Write your lawmakers to urge them to earmark 50% of this money for K-12 education with two quick and simple clicks, here.

If you’d like more detail:

For many years now, our state legislators have specifically cited a need for additional funding before they can adequately fund K-12 education. This new tax would generate upward of $3 billion annually. That’s enough to make a real dent in the $4 billion statewide under-funding of K-12 education, even if the revenue won’t start flowing until 2029.

Unfortunately, as it is written now, none of the $3 billion of additional revenue is dedicated to K-12 education. Lawmakers are promising verbally that some of it would end up in schools, via future legislation. The bill as it stands sends 95% of the new money to the general fund, where K-12 funding will compete for attention with many other causes. 

This bill matters so much because state funding comprises a majority of SPS’s income, as compared to local levies, which are capped, or federal funding, which is likely to diminish in the current climate. The millionaire’s tax is our best hope for increased state funding. If its new revenue fails to flow to K-12 education, it’ll likely be a long time before education gets another shot at increased funding.

Please consider joining me in writing to Governor Ferguson and your local legislators with two simple clicks, here. Feel free to personalize the stock message, or just send it as-is. This is a simple way to maximize our chances for increased funding. 

As the millionaire’s tax proposal works its way through the legislature, I’ll post relevant updates and additional calls to action here.

A menu of cuts for balancing the 2026-27 budget

Everyone familiar with SPS knows that the district has been in financial distress. Each year, we scramble to fill an operational budget gap that hovers around $100 million*.

For the coming 2026-27 school year, the gap between expected spending and expected income is $87.5M*, which is about 6% of the operating budget. The operating budget includes most expenditures incurred by running the district (staffing, building operations, classroom supplies, special programs, etc.). This does not include the BEX capital levy funds that support the district’s new construction and major renovations, and most of its technology. Curious readers can learn more about SPS’s four separate budgets here.

In past years, the district has filled the operational budget gap largely with one-time measures, including using the entire rainy day fund, and borrowing money from the SPS capital fund. In 2024, the closure plans that included Sacajawea were initially proposed as a way to save money to address the budget gap, although the claims that closures would save significant money were grossly overstated.

At last Wednesday’s board meeting, Fred Podesta, in his last meeting as Interim Superintendent, outlined a number of options for closing the deficit in the coming year. The proposals that are most directly relevant to Sac families include:

• Changing to a three-tier bell schedule, from today’s two-bell system (estimated savings: $5M-$13M). This is an old chestnut that gets floated almost every year. The last time it was proposed in earnest, back in 2022, the proposed new bell times across the district were 7:30am, 8:30am, and 9:30am. (Sac was in the 7:30am start group, along with most other elementaries). After significant community pushback, the 2022 3-tier bell plan was dropped.

• Changing back to a single bus vendor district-wide, from the two we use today (estimated savings: $1.5-6M). This would be a reversion back to 2021-22 and prior, when the district contracted solely with First Student for bussing. Parents of older students may remember the chronic problem of late buses delaying or interrupting morning instruction (I sure do!). This was a persistent, district-wide problem, which is why SPS made the change in fall of 2022 to use two bus vendors instead of one, despite the increased cost.

• Mandatory athletic fees (estimated savings: $2.6M). This is another frequently-floated proposal. Last year, the district did impose convenience fees and voluntary athletic fees on athletic programs. Podesta didn’t share the amount of money that this change has already brought in, nor did staff speak specifically to the equity and access concerns that mandatory athletic fees would create.

Other proposals floated in Wednesday’s presentation included: A reduction of senior SPS administration and/or central staff; furloughs for non-represented staff; a reduction to half-time of Academic Intervention Specialists in high schools; and a refocus of professional development activities to those that directly support teaching. 

Podesta listed a few possibilities not being considered at this time. These included targeted class size increases; changes to the portfolio of SPS schools; and across-the-board salary reductions.

With Superintendent Shuldiner taking the reins, the timing of this initial budget discussion was admittedly awkward. Shuldiner will have his own opinions on both the budgeting process, and on the choices themselves, and these will rightly influence the development of the 2026-27 budget.

*Some close observers of SPS budgets, including me, believe the district’s annual deficit is actually much smaller than the reported $100 million. This analysis by SPS parent Albert Wong covers some of the reasoning behind the budget skepticism. This matters because an overestimated deficit leads to unnecessary budget cuts, which our community witnessed firsthand via the financially-motivated 2024 attempted closure of Sac.

Sacajawea Staff Arrest: What Happens Next?

Friday morning’s announcement of the arrest of a Sacajawea instructional assistant (IA) on a trio of child sexual abuse charges was an upsetting shock for staff and parents alike. 

The email, signed jointly by Principal Fisk and SPS Chief of Staff Bev Redmond, was a model of trust building: It was timely, it communicated the relevant facts, it avoided speculation, it acknowledged the concerns that readers were likely to have, and it included some helpful resources. 

As a conversation opener, it hit the mark. But where is the rest of the conversation?

A full week has passed since the initial announcement, with no further public communication, leaving many of us wondering: Is that it? What happens next? 

Though I don’t claim to represent the entire community, I’ve talked with many Sac parents since Friday. Below, I’ve gathered the main questions from these conversations. I also had a few conversations about these themes with Principal Fisk, who shared what info he could within the district and legal constraints he’s under as principal.

1. “An SPS investigation is underway.” What does this mean?

Community members want to know what kinds of questions an SPS investigation is meant to answer: Is it about establishing whether SPS followed its own policies in terms of hiring and/or reporting of any troubling behaviors? Is it about determining whether students in the IA’s classroom were abused? Is it about assessing SPS’s legal liabilities? Is it about something else?

If the IA resigns or is terminated, as seems likely, will the SPS investigation be dropped as has happened in the recent past?

Who will be contacted as part of the investigation? Will SPS be speaking with parents of the kids in the IA’s classroom? With the students themselves? How will parents be involved, if SPS interviews their kids? Will any of the Sacajawea staff be interviewed?

Finally, what is the timeline for the SPS investigation? When can the community expect an update on what is being investigated, and when the district plans to share outcomes?

2. Where can we get assurance that the proper vetting & background checks were done when hiring this IA?

Everyone understands that in the absence of prior offenses, a background check and reference checks would have come back clean. Background checks are a requirement in any SPS teacher hiring process.

Principal Fisk reached out to SPS human resources, who confirmed that this was in fact the case: Fingerprints and a background check were completed prior to the start of this IA’s employment. Fisk also emphasized that he is certain that proper procedure has been followed in all hiring decisions at Sacajawea.

District administration could begin rebuilding trust by sharing this information out officially, to the same community that received the original arrest news. All the better if that communication addresses other community questions as well.

3. What will happen to this IA’s job?

Friday’s email stated that the IA has been placed on administrative leave. When will the future of his SPS employment be decided, and is this decision based on an SPS investigation, a legal process, or something else? Legally, the IA has been charged but is not convicted of any wrongdoing at this point.

In our conversation, Principal Fisk was unequivocal that the IA will not set foot in Sacajawea again, for any reason. In the short term, the IA is prohibited from all SPS properties effective last week (per Friday’s email). Fisk emphasized that he will not be allowed back to his position or re-hired at Sacajawea under any circumstances.

Fisk shared that he would vigorously oppose any attempt to rehire the IA anywhere within SPS. Ultimately, of course, it is central SPS staff who are responsible for ensuring any kind of district-wide hiring ban. The district does maintain a “do not re-hire” designation that can be applied to the records of some resigned/terminated staff. The specific circumstances under which the designation can be applied are unclear.

4. What support is the affected classroom getting in the short term, with an absent IA?

For now, there is short-term additional staff in the room. Moving forward, it is expected that the IA will resign or be terminated, which could happen as soon as this week. At that point, Sac will start hiring for the open position as they would for any other.

5. Who is accountable for determining whether any abuse happened at Sacajawea?

Is this the purview of the SPS investigation? The Ferndale police? Seattle police? Nobody?

Ferndale Police made the arrest, and the offenses listed in the charges all occurred outside of King County. While the Ferndale PD will support prosecution of the filed charges, it is not clear to me that they would proactively investigate possible transgressions in a Seattle-based classroom as part of their process.

Principal Fisk said that the SPS investigation would be run by SPS’s General Counsel office. One would hope that part of that investigation would include determination of any wrongdoing at Sacajawea, but I think many of us would be reassured to hear that assumption confirmed by the general counsel’s office itself, along with a timeline and the outline of a plan.

Fisk stated that he is quite confident that no student at Sacajawea suffered any abuse, due to the strong protocols in place for student safety. These includes guidelines preventing students from ever being alone with any teacher. In the affected classroom, there are students who sometimes require toileting assistance. Fisk assured that even in these cases, the adult in charge is directed to use the semi-public restroom in the nurse’s station visible behind the front desk, with the door cracked open. 

Both the community and Principal Fisk deserve district-level confirmation of the claim that student protection protocols were rigorously followed.

6. Will there be a community meeting of any kind?

Will SPS be hosting a community meeting, or a Q&A of some kind? Many parents are hoping for a district-hosted meeting where we can ask our questions directly, not just to Principal Fisk but to whoever heads the SPS investigation. The PTA can facilitate processing space for the community, but ultimately it’s up to the district to provide answers.

Principal Fisk shared that the primary teacher in the classroom affected by the arrest has been offering meetings with affected parents, including one held on Tuesday. This is welcome news, and these parents absolutely deserve this additional support. The wider community also needs support, though, and without it we are feeling abandoned to navigate this shock alone.

SPS has an opportunity here to rebuild some trust with the Sacajawea community. We are already at an ebb of trust in the district*, following the whirlwind of our school rebuild being swapped out for a closure plan which was then cancelled, leaving our future uncertain still.

Building trust on this occasion could happen in many ways, but all of them involve a recognition that our community is a group of people with natural, reasonable concerns. We all understand that SPS is operating under legal limitations, and privacy protections, and so on. Indeed, we want these to be respected! We believe that it is possible to respect these constraints and also provide our community with follow-up information and support for processing.

Anyone with suggestions or questions can reach me at advocacy@sacpta.org.

*While trust in the district is generally low, trust in the individual staff at Sac has been generally high, recent news notwithstanding.

ICE Protections at Sacajawea

Immigration enforcement activity has ramped up across the country in recent months. Though Seattle has not been specifically targeted in the same way as other cities, Seattle-area immigration arrests have more than doubled since Trump took office. 

A well-documented incident of ICE officers executing violent arrests on school property in Minneapolis earlier this month brought sharp focus to a question already simmering in the minds of many parents: What protections are in place for our own kids at Sac?

In this post, I’ve put together an overview of my understanding of student protections. I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. My understanding has been informed by the resources I link throughout, as well as a conversation with principal Fisk.

Let’s get to it! Below, you’ll find:

• SPS policies governing potential ICE interactions

• What is ICE legally authorized to do in K-12 schools?

• Further reading & resources

SPS policies governing potential ICE interactions

In January 2025, SPS adopted Superintendent Procedure 4310SP.B which outlines limitations on immigration enforcement at Seattle Public Schools. 

Section IV focuses specifically on what school administrators should do if immigration enforcement comes to campus. It is accessibly written, and two pages long. I encourage everyone to read it for yourself.

Much of the policy focuses on how SPS grants or denies entry to immigration officers. The policy leverages the fact that ICE authority is more limited in private spaces (more on this later). 

The key bits of policy guiding entry decisions are:

• Authorized designees will interact with ICE

  Each school site has a school leader (generally the principal) and a set of designees who are authorized to respond to immigration authority requests for entry. At Sacajawea, these people are principal Fisk and the front office staff.

• Legal counsel makes the entry decision, and they require a valid judicial warrant

  The decision about whether to grant entry permission does not fall to the discretion of on-site staff members; it belongs to SPS legal counsel.

  The default SPS position is to disallow entry without a judicial warrant. To that end, school site designees are directed by the policy to collect relevant info (including officer ID and a copy of the warrant), and pass it to legal counsel for review. Legal counsel is in turn directed to verify the warrant, and not to grant entry permission without it. On-site staff are directed not to admit entry to immigration officers until directed to do so by legal counsel.

The SPS policy also outlines what should happen after ICE is or isn’t granted entry:

• When entry is granted

  When immigration enforcement is granted entry, designated staff are directed to request to be present during any interview between a student and an immigration officer.

• When entry is denied

  On-site designated staff are directed to inform immigration officers of the decision and ask them to leave. If the officers do not comply, staff should not physically interfere with enforcement activity, but should notify SPS security.

It is important to recognize the reality that immigration officers might not comply with a legitimate directive to leave campus. In the event that officers do not comply, the lack of entry permission is still important because it may offer increased post-arrest legal protections to individuals detained inside.

Finally, the SPS policy also instructs staff to notify parents/guardians of any immigration enforcement activity at school concerning their student.

What is ICE legally authorized to do in K-12 schools?

As of January 21, 2025, schools no longer hold the “sensitive space” designation that previously protected them from most immigration enforcement activities. 

I recently attended a Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) webinar focused on ICE interactions in K-12 settings. The recording is available in English or Spanish. The webinar emphasized that immigration enforcement officers have different authority in public vs. private spaces, including the public vs. private areas of schools. 

The personal rights of students, staff, and community are at their strongest in private areas, and at their weakest in public ones. The key differences relate to the conditions under which ICE can legally enter a particular space, and the conditions under which ICE can detain an individual in that space.

ICE authority in public spaces

In public, immigration authorities have the authority to approach and question any individual (NWIRP recommends that individuals not answer questions). 

In order to arrest an individual in public, ICE officers must have one of the following:

• An administrative warrant for the individual (note that this is different from a judicial warrant; read more about different warrant types here), or

• A reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally

The NWIRP training acknowledged that the evidence for reasonable suspicion—also called “probable cause”—has been extremely low in recent months. They also noted that running can be construed as probable cause for a warrantless arrest.

ICE authority in private spaces

For private spaces, there are certain conditions that must be met in order for ICE to have legal authority to enter. Separately, there are conditions that must be met in order for ICE to have the legal authority to detain (arrest) someone.

To enter a private space, ICE must have one of:

• A judicial warrant (note that this is not the same as an administrative warrant), or

• Permission to access the space

To arrest an individual in a private space, ICE must have one of:

• A judicial warrant, or

• Permission to access the space, and a reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the country illegally. Again, the bar for establishing probable cause is very low. 

Public vs. private spaces at Sac

In the context of schools, including Sacajawea, the designation of public vs. private space can be ambiguous.

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems very likely that any area outside of Sac’s playground fences would be considered public. ICE probably does not need SPS permission to approach people on the sidewalk or streets, or in the park adjacent to the playground.

It also seems likely that the interior of Sacajawea would be considered private, given the door locks, buzzed entry system, and yellow SPS security signs on the doors. 

Our playgrounds are arguably our most ambiguous spaces. Public access to them is different during vs. outside of school hours. Trainings that I attended indicated that, under some conditions, spaces that are otherwise public can be designated “private” via signage. Parking lots were the most commonly cited example of this.

If there are any lawyers out there who would like to advise about whether adding signage to the fence gates might offer stronger legal protections, I’d love to hear from you! I can be reached at advocacy@sacpta.org.

Further reading & resources

Looking for more details about SPS or state-level K-12 immigration guidance? Looking for more information about your personal rights during ICE interactions?  Read on!

Broader SPS policies regarding immigration enforcement

For those who want to understand SPS policy in better detail, the guidance from Superintendent Procedure 4301SP.B is echoed in the district’s very readable immigration guidance review FAQ released in June of 2025. Both SPS documents are compliant with, and expand upon, the state-level guidance issued by OSPI in January 2025. 

These documents also outline guidance for immigration-related education scenarios not covered here, including limitations on data collection and sharing to protect students’ documentation statuses.

General ICE defense information

The NWIRP webinar recording focused on ICE in K-12 settings can be found in English or Spanish. This webinar also briefly covers the individual rights that apply in private homes and in cars; bystander rights & risks; and what to do if you or someone you know is detained by ICE.

NWIRP also offers free “Know your rights” information including flyers and recorded trainings outlining how to best respond as an individual to ICE interactions.

The Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network (WAISN) offers rapid response trainings to prepare community members to respond to local ICE activity. WAISN also runs the Deportation Defense Hotline, which mobilizes local teams to verify reports of ICE activity; connects individuals to mutual aid resources, including training, and much more.

K-12 State Funding Outlook for 2026

The Washington state legislative session kicked off on Monday. It’s a short session this year—only 60 days, compared with the 105-day long sessions that happen in odd-numbered years. Short sessions are usually focused on small-scale adjustments rather than big splashy changes. For this reason, major state-level K-12 funding changes are unlikely this year.

That said, there are many possible minor changes that could come out of this session. Every little bit is helpful, and even small backslides in funding mean that some student, somewhere, is losing critical support.

Here’s what I’ve got my eye on this session:

• Governor Ferguson’s proposed budget, including K-12 cuts

• Ferguson’s proposed “millionaire tax” on incomes over $1M, with a share going to K-12 education

• What are education-focused community groups pressuring legislators to deliver?

• Chris Reykdal’s proposed K-12 funding model, coming next year

Governor Ferguson's proposed budget, including K-12 cuts

Governor Ferguson’s proposed supplemental budget, released in December, addresses a budget shortfall exclusively with cuts—that is, he isn’t proposing any new revenue. The proposed cuts related to K-12 education are on page 23, and they include:

• Removal of 1,816 slots for the Transition to Kindergarten program starting in the 2026 – 27 school year, reducing total slots from 7,266 to 5,450 slots. The program had grown from 510 slots in 2020.

• Reduction of Running Start enrollment cap from 1.4 full-time equivalent to 1.2 full-time equivalent representing approximately 10 fewer college credits per student in a school year. ($14 million)

• Reduction in annual school bus replacement payments to districts by standardizing the assumed operating life of buses at 15 years. ($21.1 million)

Ferguson’s proposed “millionaire tax” on incomes over $1M

Governor Ferguson has proposed a “millionaire tax” on incomes over $1M, with a share of this going to K-12 education. If passed, this would start generating revenue in 2029—better than never, but not immediately helpful.

Ferguson has floated K-12 education on the short list of possible recipients of the revenue from this tax, but this is not a guarantee, and the mechanism for safeguarding the revenue is unclear. Specifically, it’s not clear whether revenues intended for K-12 education would go into the state’s general fund, or into a dedicated fund. This matters because the general fund resources can be more easily redirected to other projects after the fact.

What are education-focused community groups pressuring legislators to deliver?

The Washington State PTA (WSPTA) has a set of 5 top advocacy priorities. The WSPTA advocacy platform leads with “Closing the funding gaps,” which is sensible, though inspecific. Other WSTPA advocacy priorities include addressing the student mental health crisis, addressing special education needs, preventing gun violence & suicide, and expanding school construction options.

The Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) comprises all elected school board members in Washington state. The WSSDA legislative agenda as a heavy focus on funding—excellent!—but I am confused that they are asking for absolute peanuts. The first bullet in their one-pager reads, “Keep K-12 funding at current levels.” I understand that protection against further losses is important, especially in an environment of federal cuts and high inflation. But our schools are struggling even at our current funding levels, and I’d wish to see more…imagination? leadership? from WSSDA.

The Seattle Public School board adopted a legislative agenda back in November that echoes the priorites of WSSDA’s.

Chris Reykdal’s proposed K-12 funding model, coming next year

My final funding-related spark of hope isn’t actually related to the 2026 legislative session. I’ve got my eye on Chris Reykdal (Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction). In a press conference last week, he took aim at Washington state’s regressive tax policies, and connected these directly to the financial struggles that Washington schools are facing.

Reykdal’s office, OSPI, estimates that Washington state under-funds K-12 education by $4 billion annually, compared to the national average. Relative to the amount of wealth in our state, we throw crumbs at K-12 education.

Reykdal announced in his press conference that he is working with the legislature to create a new model for funding K-12 education in Washington. Though his proposal is due in 2 years, he plans to deliver his new proposal next year. Critically, he was unequivocal that part of his plan will include new revenue. More of this, please!

New Choice Process Could Lead to Renewed Sac Closure Arguments

New SPS procedures governing the school choice process mean that Sac’s student enrollment could potentially drop next year. Under enrollment was a main factor cited in last fall’s attempt to close Sac, though it was a false claim: Sac is fully enrolled, by SPS’s own standards [1]!

A drop in enrollment next fall could be weaponized by school board members who still want to close schools, reviving the specter of under enrollment—whether real or imagined—for use in targeting Sacajawea for closure once again.

In this article:

• The Facts: What’s Changing?

• The Prediction: Why Sac is Likely to See a Drop in Enrollment Next Year

• The Risk: A Sac Enrollment Drop Could Be Used to Reinvigorate Closure Arguments

• What Does This Mean for Sac?

The Facts: What's Changing?

Sacajawea is a neighborhood school, where students are assigned based on where they live. Families can apply to send their student to attend a different school through the Open Enrollment for School Choice process.

SPS is changing two aspects of open enrollment next year: the timelines, and how they make choice assignments.

First, the open enrollment application deadline is moving one month earlier in the year, to Jan 31. This allows SPS to notify families of their choice decision by the end of February, before the commitment deadlines pass for most local private schools. This is a sensible and welcome change!

Second, SPS’s decision-making is also changing. The district plans to fill buildings more fully (up to 85% of operational capacity). They expect this decision to allow more students to receive their choice assignment compared with today.

More critically for Sacajawea, as Assistant Superintendent of Operations Marni Campbell explained at Wednesday’s board meeting, the district decision-making process will no longer protect enrollment at neighborhood schools.

Campbell said that there will certainly be schools that experience significant drops in enrollment as a result of this change. “We’ve already modeled it out,” she said, “and some schools are really going to feel this….We can anticipate which schools will be impacted based on historical choice patterns.”

Data indicates that Sacajawea is almost certainly one of the schools that will lose students under the new process. Historically, more than half of Sac-zoned students opt to attend other SPS schools (more details below). Campbell assured the board that impacted schools would not be allowed to “die on the vine,” but she didn’t explain how these schools would be supported.

Without a concrete support plan in place and having heard Campbell herself promote the false under-enrollment narrative in our own cafeteria during last year’s attempted closures, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate that enrollment drops caused by this policy could be used in the future as a justification to finally close Sac.

The Prediction: Why Sac Is Likely to See a Drop in Enrollment Next Year

Of the 58 elementary schools in SPS, Sacajawea has the second-highest percentage of families who leave via the choice program. Only Green Lake elementary loses more of its locally zoned students to other SPS buildings.

SPS 2024-25 enrollment report showing where SAc students come from, and where Sac-zoned students attend school.

According to SPS’s 2024-25 enrollment report, out of all of the SPS students zoned for Sacajawea, only 44% attended Sac. By comparison, district wide, 71% of students enroll in their attendance-area school.

Nearly a full third (32%) of students zoned for Sac instead attended Hazel Wolf elementary in 2024-25. Sacajawea-zoned students comprise 25% of Hazel Wolf’s K-5 student body!

We see that Sac’s attendance zone has a disproportionately large set of families who prefer to study elsewhere. This fact, combined with SPS increasing the number of students who are admitted to their choice school, and removing protections for neighborhood school enrollment, puts Sac at significant risk for increased flight.

Why Are Families Avoiding Sac?

If SPS has done an analysis on why families leave Sac at such high rates, I haven’t seen it. As a longtime Sac parent, I have my own thoughts that integrate comments and concerns I’ve heard from in our community. As I see it, there are at least four themes driving enrollment away from Sacajawea:

• Sacajawea’s facilities are beyond dilapidated, and have been for over a decade. Major and minor repairs have been put off for years, in anticipation of a rebuild. In the 2023-24 school year, there were multiple roof leaks that persisted for months, requiring trash cans in the main corridor to catch the leaking water.

• The 2016 opening of Hazel Wolf K-8, only one mile away from Sacajawea. Hazel Wolf is actually closer to home than Sac is, for many Sac-zoned students. Even John Rogers Elementary, into which SPS tried to consolidate the Sacajawea population in 2024, is farther away from Sac (1.23 miles) than Hazel Wolf is. John Rogers is also farther from the homes where Sac-zoned families live (see the SPS zoning map, copied below). It’s no wonder that families have so often chosen shiny new Hazel Wolf, so close to home!

• The BEX V levy passed by voters in 2019, which signalled a commitment to a potentially disruptive Sacajawea rebuild. This levy set aside finances for the design of a Sacajawea rebuild. From this time on, the community has consistently anticipated a near-future two-year closure period for a rebuild. Anecdotally, some families have chosen to avoid such a disruption by moving their kids to a place where they could spend their remaining elementary years in a single, stable environment.

• The 2024 targeting of Sac for closure created ongoing community concern about the possibility of ongoing closure threats. Questions and anxieties about upcoming closure are regular on the school community’s Facebook page (private), especially from parents of rising kindergarteners. As a parent member of Sac’s BLT team, I am asked semi-regularly on the playground for updates about whether we’re getting rebuilt or closed. Nobody knows what’s happening, and the uncertainty is destabilizing.

SPS attendance area map for 2025-26 (circle annotations mine). note how most of the area of sacajawea’s attendance zone is actually closer to hazel wolf k-8.

The Risk: A Sac Enrollment Drop Could Be Used to Reinvigorate Closure Arguments

I am concerned that a drop in enrollment will lead to renewed calls for Sacajawea’s closure. I am concerned because:

• Although closures are temporarily off the table during this time of leadership transition, the board has not eliminated the possibility of near- or mid-term closure plans. Some board members even continue to push for closures.

• Last year’s attempted closure was pushed forward via a (false) narrative of under enrollment. Both Assistant Superintendent of Operations Marni Campbell and Director of Enrollment Planning Faauu Manu cited this heavily in the meeting at our school, despite their own data at the time showing that it was not true—in fact, Sacajawea operates at 90% of our building’s estimated capacity [1]. With the district having so eagerly pushed for closure based on a false under-enrollment narrative, I worry that a year with a real enrollment dip will be seized upon as justification for renewed closure attempts.

The conditions that lead to families opting out of Sac are not inevitable. These conditions have been created by district policies. These policies and conditions can be changed.

Leaving our school to crumble into disrepair, unmaintained over 70 years, and then calling it unfit to house students is a policy choice. This is not a natural disaster that could not be foreseen. It’s a man-made disaster that the district has allowed to happen.

Building two new schools—Hazel Wolf and John Rogers—in close proximity to Sac without any planning for how to accommodate the downstream effects of those constructions is, again, a policy choice. The district might have included forward-looking rezoning plans that update school boundaries and factor new constructions into account. It might have engaged with school communities to develop multi-year consolidation plans that support community needs and relationships through a shift. It did none of these things, and that is why Sac is in the state of undesirability that it is today. It didn’t have to be this way.

What Does This Mean for Sac?

If somehow it’s not clear by now, I fear that the new changes to the school choice process will cause a dip in Sac enrollment that reinvigorates a push for Sac’s closure. I hope I’m wrong.

If we face a renewed closure fight in the coming years, I want our community to understand that the decline of Sac—both its physical structures and its relative desirability—has been a calculated, policy-driven phenomenon. A crumbling school with an uncertain future was not inevitable!

Here’s the good news: Outcomes that are not inevitable can be changed. When I see opportunities for us to influence Sac’s future, I’ll share them here. This might look like public testimony at a board meeting, or meeting with district staff. For the moment, it might simply look like educating others in the Sac community about how to address pressures and risks that Sac faces.

On the topic of enrollment specifically, the next interesting moment will come in late February. This is when the district publishes its enrollment projections for the following year, in the “Purple Book” (here is last year’s).

February’s 2026-27 enrollment projections will tell us what impact the district thinks the new choice policies will have on Sac’s enrollment.

From there, we’ll get a better sense of the scope of a potential problem. Maybe that problem takes the form of closure arguments down the line. Maybe that problem simply looks like staffing numbers so small that even our split-classroom staffing solutions no longer work. Maybe I’ll be wrong—maybe Hazel Wolf’s K-5 classrooms are already full, and I will get to delightedly report back here that Sac enrollment is unchanged.

Stick with me through February and we’ll find out together!

---

[1] Sacajawea is not under enrolled! According to SPS’s 2021 Facilities Master Plan Update (the latest available), Sacajawea is operating at 80% of our operational capacity, and at 90% of our right-sized capacity. Operational capacity is used for short-term planning, and it includes portables in its assessment of usable space. Right-sized capacity is used for long-term planning and does not include portables. The SPS policy goal guiding open enrollment assignments this year states that schools should operate at 85% of their operational capacity.

Sac’s student population has remained largely stable since 2021: we had 198 students then, and we have 199 as of December 1 of this year.

Literacy & Math Benchmarks at Sac

This week, we cover the performance of Sac students at literacy & math goals set by the school board.

District-Wide Benchmarks

The school board set district-wide math & literacy goals back in January, intended as key anchors to guide all board decisions. At last week’s special board meeting, interim superintendent Fred Podesta walked through a progress monitoring report describing how we’re doing, and what comes next.

So, how is Sac doing?

Literacy Goal

Here’s the board’s literacy goal, adopted in January:

The percentage of 2nd grade students who meet or exceed grade-level standards for early literacy skills based on the MAP assessment will increase from 57.7% in Spring 2025 to 67.7% by Spring 2030.

School-specific MAP scores are not available to the public, but Smarter Balance Assessment (SBA) test statistics are public and strongly correlated with MAP results. By the SBA measure, Sac is 4 points behind the district average. According to OSPI, 58.6% of last spring’s Sacajawea third-graders were grade-level proficient or better in ELA on the SBA. District-wide, that percent was 62.6%.

The population served by Sac is potentially relevant here: 33%-40% of Sac students have IEPs annually, compared to 13% of students district-wide, while 37.7% of Sacajawea students have a disability, compared with 18.2% district-wide.

District-wide performance on the literacy goal is shown in the chart below. The chart also highlights performance of subpopulations tracked by the district; the literacy benchmark performance shows that these groups face significant opportunity gaps.

SPS slide benchmarking district performance on the board’s literacy goal (second grade reading evaluated on the map test)

Math Goal

Here’s the board’s math goal, also adopted in January:

The percentage of sixth graders prepared to succeed in math coursework in seventh grade, as measured by the sixth-grade Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA), will increase from 56.8% in June 2025 to 66.8% in June 2030.

Obviously, we have no sixth-graders at Sac. We can look at JAMS, though, since that’s where the majority of Sac students attend middle school. Last spring (2025), 54.8% of JAMS sixth-graders were grade-level-proficient on the math SBA test, compared to 56.8% district-wide.

How do these goals affect Sac?

Last week’s strategic plan presentation was light on detail about how these goals will be achieved, but I’ll report back here if more details emerge in future board meetings.

That said, many of the so-called “emerging initiatives” focus on increased professional development for teachers, and on multi-tiered support structures (MTSS) to assist students with varying abilities. It’s likely that we’ll see versions of these introduced at Sac in coming year or two.

If you notice new things being tried in your child’s classroom, please let me know! I enjoy connecting our classroom activities to board- and district-level policies.

Read more about the board’s progress monitoring meeting here, or watch the full board meeting video with transcript here.

Fun fact: Most statistics in this post are from OSPI’s report card, where you can interact with district- and school-level information about enrollment, demographics, test scores, and more!