Phase 1: Listening and Learning (Fall 2024 – Spring 2025) 

• Worked with experts to better understand how we use resources across the district 
• Finalized the goals and community guardrails 
• Reviewed data on student needs and school experiences 
• Held listening sessions with principals and school leaders
• Conduct comprehensive analysis on resource equity in Seattle Public Schools (more information below).
• Created interim goals and guardrails to make sure we are on track to meet our goals 

Phase 2: Strategy Design and Community Engagement (Spring – Fall 2025) 

• Draft clear, multi-year priorities
• Develop specific strategies for classrooms, schools, and central office 
• Hold community meetings and focus groups to get input 

Phase 3: Implementation and Progress Monitoring (2025–2030) 

• Based on results, adjust strategies as needed
• Refine strategies and implementation plans 
• Launch the plan across the district 
• Track our progress toward goals 

A: The diagnostic analysis is a comprehensive review of how Seattle Public Schools uses people, time, and money, and how those investments affect student and staff experiences. The report compares SPS to research-based best practices and similar districts, highlighting strengths and opportunities to improve equity and outcomes.

A: How SPS uses people, time, and money matters for several reasons: 

• Student Outcomes: The way resources are used—such as how teachers, support staff, and materials are allocated—directly affects the quality of education and student success. Making sure resources are used effectively and equitably is key to improving outcomes for all students—especially those with the greatest needs. 
• Structural Deficit: SPS is facing a long-term gap between what it spends and what it receives in funding. Understanding resource use helps identify ways to close this gap responsibly. 
• Enrollment: As SPS confronts long term enrollment stagnation and decline, the district needs to adjust how resources are distributed so every student gets what they need. 

As you read through the report we hope that you discover other reasons why resource use is important.

A: Resource equity means making sure people, time, and funding are distributed based on student needs, so every student has access to strong teaching, rigorous courses, and supportive learning environments.

A: SPS is developing a draft strategic plan for 2025–2030 during a period of leadership transition. The diagnostic provides a clear, shared fact base to guide the Board, new superintendent, and community in setting priorities and aligning resources with student needs. It will also help SPS make hard decisions as the district faces an environment of constrained resources.

A: The diagnostic is designed to serve as a starting point for new district leadership. It helps ensure that the draft strategic plan is grounded in data and focused on the most important challenges and opportunities for SPS students and staff.

While critically important, data does not tell the whole story and we embrace ongoing engagement.

A: The findings will directly inform the draft strategic plan, helping SPS set clear priorities, further align budgets with student needs, and track progress. The analysis will also support informed decision making about resource allocation, staffing, and program investments in future years.

A: The analysis draws on quantitative and qualitative data, including district budgets, enrollment, staffing, compensation, school and central office spending, comparisons to similar districts across the region and country, public perception, and targeted educator input, especially school leaders. 

A: No, this diagnostic is not a financial audit. It does not review every transaction or check for compliance with accounting rules. Instead, it provides a broad analysis of how Seattle Public Schools uses people, time, and money across the district, highlighting patterns and opportunities to better align resources with student needs. On an annual basis, the State Auditors Office (SAO) performs financial and accountability audits of the District. Read more information about how the district is audited. 

A: This diagnostic is different because it provides a comprehensive, systemwide look at how Seattle Public Schools uses people, time, and money—not just a snapshot of one program or a financial audit. One unique feature is that it uses a national database of similar school districts, so SPS can see where our spending patterns are similar to or different from other large, urban districts. This helps SPS identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities for improvement that might not be visible in standard financial reports or program evaluations. The goal is to give leaders, staff, and the community a clear, data-driven foundation for making decisions about resource use and the draft strategic plan.

A: No, this report is not a program-by-program evaluation. It does not measure the effectiveness of individual programs or make recommendations about specific services. Instead, it looks at the overall use of resources in SPS and identifies systemwide strengths and areas for improvement to inform the draft strategic plan.

A: The diagnostic was funded through a grant from the Alliance for Education, which the Board voted to accept in October 2024. ERS was selected through a competitive Request for Proposal process.

A: SPS will continue to engage families, staff, and community members throughout the draft strategic planning process. The stakeholder advisory task force (information below) is a representative group that provides one important venue to solicit input. Community input is essential to refining priorities and strategies.

A: The Board is discussing the diagnostic at a public Work Session on September 24, 2025. This page will be updated after the Work Session to include finalized findings, materials, and a video link.

A: The report includes many findings and highlights six key insights: 

1. School funding misalignment 
   Current funding levels don’t fully match school needs or the desired student and staff experiences. 
2. Unsustainable district operations 
   The district’s operational model is not financially sustainable given the current fiscal deficit. 
3. Unequal access to advanced coursework 
   Students have inconsistent opportunities to enroll in advanced classes across schools and student groups. 
4. Inequitable access to experienced educators 
   High-need schools have fewer highly experienced teachers compared to other schools. 
5. Inconsistent support for school leaders 
   Principals receive uneven and sometimes inadequate support, with unclear roles and autonomy. 
6. Challenges with strategy implementation 
   Lack of organizational alignment and clarity of ownership makes it hard to execute district strategies effectively. 

A: The report is organized into three main sections: 

• Executive Summary – A high-level overview of the purpose, approach, and major findings. 
• Detailed Analysis – In-depth data and insights across key areas such as funding, staffing, student access, and operations. 
• Recommendations and Next Steps – Actionable strategies for improving equity, efficiency, and sustainability. 

A: No. The diagnostic focuses on PreK–12 Operating Spending as defined by ERS methodology, which ERS has applied in work across the country for more than a decade.  

This analysis excludes capital spending/debt service, charter school pass-throughs, and other uses of funds not directly tied to SPS service delivery. To ensure fair, “apples-to-apples” comparisons across districts nationally, the methodology also excludes categories that vary widely, such as pension payments.  

In total, about 7% of the district’s all-funds budget was excluded. This allows the diagnostic to present an accurate view of PreK–12 Operating Spending and maintain comparability with other districts nationwide. 

A: Yes, all staff supported by operating dollars are included in the analysis. The only staff excluded are those connected to long-term capital projects (including direct labor, management, planning, and other compensation these staff receive) and represent a very small share of the budget (about $6 million).  

The diagnostic is not designed to account for every staff member in every role, but it does capture the full staffing picture relevant to student and school operations. 

A: Some slides in the presentation show budget totals organized into “use categories,” which leave out certain items like unattributed reserves, as the purpose of the spending has yet to be chosen and therefore can’t be coded to a single “use”, per ERS methodology. This can cause the subtotal on a slide to be slightly less than the total budget number shown earlier.  

We are updating the slides and adding notes to make clear when a category is excluded so readers can follow the totals more easily. 

A: SPS uses state-defined budget categories, while ERS uses its own categories to make comparisons across many districts nationally. These categories are not always the same. For example, “Teaching Activity” is not the same as “Instruction” in the ERS framework. To keep the analysis consistent and comparable, the diagnostic report uses ERS categories. The report does not equate the two, and notes where they differ in the methodology.

A: SPS enrollment can be reported in different ways (average annual full-time equivalent, headcount, or point-in-time counts). For this analysis, SPS provided ERS with the most up-to-date enrollment numbers as of spring 2025. That number—about 51,200 students—is consistent with the state’s official reporting. The budget book shows earlier counts from the budget development process. Both are valid, but for accuracy we used the most recent numbers available.

A: The diagnostic is not designed to prescribe specific budget cuts or reallocations. Instead, it examines how SPS uses people, time, and money in relation to the district’s Goals and Guardrails, research on effective practice, and comparisons with similar districts nationally. 

The purpose is to build a clear, shared fact base and to highlight potential areas the district may want to explore—either in long-term planning or within the strategic planning cycle. This diagnostic analysis provides the evidence and clarity needed to ground future decisions in facts rather than assumptions. 

1. Purpose and Role of SATF: Advise on SPS strategic planning, ensuring diverse stakeholder input and open communication. 
2. Group Norms and Agreements: Promote honesty, deep listening, respect, and a focus on systems and long-term improvement. 
3. Project Overviews: Outline strategic planning steps, community engagement, and data collection methods. 
4. Getting to Know You: Share personal strengths and build connections among SATF members. 

Definition of Success: Envision future achievements and clarify the group’s role in reaching SPS goals. 

1. Assets Word Cloud: Members shared personal strengths and roles, highlighting diversity and collaboration. 
2. Review of Meeting and Data Norms: Reinforced group norms (honesty, listening, respect) and data norms (focus on systems, improvement, long-term commitment). 
3. Orientation Meeting Feedback & Purpose of SATF Activity: Reflected on feedback, emphasized the need for genuine stakeholder engagement, and discussed building trust and inclusivity. 
4. SPS’s Draft Strategic Plan Process Update: Provided updates on strategic priorities, goals, and ongoing refinement based on analysis and community input. 
5. Listening Circles: Facilitated group discussions to share experiences, identify strengths, and shape future SPS priorities. 

1. Review meeting and data norms: The group reaffirmed norms for open dialogue, deep listening, and data-driven decision-making focused on equity and improvement. 
2. SATF meeting #2 feedback: Members shared feedback on the previous session, highlighting engagement and areas for continued collaboration. 
3. Listening circles results and themes: Listening circles surfaced key themes around leadership, equity, student and family experiences, and opportunities for SPS to build trust and accountability. 
4. Resource and Strategy Analysis: ERS presentation: The ERS presentation provided analysis of district resources and strategies to inform priority-setting. 
5. Asynchronous feedback: Members contributed feedback outside the meeting, supporting refinement of SATF priorities. 
6. Revising priorities and feedback: The taskforce reviewed and updated district priorities to better align with feedback and strategic analysis.