Thanks again for another great breakdown, Paul! Agreeing with H Kelley below that para's can be explained in part by Special Day Classes (SDCs), which are also at Clarendon ES. Also, classified staff may also be paid through PTO/PTA fundraising, which may help explain why Tier 2/3 schools with higher need may not have more personnel on site compared to more "advantaged" schools.
Thank you for this information. I am curious if the data on the amount of Paras per school included all Para’s ( Paras assigned to Special Education students too?) if so, why was the data cross referenced with students who eligible for free lunch ( tier1,2 schools) and/ or the amount of students in the school only. If not, could you provide a part 2 ( breakdown the data for Para’s that support SpEd students too) I am asking because Grattan has SDC classes which would require more paras. Therefore, it is possible that is an explanation for the differences that you have seen in some of the schools. It is also possible that the data will remain similar, which would be helpful to bring to the attention of the district. can you please clarify?
Paras are NOT limited to Special Day Classes or being one-on-one. In high schools they also work to support the Learning Resources teachers, classes, and programs, supporting students who are mainstreamed in general education classes.
For example, a Learning Resources student with mobility issues could be one of the students that an LR para supports.
We should take care not to make the mistake of confusing the structures of SpEd in elementaries with those in middle and high schools.
I think H's question is a legitimate one that would give more context to the subject of this article though; of course paras are not just for SPED, this article discusses exactly that. But, it is helpful to know if a high proportion of allocations of classified staff at a school are due to SPED. For example, at one point, I had a 1:1 ratio of adults to students in an SDC classroom I taught at within SFUSD. Typically, the class would have had maybe one or two, I had eight classified staff members. This would bump up numbers. Another example would be a school like Sutro Elementary, which has no SDC classes compared to Georg Peabody, a school with two, only a few blocks from it serving a very similar population. Although their sizes are similar, one is going to have a higher proportion of classified staff members due to the SDC. Thus, H's point about including information regarding special education classrooms would provide more context.
I didn’t mean to imply that paras are solely Sped or SDC or that it is the same in high school versus elementary. I was asking if the author had calculated Paras from special education altogether because I was uncertain. I gave an example of the SDC for grattan because that school was specifically addressed and I was curious if that was a possible explanation for more paras in that school. But ultimately I was curious and looking for more information.
It looks to me that it would be pretty safe to say that school sites with more classified budget probably have a larger proportion of Sped students that require extra support and provide direct services or a school site has decided to buy more expensive classified services like parent liaisons, attendance liaisons, wellness coordinators, behavior technicians, and family support specialists that work mainly with other adults. See below for hourly rates...
UESF & SFUSD Employment Classes- A Series are Instructional Aides. R Series are Community Relations Specialists (Attendance Clerks, Attendance Liaisons, Parent Liaisons, Comm Outreach Workers, After School Program Coor, Learning Support Consultants, Site Nutrition Coor, Wellness Coord, Student Advisors, Family Support Spec.) S Series are Special Ed. Instructional Aides (Severe Impairments). T series are School Patrol. Most of the paraprofessionals I have worked with in my classroom (MS/HS) are S Series...meaning they work either 1 on 1 with a Soar Student (emotional issues and can be violent) or 1 para for a group of Special Day Class students (severe learning impairment) or Resource students (mild/moderate impairments). RASOTA employs multiple Artists in Residence that report to a Credentialed Teacher of record.
You hit it on the head regarding County Offices of Education. Why do we voters allow SFUSD & the Board of Education to bypass an entire system of accountability, support and collective knowledge from other educational professionals like a county office of education? They provide audits, they are a conduit to the state office regarding funding and legislation, they oversee multiple Superintendents and multiple Districts, they offer Professional Development that is useful, they are the checks and balances for our state's educational system. And yes, smaller districts and SFUSD could "adopt" a nearby COE for the purposes I listed above. Voters need to speak up!
The FCMAT report on the SF COE touches on this from a financial standpoint- it reported the issues with the blurry budget lines between the district and county office.
To get more specifics on the classified filled positions (how many paras etc) I download the past 5 years of records from Transparent CA for SFUSD and filtered out the classified positions to see the changes, and they don't reflect the needs as far as I can see- one would think with a new payroll system in place additional payroll and IT staffing would be needed but that has not happened at least as of 2020, which is the most recent data they have submitted. Of course payroll records will only account for filled position but it gives some perspective. Another thing it shows is a factor that could account for the differences by school site regarding number of classified staff- longevity costs. Paras in the district range from a few thousand a year up into the 90k range. A school having to budget for higher paid employees may not be able to afford enough employees to reflect the need. (The only missing info on Transparent CA that would be useful is the school site)
I sure hope you are right. What explains the big expansion in staff while the student population is flat to declining? Maybe we are providing more services. It doesn't seem that way as a parent.
I think the issue here is that classified staff is a very broad classification within SFUSD with multiple salary schedules (from multiple unions) to take into consideration. UESF classified staff wages: An S series Instructional Aid is paid less than $30 an hour and can only work a 5 or 6 hour day, max. An R series Community Relations Specialist (parent liaison, school climate coordinator, site nutrition coordinator, community health outreach coordinator) can make from 30-40/hour, An R series ExCell Coordinator (After School Program) or a Wellness Coordinator can make 52/hour, while an R series Registered Behavioral Tech. makes about $58/hour. These are all non-credentialed support folks. And, some positions are civil service positions like school secretary, attendance clerks, and custodians that are also considered Classified Personnel but belong to SEIU and have very different (higher) salary schedules.
Hey Paul Gardiner, can you look into where the 38 Million dollar Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant from the Governor's Office awarded to SFUSD last year and for next year is being budgeted towards for SY22-23? Noone in SFUSD or the BofE seem to be able to answer the question. I know the funding is discretionary but a portion is supposed to help bring district facilities and equipment up to speed for long-neglected arts education programs. If site staff start asking too many questions about the money, the admin downtown & the BofE won't respond to us.
I don't think they are necessarily patronage positions that have increased at the site level. More like an indicator of the ever growing social-emotional learning needs and on-going training and retraining of new staff each year at almost each site due to increasing turnover. Particular communities of students, families and staff have specific wants and needs that need to be addressed. Each principal is basically a CEO of their own little business (no two schools are treated the same or funded the same in SFUSD...equitable not equal, as we are told in meetings when budgets are in question. The reality is the needs and wants are varied and growing. The school district feels obligated and compelled to provide more services and they want to do it as cheaply as possible. And yes, the money saved goes to special projects, pilot programs and more administrators to oversee those endeavors (and legal expenses and payroll contract nightmares.) Unfortunately, the percent spent on instruction alone, as compared to other districts in the state, is way below average and reinforces the old adage of "you get what you pay for."
Do you mean staff turnover at the sites or District department? Well, the data is captured. SFUSD BofE & HR should have the data & UESF should ask for the data. Exit interviews for outgoing teachers and staff have never occurred within the past 25 years, that I am aware of.
Thanks again for another great breakdown, Paul! Agreeing with H Kelley below that para's can be explained in part by Special Day Classes (SDCs), which are also at Clarendon ES. Also, classified staff may also be paid through PTO/PTA fundraising, which may help explain why Tier 2/3 schools with higher need may not have more personnel on site compared to more "advantaged" schools.
Thank you for this information. I am curious if the data on the amount of Paras per school included all Para’s ( Paras assigned to Special Education students too?) if so, why was the data cross referenced with students who eligible for free lunch ( tier1,2 schools) and/ or the amount of students in the school only. If not, could you provide a part 2 ( breakdown the data for Para’s that support SpEd students too) I am asking because Grattan has SDC classes which would require more paras. Therefore, it is possible that is an explanation for the differences that you have seen in some of the schools. It is also possible that the data will remain similar, which would be helpful to bring to the attention of the district. can you please clarify?
Paras are NOT limited to Special Day Classes or being one-on-one. In high schools they also work to support the Learning Resources teachers, classes, and programs, supporting students who are mainstreamed in general education classes.
For example, a Learning Resources student with mobility issues could be one of the students that an LR para supports.
We should take care not to make the mistake of confusing the structures of SpEd in elementaries with those in middle and high schools.
I think H's question is a legitimate one that would give more context to the subject of this article though; of course paras are not just for SPED, this article discusses exactly that. But, it is helpful to know if a high proportion of allocations of classified staff at a school are due to SPED. For example, at one point, I had a 1:1 ratio of adults to students in an SDC classroom I taught at within SFUSD. Typically, the class would have had maybe one or two, I had eight classified staff members. This would bump up numbers. Another example would be a school like Sutro Elementary, which has no SDC classes compared to Georg Peabody, a school with two, only a few blocks from it serving a very similar population. Although their sizes are similar, one is going to have a higher proportion of classified staff members due to the SDC. Thus, H's point about including information regarding special education classrooms would provide more context.
I didn’t mean to imply that paras are solely Sped or SDC or that it is the same in high school versus elementary. I was asking if the author had calculated Paras from special education altogether because I was uncertain. I gave an example of the SDC for grattan because that school was specifically addressed and I was curious if that was a possible explanation for more paras in that school. But ultimately I was curious and looking for more information.
It looks to me that it would be pretty safe to say that school sites with more classified budget probably have a larger proportion of Sped students that require extra support and provide direct services or a school site has decided to buy more expensive classified services like parent liaisons, attendance liaisons, wellness coordinators, behavior technicians, and family support specialists that work mainly with other adults. See below for hourly rates...
Security staff are T-10 paraprofessionals, not other classified. I wonder if this could help to explain some of the discrepancies.
UESF & SFUSD Employment Classes- A Series are Instructional Aides. R Series are Community Relations Specialists (Attendance Clerks, Attendance Liaisons, Parent Liaisons, Comm Outreach Workers, After School Program Coor, Learning Support Consultants, Site Nutrition Coor, Wellness Coord, Student Advisors, Family Support Spec.) S Series are Special Ed. Instructional Aides (Severe Impairments). T series are School Patrol. Most of the paraprofessionals I have worked with in my classroom (MS/HS) are S Series...meaning they work either 1 on 1 with a Soar Student (emotional issues and can be violent) or 1 para for a group of Special Day Class students (severe learning impairment) or Resource students (mild/moderate impairments). RASOTA employs multiple Artists in Residence that report to a Credentialed Teacher of record.
You hit it on the head regarding County Offices of Education. Why do we voters allow SFUSD & the Board of Education to bypass an entire system of accountability, support and collective knowledge from other educational professionals like a county office of education? They provide audits, they are a conduit to the state office regarding funding and legislation, they oversee multiple Superintendents and multiple Districts, they offer Professional Development that is useful, they are the checks and balances for our state's educational system. And yes, smaller districts and SFUSD could "adopt" a nearby COE for the purposes I listed above. Voters need to speak up!
The FCMAT report on the SF COE touches on this from a financial standpoint- it reported the issues with the blurry budget lines between the district and county office.
To get more specifics on the classified filled positions (how many paras etc) I download the past 5 years of records from Transparent CA for SFUSD and filtered out the classified positions to see the changes, and they don't reflect the needs as far as I can see- one would think with a new payroll system in place additional payroll and IT staffing would be needed but that has not happened at least as of 2020, which is the most recent data they have submitted. Of course payroll records will only account for filled position but it gives some perspective. Another thing it shows is a factor that could account for the differences by school site regarding number of classified staff- longevity costs. Paras in the district range from a few thousand a year up into the 90k range. A school having to budget for higher paid employees may not be able to afford enough employees to reflect the need. (The only missing info on Transparent CA that would be useful is the school site)
My speculation is that it is becoming loaded up with patronage jobs like most of the San Francisco city bureaucracy.
Being a paraprofessional is such hard work at such low pay I seriously doubt anyone would accept it as a "patronage" job.
I sure hope you are right. What explains the big expansion in staff while the student population is flat to declining? Maybe we are providing more services. It doesn't seem that way as a parent.
I think the issue here is that classified staff is a very broad classification within SFUSD with multiple salary schedules (from multiple unions) to take into consideration. UESF classified staff wages: An S series Instructional Aid is paid less than $30 an hour and can only work a 5 or 6 hour day, max. An R series Community Relations Specialist (parent liaison, school climate coordinator, site nutrition coordinator, community health outreach coordinator) can make from 30-40/hour, An R series ExCell Coordinator (After School Program) or a Wellness Coordinator can make 52/hour, while an R series Registered Behavioral Tech. makes about $58/hour. These are all non-credentialed support folks. And, some positions are civil service positions like school secretary, attendance clerks, and custodians that are also considered Classified Personnel but belong to SEIU and have very different (higher) salary schedules.
Hey Paul Gardiner, can you look into where the 38 Million dollar Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant from the Governor's Office awarded to SFUSD last year and for next year is being budgeted towards for SY22-23? Noone in SFUSD or the BofE seem to be able to answer the question. I know the funding is discretionary but a portion is supposed to help bring district facilities and equipment up to speed for long-neglected arts education programs. If site staff start asking too many questions about the money, the admin downtown & the BofE won't respond to us.
I don't think they are necessarily patronage positions that have increased at the site level. More like an indicator of the ever growing social-emotional learning needs and on-going training and retraining of new staff each year at almost each site due to increasing turnover. Particular communities of students, families and staff have specific wants and needs that need to be addressed. Each principal is basically a CEO of their own little business (no two schools are treated the same or funded the same in SFUSD...equitable not equal, as we are told in meetings when budgets are in question. The reality is the needs and wants are varied and growing. The school district feels obligated and compelled to provide more services and they want to do it as cheaply as possible. And yes, the money saved goes to special projects, pilot programs and more administrators to oversee those endeavors (and legal expenses and payroll contract nightmares.) Unfortunately, the percent spent on instruction alone, as compared to other districts in the state, is way below average and reinforces the old adage of "you get what you pay for."
Does anyone have a good series of staff/student over time? that would be worth looking at.
Do you mean staff turnover at the sites or District department? Well, the data is captured. SFUSD BofE & HR should have the data & UESF should ask for the data. Exit interviews for outgoing teachers and staff have never occurred within the past 25 years, that I am aware of.