Sorry, I'm dealing with a slow computer.
Okay.
Okay, here is the motion for this item.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a contract with one of the following vendors, Follett School Solutions Incorporated, Macken Educational Resources, Perma Bound Books, Bound to Stay Bound Books, Barnes and Nobles Booksellers Incorporated and the amount not to exceed $400,000 for new or amended library collections for Arbor Heights Elementary, Genesee Hills Elementary, Thornton Creek Elementary, Hazel Wolf K-8 and Seattle World School in the form of the draft agreement dated April 18, 2016 and presented to the school board with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.
I second the motion.
Can we hear from the curriculum and instruction committee chair?
Certainly this item was brought to the March meeting of CNI and brought and on March 14th was moved forward for consideration of the full board with the amendments discussed.
Thank you.
Eric Caldwell manager of library services so at the time that this bar was brought to introduction we did not have a contract we do now and so the contract has been added to the bar as well as some additional items one thing to note is in the motion we included all the vendors that were being considered at the time but the vendors that are not being considered have not been struck out so the motion should only read permabound because they are the vendor that has been selected through the purchasing process.
Any questions or comments?
In addition in these documents there was a request last time from Director Burke that we clearly enumerate the number of volumes we were talking about and if you look on page it's actually the I don't think we have it actually paginated.
I think it's item 9 but you'll see it under the email from Susan Johnston.
The numbers of volumes are actually indicated there.
So it was part of the request that went out to the vendors when they submitted their bids.
Director Peters.
So then should the recommended motion then read that we authorize the superintendent to execute a contract specifically with permabound books?
Correct.
And is the amount still the same?
It is.
Do we have a more precise amount than 400,000?
We will spend up to 400,000 and it just won't exceed 400,000.
So each of the schools 160,000 for our height, 60,000 for each of the other schools for a total of 400,000 because we are working on the book list we won't know the exact amount we'll try to get as close to 400,000 as we can but it won't exceed 400,000.
It's a typical procedure when we make purchases for libraries we use a do not exceed amount.
And do we need a point of order do we need to vote on this as amended?
Dr. Harris.
I have a question sir.
We have been getting a lot of email traffic about library equity and how does this play into that topic and what are we doing to reach out and address library equity?
So the question, I don't know specifically what emails you've received but I am assuming because it's a big conversation amongst the librarians and we just continued that conversation in our meeting yesterday.
It has to do with collection development at each school and so how do you maintain the collections at schools with direct funding?
Often they're doing that funding indirectly themselves.
So the question is when there is no direct funding for libraries over a course of a period of time, what happens to those collections if they're not, if those funding sources are not equitably distributed?
As a separate, well the way that this is actually impacting that is that we are creating new libraries for these specific cases when we have funding through capital.
So it does address the issues for these schools because we do have a funding source.
So that's how specifically this is being, how this addresses the issue for these schools.
It is not doing anything for the remaining schools because it's not an appropriate, we can't use that capital funding source for those schools.
Is there some kind of a plan or working group to address these issues or at least to communicate with these folks?
Well we've been having conversations about how we would address issues of equity at schools.
Right now the issue is that there is a sum of money that's given to each school through the WSS for pupil allocation that's green money essentially to the schools and the schools are making decisions about how they actually spend that money and those decisions differ from school to school.
So there are different ways that you can attack.
You can attack at the school level and really advocate for more of the funding coming during the budgeting process at the school.
Then there are also avenues that schools have taken in terms of having partnerships with other schools that may not have the same fundraising opportunities and how they can maybe fundraise together so that they can take care of some of the equity issue between schools.
Those are the things that the schools have been looking at on their own.
but there is a larger request on just how we can fund in a consistent way library collections from the district level but that is an issue separate from this one.
Thank you.
Director Burke.
I want to say thanks for adding that content to the bar that is appreciated.
One of the things, if I could ask you to go a little bit further on it, I didn't probably have enough clarity in my original request, but in the context of this equity discussion, possibly in an upcoming Friday memo, if you could include for those schools that were supplementing, not the one that were providing new collection, could you provide best estimate of number of existing titles and approximate age of those collections?
I know some of that you had put in the in your description when you came last, but if we could have that become part of the written record in a Friday memo, that would be great.
Yep, I can do that, absolutely, yeah.
Any more questions, comments?
Now we're gonna address the motion.
I move to amend the motion to only include permabound books.
I second the amendment.
So I call on the vote to amend the motion.
Ms. Ritchie.
Director Pinkham.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Burke aye Director Geary aye Director Peters aye Director Peters aye Director Patu aye This motion has passed as amended unanimously.
I now move to approve the motion as amended.
I second the motion as amended.
Ms. Ritchie.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Burke.
Aye.
Director Geary.
Aye.
Director Harris.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Pinkham.
Aye.
Director Patu.
This motion has passed as amended unanimously.
Okay we are going into our second action item BEX IV award public works contract P5072 bet number 511529 to Mike Wurlach construction incorporated Jane Addams middle school repurposing and seismic improvements phase three.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract P5072 to Mike Warlick Construction Incorporated for the Jane Addams middle school repurposing and seismic improvements phase three in the amounts of $1,114,000 including alternates one, three and four plus Washington state sales tax in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.
I second the motion.
Operation chair.
This item was heard before the operations committee on the 17th of March and was moved forward for consideration.
Thank you.
Yes we are seeking board approval tonight for phase 3 of the Jane Addams middle school project that was funded by the BEX IV capital levy.
This work is primarily for seismic improvements as indicated at Jane Addams middle school it will be doing the West portion of the building, the southwest portion of the building and the next summer will complete the seismic improvements in the eastern portion of the building.
Does the directors have any questions or comments?
I see none.
Ms. Ritchie?
Director Burke?
Director Burke?
The vote aye Director Geary aye Director Harris aye Director Peters aye Director Pinkham aye Director Blanford aye Director Patu aye This motion has passed unanimously
Thank you.
We're now into our number three action item, PTA-3, Award Construction Contract K-5068 to MJ Takisaki Incorporated for upgrades at Lower Hearst Elementary School.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract K5068 with MJ Takasaki incorporated in the amount of $839,393 plus Washington state sales tax for the Laurelhurst Elementary School Upgrades project in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.
Second the motion.
Operations chair.
This item was heard by the operations committee on the 31st and was moved forward for consideration.
And again when we introduced this item we did not have the low bidder.
I believe the board met on April 6th and we opened bids on this project on April 7th.
We did receive eight bids for this project and MJ Takasaki is the low bidder.
The architect has worked with them previously.
We at Seattle Public Schools have not worked with them to the best of my knowledge previously but their references are very positive and Director Geary in a comment that you made I did reach out both to Sherry Cox and to the project manager Mark Amelko to make sure that the administration office area configuration would work for staff there.
So I just want to pass that on to you.
Thank you.
Professor Peters?
I notice there is some under the background information the scope of the work is underlined as well.
Has that changed since introduction?
No we added that for clarification but it hasn't changed since introduction.
That's the scope of the work that was intended to be done Director Peters this summer.
Thank you.
Any more questions, comments?
Ms. Ritchie.
Director Geary.
Director Harris Aye Director Peters Aye Director Pinkham Aye Director Blanford Aye Director Burke Aye Director Patu Aye This motion has passed unanimously
Okay, our last item on the action items, BTA3 and BEX4 award construction contract K5069 to CDK Construction Services Incorporated for seismic upgrades at Salmon Bay School and Decatur School Project.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract K5069 with CDK construction services incorporated in the amount of $1,353,814 plus Washington state sales tax for the Salmon Bay School and Decatur School seismic upgrades project in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.
I second the motion.
Operation chair.
The ops committee heard this on the 31st and moved it forward to the board for consideration.
And director Patu there's been no changes since this was introduced at introduction to this bar.
Are there any questions, comments from any of the directors?
I see none.
Ms. Ritchie.
Director Harris.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Pinkham.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Burke.
Aye.
Director Geary.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
We are now going to our introduction.
2016-17 school year calendar and this is actually discussed.
at the executive committee meeting and we reviewed it and made a motion to move it forward for full board with a recommendation for approval.
Hi, good evening.
Clover Codd, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources.
So this is a pretty straightforward item.
What you have before you is what we negotiated with the Seattle Education Association this past summer and bargained a predictable calendar for obviously their members and for families and for the rest of the district.
So you will see that the first day of school will always be the first Wednesday in September.
We will have a mid winter break that is President's Day and the following four work days.
Spring break will be five days starting the second Monday in April.
It outlines the holidays that we have, how we use our snow days and that we will have three consecutive days for those conferences, parent teacher conferences immediately preceding Thanksgiving Day.
So let me know if you have any questions.
Any more directors have any questions?
Dr. Peters.
Just want to point out when we discussed this in the executive committee it was pointed out that the midwinter break will be in place for the next two years is that correct?
Well it will be in place until this gets renegotiated so there's been some discussion about what might need to happen in order to incorporate the new 24 hour 24 credit and now I'm in Michael Tolley's area but until anything is renegotiated this would be our calendar.
Okay and so this is just for the following year.
So what you're bringing to us is just for 2016-17?
What I'm bringing to you is for 2016-17 what was bargained in the contract would be stay in the contract until it gets renegotiated.
What I'm trying to do is highlight for parents that the mid-winter break is back to a full week because that's been changing.
You could highlight that, yes.
So that's definite for the next year and possibly the following year but we don't know yet.
Most likely but we don't know what will happen with the 24 credit task force and those recommendations.
I know there's some families who like to plan ahead and they'd like to know that information so thank you.
Any more questions, comment from directors?
Okay, I see none.
We're gonna move on to our second item.
University of Washington Experimental Education Unit, EEU, Interagency Agreements to Provide Educational Services to Special Education Students Ages 3-6.
And CNI Committee Chair, for your recommendation.
This was discussed at the April 4th CNI committee meeting at which we reviewed the item and moved it forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.
Thank you.
Good evening board director Patu and the rest of the board directors.
Wyatt Jesse, executive director for special education.
Today I'm here for introduction of three specific interagency agreements between the University of Washington's experimental education unit commonly called the EEU.
with Seattle Public Schools.
Those specific interagency agreements cover three types of services.
One is for preschool services.
So we would be providing preschool services for up to 48 preschool students and that cost would come in at or to not exceed $820,276.
We're also looking to continue with services at the kindergarten level as much discussed.
Those would be up to 18 students, mostly on the continuous special education towards more intensive needs.
and that cost is coming in to not exceed $314,451.83.
Then the last one is around the technical support and training.
That too is a service that the folks at the EEU have provided us in the past but that was mostly targeted to the preschool services and now there is actually a reflection of going in and helping us here in the district work with up to three of our elementary or K8 schools at the primary level.
So it is not a classroom that they would be focused on but it is actually a part of how do you work as an entire staff.
at the school level to start to work with kids specific integrating the research that is performed by the University of Washington in our classrooms and at these particular school sites and we hope to expand that as well.
As well as our staff being able to go in and see the work going being performed on site at the EU itself.
And so that would come to 70,383 dollars not to exceed that.
My last comment is that this has been a lot of work in progress.
I would most certainly want to clear up that again our intent was never to stop services for the kindergarten level but it was actually to have to call it out that we couldn't continue to contract with them for kindergarten services if we did not clean up some of the issues around compliance and so this different agreement, not longer the contract but actually it's an inter-district agreement to reflect the relationship between two public organizations and we received a tremendous amount of assistance from OSPI as well.
that's why there's some track changes in this document that we just recently received a little over a week ago.
Some folks obviously processing it and so that's why we make some posts.
We don't anticipate really any more revisions outside of maybe some just particular grammical or something to clarify something if needed.
Director Harris and then Director Carey.
Can you respond, I don't know if you're in the room, excuse me.
Mary Griffin.
hugely respected parent advocate addressed the concept of the third contract that was going to three schools and she understood it to be five schools during the negotiations.
Did you address any of that?
No, we didn't that was never in negotiations that we talked about I mean we talked about a lot of things I mean this is This is days and days, weeks.
This has taken up a good chunk of my time, my staff's time, as well as at the EU.
A lot of things have been better about, but as we started finding, getting things on paper, there was never five.
They actually started off with, how about a couple?
We got ourselves to three.
The deal is to expand it.
We want to have one, in every region but they got to also look at their own capacity as I was just talking to them last week, hey we want the best, most highly qualified person.
That's actually why we increased it by another $10,000 because they said hey I think we can get something of higher quality consultation services here through the UW let's do that so that's why we did some amending around the monies towards the technical assistance.
Sure it would be great to have five, it would be great to have a lot of things but this is public education we got to work on getting these services to these students and getting that consultation which we have a lot of other things that we do with them as well outside that they do provide us with some training as well.
Thank you.
Dr. Gary.
That was in large part what I was going to allow you to respond to and to clarify perhaps for the people who are watching it would ultimately be our goal to try and offer that level of service in the different areas and that there is nothing ultimately that would preclude us from offering like programs without necessarily having to go through the process of the technical assistance contract.
Wouldn't that be correct?
When you say that level,
Well the inclusion kindergarten that we want to see we have contracted with the EEU to help us establish those in three programs up to three programs once we have established those we can duplicate that as we are able to fund it on our own wouldn't that be correct?
So I think that is a great point I think it provides me with an opportunity to clarify something that inclusion is not a service inclusion is the setting right and so I think that has been something that has come along this way is to say as if Seattle Public Schools doesn't do inclusion.
I think a lot of the staff here in Seattle Public Schools have taken issue some of the things that have been talked about that is that's what I do every day.
That's what we're working hard together.
I think it is the research that they do perform coupled with research across the nation that we do want to grab from.
We are fortunate to have them here to work so closely in step two helping to move that and expand some of the things that are on the forefront but it is to get it out to every school to expand those things.
We are always looking to grow, we are always having that growth mindset to say how can we do it better and that is the beauty of the field of education is hey what we did three years ago it could be something radically different with tremendous more impact that we want for our students.
now and so that's what this relationship can do.
We'll always need a degree but we want to be independent as possible implementing things as the best we can across all schools here in Seattle.
Thank you.
Dr. Burke.
I just want to thank you, your team, my colleagues, the community, everybody that helped put this together and then my ask is to be very cautious and deliberate and keep the eyes on the prize.
We have a habit of moving from one thing to the next and so as this expands from what it is to what it could be keep the quality mindset and don't compromise on that.
Thank you.
I think we share that as well and so does the EU and that's actually been part of this last bit of negotiations which is very interesting quality over quantity.
Any more comments, questions?
I also want to say thank you for all the hard work in terms of bringing the two of you together to really negotiate and we're finally getting somewhere and hopefully that we learned a lot from their success.
Dr. Nyland was there to help bridge some of those things, ask some good questions.
I hope to get to where we're at today for sure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Our next introduction item is resolution 2015, 16-15, resolution to request state adoption of an alternative somatic assessments framework and to reaffirm student opt-out rights.
Okay.
I would note the superintendent has requested to delay the introduction of this item to the May 4th board meeting.
Would a director like to make a motion to delay?
So moved.
Do directors have any questions about the request to delay this item?
Oh did someone second it?
I'll second it.
Okay, do we have any questions about the request to delay this item?
I have a question.
I'm just wondering if the superintendent has anything else he would like to share with us about his request?
So you have in front of you the board additional comments so I find myself in an awkward position in that I know that this is near and dear to the heart of many of you and your constituents and I I was okay with the resolution until further communication from OSPI in the middle of last week and then I apologize I was out and then I was sick and so I haven't been keeping up with this with this item.
As I said earlier I think that this item puts us at risk for a variety of reasons.
OSPI is under directive from the U.S.
Department of Education similar to what we are.
I've now tracked down a lot of these documents today and they're told that they have to make a plan to increase participation rates.
including enforcement so they've asked us to build a plan including enforcement and to report that back to OSPI.
So I find myself in the difficult situation where I get a communication from OSPI last week telling me that I must come up with a plan in order to comply with state and federal law.
this resolution doesn't directly contradict that but it certainly implies that we're encouraging parents to opt out and then as carrying out my duties under the state law and the federal law I have a communication going out to schools tomorrow the 40 schools telling them you need to build a plan in order to improve your participation rates.
So I kind of like to say the same thing in different places to even different groups of people and I find myself torn on this issue.
Washington State is under greater scrutiny due to our loss of the NCLB, No Child Left Behind waiver earlier.
Can't read and talk at the same time, sorry.
There we go.
I don't know exactly what went on at OSPI but I think that what went on at OSPI with regard to special education was OSPI was given the choice.
They could either be under sanction themselves or they could put us under sanction for special education.
We now have, we're no longer on the watch list, we were for a year.
We are now starting to earn some of that three million dollars back thanks to a lot of good work by the special ed department.
We continue to have the honor of meeting with federal representatives from Washington DC on a quarterly basis.
They're not.
I don't know that they're not from the necessarily the friendly part of they are friends and they are friendly but they come kind of from the compliance division.
And so they've been holding us under scrutiny and we know they read the paper.
So when they come to town they ask about things like our participation rate.
which they did not on our most recent meeting but last year when we were finishing up the assessment piece.
So my concern is about the appearances and specifically about the opt out piece and I think that in addition to that The federal piece points out that we're required to have the assessments in place for a host of reasons.
Title I, Title II, Title III, Title VI, IDEA and a variety of other ones where we agree that we're going to have a system in place and as her memo points out cites all of the laws and talks about the importance of equity for our students that we know where all of our students are and we have benchmarks for them.
And then internally our strategic plan, our smart goals, our CSIPs, our closing the opportunity gaps all rely on state testing.
So this is kind of at the center of much of our equity work.
I mentioned earlier that we had fewer achievement award winners this year I think because some of them did not have the 95 percent participation rate.
TOPS when I was there they talked about being an option school having opt outs and then having to explain to parents who came to see them this year why their test scores had gone down.
and then as I said last year I feel strongly that I signed on and said I would follow the laws of the state of Washington and the federal government.
Some of you have had time to respond to the email that I sent earlier in the week and you raised some questions about well could OSPI change the assessment suggesting that the cause for the opt out was the smarter balance.
I think certainly the computerized portion of the smarter balance is huge.
I think that's what causes schools to tie up huge chunks of time like an entire I mean every day from spring break through June and I get that.
that's not, I mean not every kid is being tested every day during that time but when you only have so many computers and you can only put so many kids in front of the computers you tie up a lot of time and it creates a scheduling nightmare.
The SBA itself other than the fact it's within our control to say that we'll give it by paper and pencil which would make it essentially the same as the WASL about the same length of time paper and pencil same return time way too slow.
So we haven't seen the promises delivered in terms of quicker turnaround time.
That said I'm certainly okay with the earlier part of the resolution which calls for OSPI to look for better alternatives.
On the back side or a staple to my comments is a response from OSPI from a few weeks ago when I inquired at the beginning of this process what was feasible from their standpoint.
And they point out that it will take them some time.
They're in the process of complying with the federal requirements now.
they're putting together the committee.
They're starting to build I guess two things.
One is a plan for how they're going to increase participation rate and the other one is going forward how are they going to stand up an assessment system that will identify all students all schools in the state and hold them to the same yardstick and identify low performing schools and so my memo doesn't get into that the memo on the backside or attached to that does saying that so let's see if I can tell in my dim dark past I was interim director for the commission on student learning and made some of the first testimony to the legislature with regard to what it would cost to create the WASL.
I believe it was $11 million at that time.
I think recent contracts have been in like 80 million but for multiple years.
And it takes quite a bit of time.
At that time it was about $50,000 per item and half of the items would be thrown out because they didn't pass muster.
and then as is the case now, there were questions about equity.
Does it pass muster with different ethnicities?
Does it pass muster with special education?
So there would need to be a lot of work that went into a replacement.
Randy Dorn I guess maybe legally he could but pragmatically he can't say today I've seen the light I don't want to use smarter balance next year we're going to use X because X would have to be vetted I guess if it had been vetted in another state that might work but probably not because we would look askance at that.
And then as mentioned if we were to ask for our waiver from that I mean we can influence the state to pick a different test and for 11th grade that makes all kinds of sense.
That's a particularly problem area.
but then the state would have to come up with the new test they would have to show that it's I don't know whether it's technically valid or reliable but they would have to do peer review and they would have to show that the test works reasonably well and then if they wanted to let a district like Seattle use an alternate assessment they would have to show that they could statistically tie those two tests together with a certain degree of reliability so that they could include us in the overall benchmark.
I think all of those items are legitimate items.
I think they're spoken to in the top part of the resolution and I think that they we would have I don't know about ample opportunity we would have opportunity over the next several months and years to influence that process.
And then finally I point out that if we're going to do something that might jeopardize our funding I think that as we did last year we had a work study session on it.
We tried to get all of the perspectives from the board members.
We tried to find something that had consensus if not unanimity and spent the time to get the staff input.
So my recommendation and I know that time is difficult.
We keep trying to squeeze more work sessions in.
but my preference would be to postpone this give the full board an opportunity to discuss it in a work study session give staff an opportunity to understand and respond to questions a little bit better and then barring that if you were to go forward with it tonight and I don't have an amendment not wasn't quite my role to write an amendment taking the opt out out of the title and removing the last bullet would maybe serve the same purpose and if there's urgency behind the request respond to that.
and as I said earlier, I'll be going out in the next day or so with a memo to schools saying, here's the things that you need to be working on in order to comply with the OSPI directive to us.
So thank you.
Okay, does any directors have any questions on this item?
Director Burke.
As a lead author on this I feel a need to try to address some of the points that Dr. Nyland brought up.
I don't want to even attempt to diminish any of them because they are absolutely critical.
You know when we talk about assessments and we talk about how they fit into the framework of accountability for our district and for our state and how that links to funding I don't want to diminish that in any way shape or form.
The challenge is that we have an opportunity as I see it and it's a time-boxed opportunity.
These processes, these conversations, these rules around ESSA and how it's being implemented at the federal level, at the state level and what will trickle down to districts is happening as we speak.
Seattle is an active participant in that my understanding is we have two people and including Steven Nielsen that's no we have two people okay we have two people serving on a state level committee that's helping develop that relationship and so my urgency behind this and my ask for my colleagues in as you consider it is that we need to come up with a common vision that we can share with our superintendent and our staff so that they can go out and do their work and try to resolve some of the uncertainty around assessments because we have a lot of uncertainty around assessments and it brings I'm going to get a little wonky here there's a there's a problem solving methodology called TRIZ and it's based on the idea of identifying problems as contradictions.
And so that's what we have here is we have a contradiction.
We have families that want to opt out of an assessment because either rightfully or not they believe that it's not valid or they don't trust it or they don't believe it adds value to their students' education.
So I'm not going to pass judgment on that.
These are the messages that I hear.
And this is the reason why people say this is not of value to my child.
The flip side of that is it's tied to our purse strings.
And so we look at that as a contradiction.
We say how do we solve that problem?
and we have to build trust in an assessment tool that adds value and that's the underlying basis for what I was hoping to do, the conversation that I was hoping to create around this and also to help clarify, What are our roles here in assessment?
We look at summative assessments and we look at formative assessments and there's this continuum between them.
And we talk about what the different assessments are used for.
Title I, state accountability, levy, school report cards, the list goes on and on and on.
But ultimately, we want to make sure that our teachers and students and families have assessment tools that are helping with the learning process and a lot of our summative tools help us as leaders improve our systems but they don't necessarily help our teachers they don't necessarily help our students but they're important and so my point that I'm hoping to make is that these are important tools even if they don't add value in the classroom.
But whether the Smarter Balanced is the right tool is the discussion that I would like for us to have as a board.
Is there a better tool?
Is there a more nimble tool that checks all those same boxes and lets us reclaim that educational time so that we can use it for instruction, so that we can use it for assessments that have a turnaround time of five minutes or an hour or a day and not four months?
So that's the intent behind this and my feeling in crafting it was and working with colleagues and staff and feedback from the community as well was that by not including some reference to opt out language we're not acknowledging the concern that families have.
I put that out in saying that I don't feel that the opt out language is open to ideas and feedback and welcome that but I just ask my colleagues to think about how the optics of this and how we're trying to highlight we hear your problem We're trying to work a solution that will give you an assessment framework that you want to take because it's our responsibility to provide that for our district and for the state.
Dr. Peters.
Point of order.
I believe that the motion that's on the floor is whether or not we will consider the superintendent's request that we move this item to a later topic or later agenda and so to the extent that we are we're moving into the territory where we're actually discussing the merits of the opt out or not opt out.
We're actually not paying attention to the motion that's on the floor and so I would encourage us to stay specific to the motion that's on the floor which is whether or not we are going to pay attention to the superintendent's recommendation to us.
I think we can have a rich discussion on this.
The item that's on the floor right now is whether or not we are going to agree to the superintendent's request.
Thank you for reminding us.
Director Peters.
Well it's my intention to address the request for a delay but I'm not sure how we can do that without addressing the value of the entire concept, the entire resolution.
So I will try and keep it as focused as possible on the request.
I would like to encourage us not to delay it but to move it forward in some shape or another because this is a timely document.
We are right in the waiting deep into testing season.
and now is the time for us to make a statement whatever it is about testing and to send the message to our school communities, our teachers, our students, our test administrators, our principals about what our position is and to show them that we are hearing the SOS's that they have been sending us since last year about the problems associated with this test.
So that is why I believe that a delay is not in the best interest of our district.
However, I am also mindful of the issues that Dr. Nyland put forth and so I would like us to seek some sort of understanding so that we are not putting anybody in a difficult or compromised situation.
I would like to point out that there are two parts to this resolution.
One of them deals specifically with the test itself, the current mandated test which is a smarter balance assessment and what we are doing as a co-author and co-sponsor of this resolution, what we are doing is we are using the legal channels that are currently given to us and that includes the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind which is now ESSA which allows us to make a request of our state our state bodies whether it's OSPI or the state legislature and or the school board of education and ask them to reconsider the test that was currently being prescribed and to replace it with something else.
This is a request, it is a request all right and so it is not something that would happen immediately by some measures that's unfortunate.
The soon as it would happen would be next year.
So it is a legal request.
The second part of it is simply reiterating a fact and a law and that is the fact and the law that families have a right to opt their children out of these tests.
That's all it does is reiterate that point.
So I just wanted to make that clear.
As far as some of the other points that were put forth by Dr. Nyland, again I am sympathetic to the situation because we are told unprecedented opt out movement that started last year whether any states, any districts have had funding withheld as a result of opt outs and to the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
All right?
So I know we hear that it might but it has not happened.
I am not saying I want to gamble, I am just saying that let's be mindful of what actually you know what are words, what are actions.
I want to go over a number of different points here.
The letter from OSPI to the superintendent includes this paragraph and what's very interesting about this paragraph is it tells us what we need to do as a district to address the fact that we had some low participation rates in the smarter balance assessment last year.
and I would argue that our resolution does exactly what OSPI asks us to do.
Here is what it says, districts and schools that fall below the 95 percent assessment participation rate in one or more of the state administered English language or mathematics assessments are required to address the low participation rates as part of their district and or school improvement plan.
The plan must address the causes of the low participation rate and the actions the district and or schools will take in response to the low participation rate.
And there is a few more paragraphs after that.
But I would posit that the cause of the low participation rate is the test itself.
nationwide we had unprecedented number of students opting out of the PARC test which is the East Coast version of the Smarter Balanced and the Smarter Balanced test here over on the West Coast.
What is the one variable?
The test itself.
and so that is exactly what we are trying to address in this resolution.
We are not saying no testing at all, we are saying the test needs to be something that is reasonable, fair, something that will give us results back soon and then I would go back to the federal law on this which requires the test to be fair, valid and reliable.
The Smarter Balanced Test has never been proven to be reliable and valid.
I asked for that information multiple times last year and never got it.
In fact the consortium said itself it didn't have that proof at the time.
It didn't have that proof until it gave the test and so last year arguably students were guinea pigs.
To the best of my knowledge it has not been proven to be reliable and valid and so you could argue that the test itself is not following the federal mandate.
but short of going there what we are doing instead and I really appreciate Director Burke's work on this.
We are trying to find within the structure of the law a way to switch to a test that will provide the information we need that will have a value to our families and our teachers and our schools so that no one will feel compelled to opt out and I honestly believe that is what would happen.
and to address Dr. Nyland's question about finding an alternative assessment that has been vetted, we are thinking of the ITBS, the Iowa Test of Basic Standards?
Assessment, okay.
So there are existing tests that have been used elsewhere in the nation for many years that have proven to be reliable, relatively fast, that's what we are talking about.
Now What we had heard about this Smarter Balanced test and what makes it different is that it does take up an enormous amount of time and resources and yes it is to some extent because of the technology.
This is the first time a test has been entirely administered on computer.
but that also brings up quite a number of equity problems and possible discrimination issues because it requires keyboarding skills of students as young as eight years old.
We as a district have not taught all our students to use computers and even if we did not all our students have access to computers at home.
So there is a basic equity problem with that.
There is also some really practical issues.
You have to have multiple windows open in order to do some of this test.
and if you have a small screen it's very hard to have multiple windows open.
We do not have uniform equipment throughout the district.
Our students are not all taking the test on the same kind of equipment.
So there is a lack of uniformity to that and arguably it's discriminatory.
So just as an example of what sort of problems people have had with the test, we received last year after the testing season was over a letter from a school test administrator, an SOS is what I call it and I will just read you an excerpt from it.
To recap our school spent four months, all of our technological resources and hundreds of hours on an assessment that tells us nothing.
What it does tell us is unreliable given breakdowns in the testing platform, computer capacity and wireless signal.
Please reconsider whether this assessment is a good use of our already limited resources.
Now just to add another part.
The test itself had bugs.
Some testing items asked children to highlight words in the passage that were synonyms for another word.
Only the right answers were able to be highlighted, something students quickly discovered and used to their advantage throughout the test.
On a few occasions a child was completely locked out of the test.
The test froze and no amount of logging back in worked.
These incidences have been reported to the testing company but that doesn't eliminate the negative impact they had on a child's ability to demonstrate mastery in reading, writing or math.
Anyway it was a long letter.
Teachers who administered the test lost a full six hours of instructional time and that doesn't include the time they spent on the practice assessments.
So this is a cumbersome test and perhaps some of these glitches have been worked out for the second year so we are in our second year of this but these were very serious issues that were brought to our attention.
So I will come to a conclusion.
I just want to make sure I cover all the points.
You know as far as what Randy Dorn is likely to do the fact of the matter is we probably will not be addressing our request to Randy Dorn since he is not going to be the state superintendent past this year.
We will be addressing our resolution to whoever is the next state superintendent and this gives us a perfect opportunity to say okay new leadership, let's look at some new ways to bring accountability to our schools that make sense I think I've covered, the final thing I'll say is you know the smarter balance test and all of its cost to us in terms of resources and time is arguably another unfunded or underfunded mandate that we've been given from the state, from OSPI, from our state legislators.
and so we are put in a terrible position where we are given a cumbersome thing to implement but we are not given the resources to do it.
I maintain it is really depriving us of important instructional time and parents have recognized and students have recognized that it does not have significant value to them and that is why they have been opting out and if we change this test we will see the opt-outs go down and I believe we need to move forward with this now.
Thank you.
I'm gonna call a point of order and I pulled out my handy dandy Robert's rules of order and it says under point of order it says which ask the chairperson for a ruling and enforcement of the rules when a member thinks the rules were broken which needs not be seconded.
I think the majority of the conversation that we've had since I made the motion to consider the superintendent's request has not been on the subject of the motion, has been on the subject of the opt-out movement and the resolution.
I don't believe that that is the substance of what we are talking about and that's not the substance of the motion that I made.
And so my hope is rather than continuing this conversation, we vote up or down on the motion that was made.
and as a point of order this asks the chairperson for a ruling in enforcement of the rules if I believe that those rules were broken and I believe that they have been.
Madam Chair.
Dr. Harris.
Point of personal privilege and a second point of order.
Might our general counsel come speak to this because I've got specific questions on this point of order.
Good evening, Noel Treat, General Counsel.
May I address those questions?
Yes, go ahead.
Thank you.
Mr. Treat, thanks very much.
I spent years of my life playing parliamentary procedure games with some of the meanest people in this country.
How is it that we can address a request not an official motion without addressing the basis and context of that motion.
Well you do have an official motion before you which was the motion to move this to a later agenda and now of course you have a properly requested point of order which is the appropriate procedure to go through when a member believes that the rules of debate aren't being followed and so now really it is up to the chair and the body to decide if if generalized comments and debate on the more the merits of the proposal relate enough to the motion to delay or not delay to warrant continued conversation along that line.
So it's really up to the chair at this point to decide does discussion and commentary about both the merits of assessment and opt out, do those relate enough to the question of do we delay or not delay to allow that to be part of the discussion leading up to the vote on the motion that is on the table?
Could I draw an analogy or a question on that?
Wouldn't this be very much like an amendment to a motion to where you need to discuss the meat of the matter?
Right and certainly to the extent that the directors are tying the meat of the matter as you put it to the question of whether delay or not that in my view would be appropriate grounds for conversation at this point in the meeting.
If it were completely unrelated and if the chair decided no that's not related to the question of delay then it wouldn't be appropriate comment at this point.
Thank you.
Now the reason why I actually allowed the board directors to actually to for questioning and also commenting mainly for the fact because we are voting on the motion to delay this item and I feel it's only fair that we allow the people that actually have actually the directors that actually have worked on this for a long period of time to actually to give their comment in terms of why they thought it would not be delayed.
Right and the chair has considerable discretion into how to rule on a point of order so I think unless you have a further question for me it sounds like the chair has given direction as to how she wants to proceed but again just remember you do have a motion on the table that you do need to get to and vote on.
We are going to go to the motion right now.
No you have questions still madam.
Go ahead Director Geary.
Really staying quite on point.
Seems to me that in terms of we are looking at whether to delay, what I don't know is what I am trying to weigh in my mind, to put it that way, is can the opt-out issue be resolved very quickly with an amendment between now and action?
And I am hearing from Superintendent Nyland that in many ways it could if we look at how we are going to advise our parents and how we are going to label this.
So that is one piece that would weigh into not delaying it and spending time just coming up with something that we could all stand by and gives clarity without looking too much like we're unnecessarily putting Superintendent Nyland and our district in the line of fire.
The other piece I'm weighing is the idea that we will ultimately need to do work sessions and come to some type of concession.
But I don't know if that's going to ever be in the context of this motion.
That's going to be in the context of the conversation that this motion raises.
And that is a conversation that is better started sooner than later.
And so again, kind of weighs in favor of not delaying it.
because we are going to have this conversation at some point.
But I do want to, the only thing I can see that I don't think we can resolve that would lead us to necessarily have to delay it now is a trust issue in terms of being respectful for the fact that Superintendent Nyland has been away for a while.
and I don't think was engaged in this conversation as we let up as much as perhaps would have made us all comfortable as to where we stand right now in terms of his comfort level, the trust issue that we are trying to maintain.
So the question being like if we were to delay this and I don't know who can answer it, if we were to delay it just to get one more section and introduce it because I know it is so complicated in terms of all the committees something has to go through.
When would the next time Could it come into introduction to respect all the concerns on the table?
Would it be so far off, given the fact that we are going to be working with the next superintendent next January, that it would be, you know, would it be so far off that it would be impractical to delay it now and that we would end up outside of the school year?
and not having the conversations this school year, because that may be too far.
But what is the real delay that we're asking?
I don't understand it, so I can't vote on it.
I think you should clarify that when you say superintendent you mean the superintendent of public instruction.
Touché.
Oh yes, the superintendent.
Well we were talking about the fact that we will be negotiating those bigger changes, yes, with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Thank you.
So that's the question, that's the one piece that I am trying to analyze that I don't know.
Is it delay now, we will be back here in a few weeks and that gives us all some comfort time and we are still in testing or is it next year?
Can anybody answer this for me?
Superintendent Nyland.
I'll take a stab at it.
I don't think I can answer it because that's up to the board.
My intent was barring the ever challenging issue of finding time for us to meet that we would find time to meet and do some of the wordsmithing around the resolution and bring it back at the May meeting.
I guess what I'm hearing you say is can we introduce it now and have a meeting between now and May and make those changes kind of introduce it now and make the changes between now and May and then act on it in May and I suppose that would be a possibility as well Dr. Harris I have some questions
I to Superintendent Nyland you talked about sending out a letter to our schools probably tomorrow addressing the request how to address the SBAC opt out rate.
May I ask whether or not this year's letter is going to threaten the teaching credentials of any teacher that discusses opt out as has been reported in the past.
Whether reported accurately or honestly I don't know but that matters to me.
Good afternoon members of the board Stephen Nielsen deputy superintendent the letter does not mention anything about teacher credentials or any threats as mentioned.
Can you tell us what the letter does mention?
I'll have to go get it and I will tell you but I don't have it in my head.
Can you send that round to us?
I don't want to micromanage or wordsmith it but I'd like to get a sense of what our direction is because the devil really is in the details on how we proceed.
It is a civil right of parents to opt their children out of tests.
And I want to be incredibly respectful of that.
On the other hand, I don't want to be knee jerk, I want to give them a sense of comfort that A, we hear them, B, we get it, and C, we're working on a plan.
And I don't know why we couldn't, to segue off of what you just said, introduce this now as an introduction item have a work session but maybe a bigger picture work session where some of the national experts on the opt out movement come to the table.
I'm thinking of two or three other folks like like Wayne Owl and some folks that that we haven't heard from in a formal setting so that they can educate us of what our options are.
Right now I'm extraordinarily uncomfortable and feeling pushed that if we don't address this really elegantly then we're sending a message that we disrespect Superintendent Nyland and his request and that we're being naive about the potential to lose millions of dollars and I appreciate from some pretty thoughtful conversations with folks sitting at the wall there that that is a fear that is held by many.
I don't ever want to be put into a brinksmanship position with someone's civil rights and funding our schools.
I don't have an answer but I like the idea of introducing it because just introducing it sends to me a powerful message to our communities that it's on our scope, it's on our radars and then doing some really thoughtful big picture work but not just internal work, invite other people to the table.
Dr. Geary.
So if we introduce it, can we not have it become an action item right away?
Can we put this space there?
Oh, okay.
Anymore comments?
Just speaking to the suggestions that have come forth, it seems like these are the sorts of things we could do.
We could do an intro tonight, not have an actual action date on it and allow time in between to do either an amendment that addresses the concerns the superintendents conveying or have a work session to discuss as if we think it merits that degree of scrutiny.
I mean this is a big topic.
so we could certainly spend a lot of time on it in a work session but we also are pretty booked with our work session so if we think an amendment would be the more efficient way to address the one piece of this that the superintendent is highlighting then maybe that would be the way to go.
Dr. Blanford?
So I made my motion based on a request by the superintendent so I would look to the superintendent to based on the conversations that have been had so far for guidance as to whether I should continue with my motion or withdraw it.
I might be back to the parliamentary procedure.
I guess what we're doing is we are amending something.
I'm not sure what we're amending.
We're amending at least the idea that this might or might not come back for final action at our first May meeting.
So we're saying that we're going to do something between now and Thank you.
We're gonna do something between now and the time we bring this back.
We're either going to meet in one of our committees and come up with an amendment that we think will build greater consensus or we're going to schedule a work session where we could have that conversation as an entire board and I guess with that caveat, which is not appropriate according to Robert's Rules of Order at all, I would be willing to withdraw my request.
Can I before your address actually as chair of the board I really tear between what the superintendent has requested and what the two directors who actually have originally have come up with this this amendment but I want to say that you know giving thoughts to what the superintendent have actually had said in terms of losing funds that's also a very kind of a thing to really think about.
Right now, we don't have enough funds as it is, and having lose funds from the state actually would be devastating to this district.
And then the other thought is, we have two board directors who actually believe very hardly in terms of what they had actually came up with and they spent a lot of time and listening to the community and parents for these last couple months has really been something that we also hear them loud and clear and just being able to look at what is the right or the wrong thing to do but I realized that we actually have to within our heart makes the right decision in terms of how do we move this forward and I really do want to take the direction of Director Harris and Gary in terms of can we actually introduce this today and be able to hopefully to come together and do a work session where everyone actually can come in and be able to, for all of us to come together and decide exactly what is the best thing for this district and how do we actually put this forward considering that there's so much interest out there in the community in terms of really looking at this test and how much teaching time is actually wasted on behalf of our kids.
so we are going to hopefully to see where we're at with this and our next, oh, Director Pinkham.
Yeah and when I hear the talk about this as far as yes it could possibly cost us money but it sounds like right now these assessments are costing us money.
So it's kind of like catch 22, if we keep on doing it we're gonna lose teaching time, we're gonna lose this kind of time, we're gonna lose resources, it costs us money.
and for us then to continue doing this to get money it seems like right now we're at a zero sum game almost or are we still losing money doing these types of assessments and are we afraid oh if we do this we get three million but it costs us four million to do it.
So if we don't do it, we don't get the three million nor do we lose the four million in a sense.
So I think that's something we need to really look at as well.
How much is this costing us in staff time?
What are we losing as far as teaching time that again cost financially for us to pay teachers to do that but also cost the students losing instruction time.
So that's in the comments that I've been kind of seeing and appearances, yes appearances are a big issue but we get that feedback from the students and staff how we appear to them and now we're thinking about how do we appear to the superintendent.
But if we can stand you know affirmative to what we, our students' families are asking for I think that sends a proper message.
Dr. Platford?
I think it's incumbent to make this statement that the last several comments that I've heard make it sound as though there is consensus in the teaching community or in the community at large around the idea of testing or not testing and opting out or not opting out.
and I don't believe that there is that level of consensus.
I would challenge anyone to show me data or a poll or something of our community that clearly states the amount of consensus that there is.
It seems like we are having this debate in spite of the fact that I was encouraging us again and again to stay focused on the issue at hand.
So I will share that I believe that there is several organizations both nationally and in this community that feel very strongly that this is wrong headed and particularly the fact that there's a potential for us to lose substantial funding would not advise us to make this decision.
And so I believe that that's something that needs to be considered in this mix.
I think the danger that we as board members frequently face is that when we listen to people who have very strong opinions on an issue and then extrapolate that out to be all of the people in our community that have that same opinion that we have the risk of making policies that get us into trouble with institutions and also build a sense of distrust amongst members of our community and so I am not 100% sure where we are with regard to the motion that I made with the superintendent I believe I think we are at a point now where we will have some more discussion so that argues that I would withdraw my motion so I will do so.
It's an exciting night when I get to come up twice to talk about Robert's Rules.
Technically once a motion is made and seconded it belongs to the whole body so an individual can't withdraw it so you have two options.
You can either just vote it down if that's the will of the body to not amend the agenda or you could have a motion to withdraw that's seconded and voted on and that could be coupled with a date you want to set action or whatever other specifics you want to set so those are your options.
Thank you for that clarification.
So does that mean that we can go ahead and keep the motion and then just vote on it?
If the will of the body is to not delay introduction and that there's another plan that everyone's comfortable with, you could just vote on the motion and you'd be voting no.
We're not going to amend the agenda to take this off introduction.
And then you could go through those other steps that you want to follow to work with staff and the superintendent leading up to action later.
Or there was the second option.
Or the second option is someone could make a motion to formally withdraw the motion on the table that could get seconded and voted on and then rather than voting down the motion you are just withdrawing it.
Which is what I thought I was doing.
So I will make that second motion.
And then you will need a second on that.
I second the withdrawal of the previous motion.
There you go.
So now we're gonna vote.
Now you can vote on that.
Yes.
Okay.
Now what motion are we voting on?
Motion to withdraw.
Withdraw.
The amendment.
Okay.
Miss Ritchie?
Director Harris?
Aye.
Director Peters?
Aye.
Director Pinkham?
Aye.
Director Blanford?
Aye.
Director Burke?
Aye.
Director Geary aye Director Patu aye The motion to withdraw the motion has passed unanimously.
Yes all right nice work yes.
After talking with Aaron Bennett, the other thing to consider is if you want to formally change the action date, since you're now leaving this item on introduction tonight, you may want to make a motion, if that's the will of the body, to make a motion to set a different action date.
The other alternative might be to the executive committee under your rules has authority over board agendas, so that could be something to come back to the executive committee as well.
So if you're clear that you want to have a different action date, that would be something else you may want to take up by motion tonight.
So what motion are we actually?
So we don't have any motion.
Okay.
Are we done with this one then?
Okay.
So I have a point of clarification with the drafters of this motion prefer to have it set for a time certain and or to amend the motion to put some details or meet into the work session.
Director Burke.
Is it in order for comments on this introduction item I guess?
I don't know.
Is it okay for him?
So now we can discuss it.
Go ahead.
Okay, I have the utmost appreciation for what Director Blanford brought up in the context that we really, we have several different discussions.
We have a discussion on the specific motion, we have a discussion on the delay, we have a discussion on the assessment.
And so I've already spoken some of what I should have put in a future discussion but since that time is now, a couple of other points that motivate this work and I'll come back to what you had asked Director Harris is when I think back to my history now with one kid out of high school, two kids still in high school and I look back at their academic records and I've got ITBS, WASAL, MSP, and now the Smarter Balanced.
And I think to myself, as policy leaders, we're trying to create a system of stability for our students, for our educators, for our taxpayers, and yet we have a target that moves around every three to five to eight years.
And part of that is reality.
But coming back to what would things look like if they were perfect, imagine if we could come up with an assessment framework which fits under existing federal law, which presumably has a slower refresh cycle than state law or local regulations.
if we could come up with an assessment framework under the federal guidelines that would give us 10 years of stability.
And so this resolution is about trying to create that unity on our board.
It's not about trying to stimulate an opt out movement.
It's not about trying to throw the Smarter Balanced test in the toilet.
It's what it's about, sorry, what it's about is to identify what are the best tools existing or new.
Personally I believe there's probably something existing that's adequate for that purpose so that we can focus on the work that we need to do because again I don't believe that the summative framework drives the classroom level work to the same level that the instructional materials, the teacher training, the family engagement, all of the things that we talk about on a day to day basis, I don't believe that our summative assessment has that same level of impact but it does help us identify which schools should we be looking at resources for and it helps us at a higher level.
So that's the, again my request to my colleagues is to try to think about it in that context and understand that this is not a simple ask.
This is a long term request.
This is something that over time we'll identify where are the places where the law gives us flexibility and where are places where we have to follow predetermined guidelines and then a couple of years from now this is all gonna be locked up.
So back to your question.
which is my request.
Do you want it to come back for a time certain and do you want amendments with respect to how those work sessions are designed?
My request is that we are provided feedback from staff and colleagues on recommended amendments and if it appears that we are at an impasse or still conflicted around that language then we look to a work session.
But I prefer to not look to a work session as our first line because that's a time investment and I'd like to focus the work sessions on the body of work that needs to happen not on the language of a resolution.
Dr. Peters.
I appreciate that eloquent framing of the situation.
So to get to the specifics, originally we had this slated for action at the next board meeting which was May 4th.
If we were to bump it to the following one that would be May 18th.
So that would give us practically a month.
Does that strike everybody as a reasonable option?
Dr. Geary.
We will within a month either come up with a resolution we can all agree on or not.
We don't need any more time than that.
So are you going to amend the motion for a time certain for it to be heard?
I believe we should have a time certain rather than leaving it in a nebulous state which would take it way past into the end of the school year when the relevance.
So is your motion May 18 because if it is I'm happy to second it.
I will defer to my colleagues if someone wants to make that motion.
I would be supportive of it but I will in lieu of a motion keep May 4th as the date.
I make a motion for May 18th.
I'll second.
Is there any questions or comments on this before we go on a vote?
I don't see any, so Ms. Ritchie, can we call the vote?
Aye.
Aye.
Director Peters?
Aye Director Pinkham?
Aye Director Blanford?
Aye Director Burke?
Aye Director Patu?
Aye The motion to move this to action on May 18th has been approved or passed unanimously.
I move we adjourn.
No, we're not adjourned yet.
We're not done yet.
No one seconded that.
Nope.
Nobody seconded that.
So, um, I think that was our last.
Okay.
Meeting adjourned.
Thank you all.