School Board Meeting 3/1/2017 Part 3

This is the end of the game, and this is the end.

so that we can resume our meeting and move on to the business action items.

To welcome everyone back.

Okay we will now move on to the action portion of the agenda.

First item is adopting board resolution 2016-17-13 fully funding basic education.

I move that the Seattle School Board adopt resolution 2016-17-13 as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

This item came to the executive committee on February 2nd where it was advanced for consideration.

I think pending any possible changes between then and now it looks like we might have had a change.

I wonder if Deputy Superintendent Nielsen could address that.

Yes thank you.

There is a change to the motion before you and I'm doing this from memory because my computer is not cooperating so I may need some help.

Perhaps Erin could you give me the exact words rather than me misspeaking.

Here we go.

Thank you.

so you will notice that in the fifth whereas we removed the created a manufactured crisis line and just replaced it by saying whereas the state has reduced district school levies by the appropriate amount etc with the idea that we didn't think that we needed the extra language to motivate the legislature to action thank you

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Director Blanford.

I had a suggestion when this was first introduced that we ran it past our lobbyists to be sure that it is advantageous to our agenda.

Was that done?

Yes it has been done.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Okay.

Seeing none Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

Okay.

Item number 2 City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning Seattle Preschool Program Service Agreement 2017-18.

Motion A. I move that the Seattle School Board authorize a superintendent to enter into a service agreement for the 2017-18 school year with the City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning in an amount up to $2,828,000 101 dollars to operate 13 Seattle preschool program classrooms in the form of the draft agreement attached to the action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary steps to implement this action.

The classrooms in this motion include eight existing Seattle preschool program classrooms three existing classrooms at South Shore pre-K to eight and two Head Start classrooms that could convert to full day.

Classrooms included in motion A eight existing classrooms.

Bailey Gatzert Van Asselt original Van Asselt Dearborn Park, Highland Park, Louisa Boren, K-8 STEM, Thornton Creek, Arbor Heights.

Those classrooms that would convert to inclusion classrooms include Bailey Gatzert, original Van Asselt, Louisa Boren K-8 STEM, Thornton Creek.

Five existing classrooms converting to Seattle preschool program, two Head Start locations to be determined 3 South Shore pre-K through 8 and motion B.

I move we are just doing A presently.

Thank you so much.

So do I have your second for motion A?

I second motion A.

Okay I'm just going to clarify so this item has two related motions and motion A is what was just read into the record by director Harris and motion B we'll get to secondly and this came to the executive committee on February 2nd and motion A was advanced for approval and motion B I believe for consideration and what we can do is discuss motion A and we can vote on that and then we can move on to motion B.

They are not mutually exclusive.

So are there any questions or comments about motion A?

Director Harris.

If perhaps Ms. Toner and Ms. Agare could come to the dais.

I've got a few questions.

Good evening Kishel Toner executive director of curriculum and instruction.

And I'm Monica Liang Aguirre with the Department of Education and Early Learning.

It's no secret that I want more inclusion classrooms in the Seattle pre-K program.

At our last board meeting I was hoping we could get a commitment for six inclusion students.

from the listed five reached out to y'all to find out where in the board action report and the contract that would be addressed.

If you could give us a thumbnail as to why it is not in the board action report I'd appreciate it.

Sure so I'll begin by noting that in motion A we did put an asterisk next to the sites that we are looking to convert to inclusion and those were identified from the guidance from our task force which recommended having sites co-located with developmental preschool and they also recommended having sites geographically spread throughout the city.

So that is noted the actual sites.

The next thing to think about are the two programmatic milestones that we talked about at introduction that are accountability measures to again respond to the board's direction and the recommendation from the task force.

So one of them has 7% target for all of Seattle Public Schools SPP classrooms to have 7% of students served with IEPs.

The second thing is that we also put an accountability measure in the programmatic milestones that says any seats at the agency Seattle Public Schools would be enrolling otherwise students with IEPs need to be fully enrolled by the springtime.

So both of those accountability measures are in the programmatic milestones.

We did not actually say you know we'll have 13 students in a classroom that are typically developing or five students with IEPs.

because we wanted to allow for flexibility given in the springtime when families meet in their IEP team.

The team makes a decision about where services are best provided.

And so we wanted to make sure that we had some flexibility for those teams.

At the same time it's potentially possible that in one of the four classrooms we could have six students with IEPs and in another classroom we could have four students with IEP.

Another and that would be in response to the board's guidance to try to serve students as close to their home as possible.

So depending on the need across the city we've left some flexibility intentionally.

We are there's no magic number that's tied to this formula that Cashel just described.

We are just very conscious that we need to maintain some flexibility because you never know who walks into your classrooms and we want to be of the specific needs that children have and the composition of the classroom and making sure that it's a really productive and terrific place for all kids to learn.

And then one thing also that we learn and why we want to keep some flexibility is that for many of these children it's the first time that they're interacting with any formal schooling and there may be students that we think are typically developing and in lo and behold we find out after a few months that they may require some services also.

So we want to just maintain some flexibility in our numbers.

Director Harris.

This question is for general counsel Treat.

Is the school district or the city going to get sued for not offering inclusion programs when programs are side by side and they offer different lengths of time and different schedules and different possibilities.

That doesn't sound to me like grounds for a cause of action.

We can we don't have a mandate to provide exactly equal services across every different classroom.

So I think as long as we're meeting the needs of the students we do have and we're consistent with their IEP's then that would be legally sufficient.

probably for Ms. Aguirre and that is how many special ed kids are we serving in non Seattle public schools SPP programs?

Well we are serving about 6% of our children across SPP are are students with IEPs.

I'm going to look to my SPS colleagues.

Do you can you do the subtraction for me to figure out who's not in SPS because I don't have the number in my head.

So.

We'll work on that.

Yeah we can we can.

Any other questions or comments?

Dr. Burke?

Good evening.

I want to make sure that I understand the 7 percent discussion that we were having.

So just a quick count on the on what's listed in the bar.

There's 13 sites at nominally 20 students each.

Is that correct?

and if we have 7 percent students that's about 1.4 kids per site.

When we have our inclusion classrooms at a 5 to 6 student does that preclude the ability of putting students with IEPs in the other classrooms or how does the 7 percent kind of system wide work in conjunction with these inclusion classrooms.

Just as a starting point and then we'll let our SPS colleague detail it.

But every single classroom in SPP is an inclusion classroom.

There is no exclusion of students with IEPs.

So right now we are serving students with IEPs.

So just to make that crystal clear they are all inclusion classrooms.

These four classrooms that we're talking about have some very intentional programming going on intentional staffing and intentional demographic.

Mikayla Clancy director for special education.

So we serve many students in our community based organization preschools through itinerant services for their IEP needs.

So right now if we just look at Seattle preschool program of the 300 and this was as of March 1. if we look at the 394 students that they're serving in Seattle 3.3% of them have IEPs and those would be served right now and I didn't mention this at introduction but it is part of the continuum and that is really addressing the least restrictive environment of comparable services as well if that student is identified in a community-based preschool and we need to serve them and we don't have the seat in as close to home as possible we serve them through itinerant services where they are in their community-based preschool.

and we'll continue that.

So one of the decisions based on these data we made about how we would move the services within these inclusion classrooms we didn't want to take away that important itinerant service as well.

So have I answered your question Director Harris?

Any other questions?

Director Harris?

hope this is a raging success and we have two to three to four times more inclusion programs in the Seattle pre-school program next year and when this levy goes up for reauthorization a whole section is addressed on that and as well that the mayor and the council put it in big bold letters.

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions.

I understand that this has highlighted here that this has changed a little bit since introduction.

Could you please address any of the changes?

Sure I'd be happy to.

Just two small changes to the service agreement.

So the first one is on page one and it's in track changes so you can find it quickly but it the language has been adjusted to include Head Start teachers.

We wanted to make sure that Head Start was explicitly called out there.

And then the second change is on page 22 and that is language making the performance target a little bit more clear to include South Shore and Head Start.

So those are the two small adjustments.

So I notice on page 19 there's something highlighted in yellow and that's at the bottom of page 19 of our documents but page 13 of the document it's on and it's under early achievers agency responsibilities.

So it might be page 13 of the document you're looking at.

I don't believe that's a change.

I believe that that's highlighted by mistake.

Let me just look at last year's document.

Go ahead.

My question is it says the agency which would be the district would be required to participate in DEL's that's Department of Early Learning City Early Achievers program and hold a rating of level 3, 4 or 5. If the agency's EA rating was extended to a new location to enable classroom participation this location must be EA rated a level 3 using the EA framework within one year of becoming an SPP classroom.

Can you simplify that and explain what that means because we're talking about adding a lot more classrooms and so how does this apply?

Sure so I just will point out that apparently it was highlighted last year as well and so it's from last year's document it's on page 13 and it was highlighted so there we go.

but that's pretty standard for participating in the states.

First of all early achievers is the state's quality rating indicator system for all preschool providers and the intention of that is to have some uniform standards around making sure quality is consistent and we can actually put some metrics behind what high quality actually means.

And so many community based organizations participate in early achievers.

In fact we've asked all of the CBO's that are in Seattle Public Schools to participate voluntarily in early achievers as well because it's good practice.

So Seattle Public Schools is in the process right now of becoming technically accredited by the state.

you know the state has the OSPI system for K-12 and then they have the Department of Early Learning so that monitors preschool and other programming.

So we're in the process of actually becoming accredited which it's just good practice.

Okay and so meeting a level three is the goal and three or more and have our classrooms been meeting that?

Well technically we haven't finished the process for right now and the reason for that is that the state system is really set up for community based organizations and so we've been in collaboration with our partners at the state level to help make that a little bit more user friendly for a school district for example.

making sure that families fill out an enrollment form that has particular information doing a crosswalk between our enrollment forms and the state's requirement to make sure that we're not asking families to do the same thing over and over again.

Having a safety and evacuation plan you know posted in just the right place.

The K-12 system has a rule for that but we're aligning that with our with Department of Early Learning rules at the state level.

Is any of this related to any of the benchmarking that's associated with the accountability measure and the 25%?

Okay, separate from that.

So in public testimony the question was brought up about student data.

Can you tell us where, what happens to the information from this program, from the city's program?

Where does the information go?

Where does the data go?

Sure.

Because this is a study isn't it?

So remember that families actually technically enroll with the city of Seattle for Seattle preschool program.

So families are enrolling with the through the city of Seattle and first they apply and then they you know give their information this family gives their information directly to the city.

Right so that that's the process which is different than you know enrolling in Seattle Public Schools and then having a data sharing agreement and sharing that with the city with our city partners.

And does the city ascribe to the same FERPA rules?

And in our partnership agreement, remember we have several agreements that support this work.

First came the partnership agreement and that was sort of the institutional how we're going to work together.

And I think it's on page 5. It talks about following FERPA regulations at the top of page 5.

And then one issue that came up and also in public testimony was I think people aren't nobody really questions the benefits of early learning but it was mentioned in public testimony that it's the benefits are lasting.

but I know it's a little bit more nuanced than that.

That there are studies that show that if certain things aren't done that there's a fade out effect and by third grade there's sometimes studies have shown there might not be a difference.

So what in other words any benefits from early learning can be lost by third grade if certain things don't happen.

Is this a part is that a recognized vulnerability of any kind of early learning and how is the city's program and the district's collaboration addressing that so that this is indeed an investment that will last.

So I would remind so it's a great question and we want to make sure that the investment and the intervention is actually really effective for our children and our families right.

And so remember when we've talked at our work session or at our two by two meetings we talk about the early learning system in Seattle Public Schools having many different components.

Kindergarten transition, professional development, school leadership so that's specific training for principals right.

professional development that's aligned preschool through grade three.

So all of those different components are in place in Seattle Public Schools.

The nuance there is we have a big need for funding for high quality preschool.

And so that's what this particular partnership supports that one component of the larger early learning system.

Well just to clarify the funding of course makes the initial steps happen in terms of preschool but what can be done or what is being done between preschool and third grade or third grade and beyond so that the benefits are sustained and that you can build on them?

So that's what the early learning department in Seattle Public Schools does.

That's what we focus on.

So we've done things like launch jumpstart which is a week long kindergarten transition program that you know four years ago had seven schools participating.

Last year we had 50 schools participating in that really intentional transition transition point for children teachers and families into kindergarten.

So that's one component.

Another thing would be really focusing on the summer learning.

so the early learning department in Seattle Public Schools has slowly rebuilt access to summer school summer programming that has a specific focus on enrichment to make sure that kids are actually having fun and learning at the same time.

Another component would be the systematic professional development.

So I believe we talked about this at introduction but you know rewind three years ago and think about the race of the top dollars that were available for school districts in particular projects 3B I think.

and that we use those funds to train all of our kindergarten teachers with common teaching practices and then we built up to first grade teachers at Title I schools and up to second grade.

In fact some professional development took place today working with our second grade teachers.

I guess I would also remind you about the five year strategic plan that we wrote in partnership with the city of Seattle and that really was the foundation for some of this work and that went from 2010 to 2015 and it had specific components that we were going to focus on together in partnership with the city.

One of them being kindergarten readiness and kindergarten transition.

Another one being access to high quality preschool.

So currently does Seattle Public Schools represent the largest partner for the city with the city's preschool program or the partner with the most locations?

So potentially so right now the cities in their competitive RFI process which Seattle Public Schools gets to you know just contract directly with the city so I'm not sure what the outcome will be but currently yes Seattle Public Schools is the largest provider of preschool through the partnership of SPP.

If all classrooms are approved tonight including from motion B SPS would be offering about 30 percent of our SPP classrooms for next year.

And then the other 70 percent are distributed in what sort of locations?

Community based organization community based providers throughout the city.

Some in SPS buildings many in freestanding buildings and also increasingly in community centers that are also city owned.

Then I have a capacity question then.

So you mentioned that some of these preschools are in Seattle Public School buildings but they're being operated by other providers in conjunction with the city.

So how many of those locations are there?

And I know there was a time when we had a chart showing us all that perhaps it's here.

Yep.

So we have seven classrooms currently that are SPP that are being run by community based organizations in SPS buildings.

All right.

And then how many we have eight that are run by SPS.

Correct.

Okay so for a total of like 15 currently.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

One quick one to the question that was asked about the what's called the third grade fade out effect.

I think we had some conversation in one of our sessions about and I believe there's some academic research that supports this that there is it's almost an indictment of the K-12 system that kids are coming to the K-12 system and not being well served as a result of their high performance in preschool.

And so if that is indeed the case then it requires that we better align and it sounds like some of the work that you're that you're doing to make sure that our principals know how to be effective leaders of kids that are coming into this new system that are performing at higher levels, but also getting tight alignment and training and coaching and planning time between preschools and the K-12 system to ensure that everybody's rowing their boats in the same direction to ensure that our students are performing.

I'm not remembering the exact study but I know there's lots of research that strongly suggests that it's more of a function of the K-12 system not performing at its optimal level in order to serve those kids.

And I'm seeing nodding heads so I'm assuming that you're seeing that same or you've referenced that same study.

Yes there are lots of different research studies that talk about that and what I think you're also talking about is that what we need to do is learn from the best practices from preschool and bridge those up to kindergarten first and second grade and conversely what have we learned from the kindergarten first and second grade practice that we could then infuse into the preschool world.

Dr. Burke.

I want to come back one more time to you know as we're looking at approval to the capacity question for the classrooms that we're looking to renew and I'll be asking the same question about the ones we're looking to expand to.

Is there a projection one year two year five year at which we think we could be impacting these programs or might be potentially displacing them.

What is how far out do we have confidence that we can maintain these programs.

Flipburn and associate superintendent of operations and facilities.

Right now we project for the classrooms that are identified at least they're good for a year or two for sure.

Getting out there you know I couldn't say five years for sure but for the next few years we don't project any capacity issues in those particular buildings.

Director Pinkham.

Just for some clarification to where we say that to the head start locations to be determined.

Can you share some information about how that will be determined?

Sure so Head Start has some particular decision making procedures and a huge part of Head Start is the policy council which is made up of parents from Head Start and so that decision will be made given enrollment numbers for you know next year and making sure that the policy council is included in the decision making.

All right well I just have some concluding comments and then we can go to the roll call on this.

So I think I mean for me the The value of preschool I think has been proven over and over again.

So I don't have any problem with the district being involved in that.

The district has been invested in preschool for a long time.

So this is not something new.

What's new is the partnership with the city.

And my concern is always been well twofold.

One of them is overextending the district's mandate and its resources beyond K-12.

and so I just want to be careful to have the right balance where we have a growth that we can sustain the growth that we know is fully funded absolute assurance that any grant money that will be in place to cover any shortfalls.

I still remain concerned that there's costs to the district that aren't covered you know because what the district provides is free space resources and infrastructure and that necessarily takes up some of the district's resources and I think we need to acknowledge that.

And at a time when we're in a budget crunch and we don't have enough funds for some of our other fundamentals like counselors, curriculum, other issues were worried about whether or not any of our title one schools are going to be hurt by our budget crisis.

You know it concerns me that we don't have the same success finding funding for some of these other things that are fundamental but we seem to have lots of resources and energy for pre-K and so I just don't want the balance to be off on that.

So You know I don't have an issue with continuing with the classes we have and I certainly support adding the inclusion classes and adding being more welcoming and supporting our special ed students.

But I just don't want us to overextend ourselves especially at a time when we have scarcity.

Thank you.

So if there's no other questions or comments.

So what we're voting on just to be clear is just motion A which are the eight existing classrooms and then five existing classrooms converted to SPP which are the Head Start and the South Shore classrooms.

We are not yet voting on motion B.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blamford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

Okay so now move on to motion B.

I move that the Seattle school board authorize the superintendent to enter into a service agreement for 2017-18 school year with the city of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning in an amount up to $994 to open a minimum of two and up to four Seattle preschool program classrooms.

Seattle Public Schools will work within funding and capacity limitations.

This motion if approved along with motion A would bring the total number of classrooms operated by Seattle Public Schools to 17. classrooms included in motion B 1 at Olympic Hills 2 at Cedar Park 1 at BF Day.

I second the motion B.

Are there any questions or comments about motion B?

Director Burke.

I'd like to follow up about some public testimony specifically around the Cedar Park sites.

I'm excited about the chance to use the preschool as a growth path to help that school be successful.

I'm worried about the two classrooms and if that could be sustainable over the long term and the comment that was made about bathrooms and how the program will work with a preschool.

I'm wondering if that could be how the functionality of that building will work with a full K-5 population and two preschools with one set of bathrooms or if there's a plan to add bathrooms.

So I'll speak to the first part which is bathrooms and then I'll ask Dr. Herndon to come up and talk about the other part.

So currently right now some of our preschool classrooms are located next door to or very close to bathrooms.

We have not put forward any large capital improvement dollars to improve facilities.

so that is not in the plan.

We're currently working with the facilities team.

There are lots of moving parts with Cedar Park whole school in general and so that work is ever unfolding.

And so we will be working with a team to locate the classrooms as close to the bathrooms as possible.

As far as capital pieces right now we have a couple of projects that we're looking at Cedar Park that might enhance that.

As you know the building does not have a library.

It's currently just one classroom so expanding that library is actually taking up two classroom spaces.

and so adding an additional set of bathrooms would probably take another classroom space from somewhere.

The site's pretty tight and depending on the outcome of open enrollment and the number of applications we have we'll have a better idea about how many students might be there.

The brick and mortar building without the additional portables does have a decent size capacity close to more like 300 rather than the 400 that was originally projected and then you have the few portables there.

So I think we'll know a little bit more after we get the completion of applications during open enrollment and then we'll know what that is.

But as Ms. Toner commented I think the proximity of the classrooms to the bathroom is helpful in locating which rooms would be the ones for the pre-K classrooms.

and the way the motion is phrased it's indicated as a minimum of two and up to four.

So is that part of the discussion that would be evolving and could you help us understand what the timeline would look like for that and what are the drivers?

So the first thing is that the agreement with our city partners is to try to come to as much decision as we can by March 1st because that helps Seattle Public Schools be in line with the community based organizations to help families be most informed about what their options for preschool will look like for next year.

so we're trying really hard to stick toward that March 1st timeline.

Although we did leave some flexibility in this motion because the open enrollment we don't have all the information we need yet to you know firmly commit to that.

But our hope would be that we would be able to have four classrooms and that these would be exactly where they would be would be one at Olympic Hills two at Cedar Park and one at BF Day.

But if something significant changes we do have language in this motion whether it be financial change or capacity change to give us some flexibility.

Director Pinkham.

I also want to get to that language about in the amount up to $994,203 total minimum of two and up to four.

If they open just two do they still get to spend up to $994,203 or do we need to call out that if it's only two it would be up to this amount.

Let me try to answer that from a technical view.

While it doesn't break out the differential and we can certainly provide that to the board and I don't know that it's a linear equation or not so perhaps we could ask the city staff to reply to that.

Technically the total amount is the capacity that you would be approving so it's not necessary to have a different number.

That said I believe the curiosity is worth pursuit.

Yes the four classrooms are all funded equally in this particular case so you can divide it by two or divided by four and that would be the right amount.

I think I did the math on this before and it's something like two hundred and some thousand per classroom and about eleven thousand dollars per student.

Is that about right?

Okay.

I also have a question about the Cedar Park facility.

So right now the bathrooms there's only one bathroom is that correct?

And is it what size is it?

Is it the size suitable for preschool students or would that have to be?

I'm not quite sure the number of stalls that are in there but we can check and make sure and because it's already elementary age it's pretty low but I'll we obviously would have to make sure that it's still appropriate for preschool age.

And then you said there's no library at Cedar Park.

There is.

It's just very small.

It's a small library.

Yes.

Okay.

And the preschool students do have access to the library don't they?

I believe so.

Okay.

So they would be sharing that space as well.

Yeah I'm not quite sure what the setup is.

I'm sure each pre-K has their own setup and availability of books but I'm not quite sure how the libraries are stocked in the reading material appropriate grade levels but I'm assuming there's materials available.

Any other questions or comments?

My comment about this is you know this is where I'm a little concerned about the district spreading itself too thin and you know this is only the second year that the district has been a partner with the city and I'd be interested in seeing some more feedback on how well everything's worked out.

How well things have worked for the students for the parents and also whether the resources are covering like what the city is providing whether it's covering the amount of effort and resources the district is putting into this because as we learned in this discussion which began about a month ago that principals are also responsible for these preschoolers and that you know these children also use the library and the nurse and so there's and there's also health screening that the district provides.

So there's a lot of services the district provides as well as free space.

And you know I really would like a clear understanding about whether all of this is being compensated.

and I do worry about capacity.

With Cedar Park we're not quite sure yet how that school is going to work out.

I'm a little bit nervous about over subscribing that space and to have the preschoolers compete with the K-5 students.

and then my final concern has always been I think the 25 percent withholding is something that should should be reconsidered because I think the district is doing more than its fair share as a partner.

It's obviously a crucial partner and I never thought that the withholding made a lot of sense especially since the district has been meeting all the benchmarks.

There's definitely been accountability measures that have been followed.

So you know I'm disappointed that that hasn't been resolved in the last two years.

So my own feeling is I'm comfortable with what we voted for tonight but I'm not comfortable with overextending the district with with any more of these classrooms at this time.

If there are no further questions or comments Ms. Richie the roll call please.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu?

Aye.

Director Pinkham?

Aye.

Director Blanford?

Aye.

Director Burke?

Aye.

Director Geary?

Aye.

Director Peters?

No.

This motion passed 610.

Now move on to item number three.

I move the Seattle school board amend the previously adopted 2016-17 superintendent evaluation criteria to add a professional practice element as described in this board action report.

I second the motion.

This came to the executive committee on February 2nd where it was advanced for approval.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Apparently not.

All right.

Ms. Ritchie the roll call.

Director Burke aye Director Geary aye Director Harris Director Patu?

Aye.

Director Pinkham?

Aye.

Director Blanford?

Aye.

Director Peters?

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

All right go on to item 4 city year contract modification.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to approve the city year personal services contract modification of $310,000 to support programming at Aki Kurose, Van Asselt Elementary, Martin Luther King Jr.

Elementary and Denny International Middle School.

I second the motion.

May I hear from the chair of audit and finance committee.

Move this for approval.

and that was at the February 9th meeting.

February 9th 2017 meeting.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Are there no questions or comments?

We've run out of ideas tonight.

A nutshell here that we heard at audit and finance and we heard from our director of grants Michael Stone.

we appreciated that these schools were using city year funding and personnel.

However there were changes in personnel and they wanted to step back take a look at how best to frame this program.

Mr. Stone has given the board and the audit and finance chair his pinky promise that we will have more heads up on this sort of a scenario.

Anybody that has worked with city here knows that they bring extraordinary value to the table.

Director Blanford.

We heard in public testimony some a concern that work was performed before this agreement before we voted on this item and I'm wondering if someone can speak to that issue.

Joel Lindberghi assistant superintendent for business and finance.

That's true.

That did happen.

That does happen sometimes in our system and we have a process for bringing that forward.

If in fact the timing does not follow the procedure.

And we have a form that talks about why it happened and how it's not going to happen next time.

And those are reviewed and signed off by me and this one was reviewed and signed off by me.

We have had a number of incidences recently where work was performed or dollars were expended before the board had the opportunity to weigh in on items that were over $250,000.

And so can you tell me how what you just described does not cause reason for concern?

As far as I know when we started moving this forward they had not reached the point that they had exceeded the 250 and the plans are still being solidified about how many dollars it was going to be how much budget that they actually had those types of things.

So we have been very vigilant in trying to bring forward any instances of unknown contracts that got amended and then we're going to exceed we bring those forward to audit and finance as informational so the board is made aware of them and where we can and when we know and can reasonably estimate then we're bringing those forward right away.

But there is a mechanism and an internal control where both myself and the accounting director and the contracts manager are all looking for those items because they do need to follow the process.

And I understand your response very well running a large business some organization.

Sometimes you don't anticipate that you'll get to that 250 threshold and then when it looks like it's going to.

We have assurance that those processes include involving board as soon as it becomes apparent that we'll exceed the $250,000 threshold.

Yes.

And I think that we've demonstrated that recently in the audit and finance committee meetings over the last few months by making sure that we're highlighting those.

Yeah.

And I'm asking these questions just because it was put out in public testimony so I wanted to give you the opportunity to have a.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

and if I might add this just to be very clear this is not something that happens frequently so let's be clear about that and when it does I want to reinforce that we immediately take that to audit and finance.

Recall that every once in a while these things happen for example one happened a year ago based on student IEP needs and the adjustments with the contract that exceeded $250,000.

So those are sometimes in cases where you have to do what you have to do and the timing doesn't always fit.

But again I want to assure the public watching and this board that this is not a frequent flyer event nor is it something we take lightly.

Yep we have several of those upcoming on the next audit and finance committee.

Those same special ed contracts are going to come forward to be identified that they're now we now know that they're going to exceed $250,000 so the process is in place and I feel like it's working.

and we invite you to come to the publicly noticed audit and finance meetings and to review the minutes of said audit and finance meetings you will find rich and thoughtful discussion.

And frankly I'm very proud of the audit and finance committee and how transparent we are being.

Are there any more questions or comments about this item?

Okay seeing none Ms.

Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Motion passed unanimously.

So we are now moving on to the introduction portion of our meeting.

There are five items.

It's possible we could have an earlier night than usual tonight.

First item.

Amending policy number 5001 hiring of retired school employees.

May I hear from the chair of the audit finance committee?

We move this forward on February 9th for approval.

Hello Clover Codd assistant superintendent of human resources.

So we're here to propose changes to policy 5001 which is the hiring of retired school employees.

As you know the state and the district face a teacher shortage and the hiring of retired teachers is one strategy for helping us close that gap.

Our current practice in policy 5001 is to rehire the employee for one year only.

And then what happens is at the end of that school year we have to reopen the position.

The school has to re-advertise the position.

People have to re-interview and then if the retired employee who was in the position the prior year is chosen then we give them another one year contract.

So what this does is remove that restriction to make it consistent with state law and you will see in the red line version of the policy we we've crossed out the for one year only or a maximum of one year and that's the that's the biggest change that you'll see.

And then you'll also see a paragraph under district responsibilities that we basically copied and pasted from the WASDA model policy.

So these are the changes in here are consistent with WASDA model and with state regulations.

Any questions or comments?

I have a question in the red line version of the policy on page 2 of that policy which is page 7 of our total document here.

There's an entire paragraph that's crossed off paragraph F.

It says subject to any applicable bargaining agreements vacancies filled by retirees shall be annually reviewed by the board to determine whether the retiree will be rehired for another year of employment.

Is that just related to what you were just saying the one year?

Yes.

Okay.

Is there somewhere in here though that says that the board will review anything or has the board oversight part of this been removed from this policy?

I don't believe there is.

I think it's just part of our normal hiring process in the personnel report where you approve all of the hiring of employees.

Okay.

So that was an added step when we had just a one year timeline and now that that's gone we don't need that step.

Yes.

That's my understanding.

And it would align then with what we do with all other employees.

Any other questions or comments about this item?

Thank you.

Moving on to item 2 amending board policy number 3422 student sports concussion and head injuries.

May I please hear from the chair of the operations committee.

I'd be happy to take it I wasn't actually in attendance at the meeting but according to these notes it looks like it was heard by the operations committee on February the 16th and moved forward for approval as were items 4 and 5. Thank you.

Hi good evening board.

My name is Tara Davis and I'm the assistant athletic director here.

My purpose here today is to ask the board to amend policy 3422 concussions and head injuries to include sudden cardiac arrest.

In 2015 a new state law called the Sudden Cardiac Awareness Act was enacted.

This act relates to the awareness of sudden cardiac arrest for students engaged in athletic activity.

Currently sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death for students participating in sports activity.

So we are asking for this amendment so that we may continue to support our students and comply with this new state legislation.

Director Harris.

During the Ops Committee we had a thoughtful discussion about how this and in fact concussion training and issues apply to club sports.

And I understand that we don't have all the information presently but perhaps we could talk a little bit about that.

Yes please I'll let Dr. Herndon speak to that.

and I might add thank you Dr. Herndon for calling me up and saying I know you're going to ask questions about it so here's what I've got for you.

That that early warning and that reach out is really appreciated.

Welcome.

So we do know that we have a challenge in some of these pieces and I think regardless of the changes in this particular policy which is really just adding the cardiac arrest onto the already existing concussion protocol.

Obviously we want to make sure that we're thinking about the health and safety of our students first and foremost and the folks who are using our facilities.

And if you look in the policy we do have that Club sports is an interesting aspect because we have some of the club sports that are within our schools then we obviously also have club sport and youth teams that are not within our schools but still compete on our grounds.

And I think in this particular policy we try and outline what that is and we do have the different levels.

Clearly we have activity that happens at the elementary middle school and high school level.

I think it's pretty clear cut on the WIA varsity junior varsity sports all very clear on what we're doing the paperwork associated with that the club sports can be a little bit more of a challenge depending on who's actually doing the sponsoring of that.

So myself and Noel Treat general counsel have been having some conversations along with Richard Stout and risk management just to make sure that we have good processes to make.

The whole point of this is to make sure that students are aware of the of the conditions and dangers associated both with concussion and cardiac arrest.

So we just want to make sure that that information is getting to participants and that we're aware that they have that information.

And don't we also want to make sure that our trainers are well trained for some of these non-WAIA folks as well?

Yeah the trainers are there to be able to respond to anyone kind of if they're on duty at that particular time to be able to respond accordingly to injuries that they see associated either with cardiac arrest or concussion clearly other injuries as well but as it relates to these particular policies focusing on those two areas.

So our trainers definitely have been trained to be able to identify these things know the limits of what they're trying to do and then respond to appropriate action.

Never missed an opportunity to ask questions on safety issues.

When will we hear back from you all with some more concrete answers?

So we'll try and get something to you as quickly as possible.

I know that this will be action coming up in two weeks so we're going to try and sort some information more clarity for you to get to you before action.

So if we're not able to do that and I'll definitely highlight why we weren't able to get to that but our goal is to be able to clarify this for you before action.

Director Blanford.

I heard a report this morning as I was getting ready where it led me to believe that there's a huge range of concussion protocols by state.

And the story that I was listening to was talking about the fact that there's legislation that's been proposed in North Carolina I believe that allows their concussion protocol to be informed by the wishes of the parents.

So a parent could decide their kid seems okay and therefore is ready to go back into athletics.

It was quite a contentious issue and the legislator who proposed it was backpedaling as quickly as possible because he got a lot of heat.

But as I was listening to that and thinking about this item it made me wonder does WASDA do our concussion protocols in this state and the legislation that informs them are they would we be judged as on the cutting edge in a positive way or in a kind of a laggard fashion?

Do you know the answer to that?

I don't know that.

I can inquire about where we kind of fall on that spectrum but I don't know that offhand.

because I know that the science is evolving and the perceptions particularly around contact sports like football are rapidly evolving.

And so I wouldn't want us to say that the WASDA standards are what our legislature is proposing is the kind of cutting edge.

If we know that the standard is low then we may need to aspire to figure out a way to have it be higher at least for Seattle Public Schools.

I don't know the answer to the question about where our protocols and the tests rest as to other states but one thing I did want to react to is we don't have a system where it's parent directed.

Once a student is removed by a coach or a referee from a game because they're showing signs of concussion they can only return to playing sports after they're cleared by a health care provider.

So that is one of the safeguards in the system we do have right now.

Yeah.

Yeah I recognize that that's the case in our case but it's not unheard of if it ended up you know at least being drafted in legislation that a parent would be able to make that decision.

So it just raised in my mind the thought that where are we relative to other states as far as how lenient are we or how strict are we in allowing our kids to return back to the sports fields.

I'll inquire in fine.

Thank you.

Dr. Harris.

I'm really happy to report to you that the folks up at Harborview and the Brain Injury Association of Washington are in fact cutting edge and other states follow our lead and a couple of the docs up there are they're the best and I bet we could have them come down and report to us during a superintendent's report etc. five minutes.

having having attended the annual conferences a number of times that's where this issue personal injury brain injured victim clients of mine that's that's why this is a burning issue for me and also being a huge fan of ultimate Frisbee.

One of those participatory sports one of those that young women turn out for and that is more social and I'm all for that.

I just want to make sure that I don't have to ever look a parent in the eye and say we didn't do our very best.

And to be clear I mean this isn't just in competitive athletics can happen in PE class.

My son last year had concussion symptoms from getting hit in the head with a soccer ball as he was walking across the field wasn't aware of it.

So we just want to make sure that people are aware staff are aware we can respond accordingly obviously keep our students safe.

Thank you.

Item 3 highly capable students program comprehensive plan.

May I hear from the chair of C&I please.

This was brought to C&I on February 13th and moved forward for consideration after considerable lively discussion.

Hi YHSC chief of student support services this evening bringing forward for hopeful approval around a highly capable students program comprehensive plan.

This is an annual event where we do move forward this plan that we do submit to OSPI.

Upon its approval we'll be able to submit it to OSPI for the school year of 2016-17.

to support the highly capable services the district's gifted eligibility identification process and ultimately the authorization for the superintendent to apply for and accept the allocation of these funds.

That amount is 524,248.

So that's the amount that we're looking at.

A couple things I just would like to add this is part of our annual again I grant application.

It's got a lot of compliance mechanisms and linking to the wax under highly capable and then further around the recently the consolidated program review for this we actually received a special accommodation for the work of doing an identification assessment process for title one schools.

Any questions or comments on this item?

Director Harris.

Chief Jesse on the form that goes to OSPI.

We did have a wonderfully spirited conversation at CNI and I got the impression that this is just a check the box kind of exercise.

And I have to say that check the box exercises make me nervous and a little crazier than I already am.

It's okay you can laugh and smile.

My question to you is the feedback information that was included on that form was that taken only from one school Cascadia HCC program?

No there's some different well so there's some differences especially upon the grade levels.

So if you'll notice on that form there was something around mentoring for example that mentoring is specific to the IBX program at Ingram high school.

so I'm just trying to use that as an example that it doesn't carry all the way through some of the things that happen at some of the schools are unique to like Cascadia versus obviously the things that they are doing different are at Thurgood Marshall based off the waiver the procedures that we have and then obviously IBX versus what they're doing at Garfield.

So how many seniors at IBX glad you brought that up.

How many seniors at IBX had mentorships or internships since that box was in fact checked.

I do not have that number on me right now Director Harris but I will most certainly will get that to you tomorrow.

I guess my question is can we do a more thoughtful and robust job on that form that does a better job of explaining our programs as opposed to checking the boxes.

So that is absolutely the response I wanted to give you Director Harris is that out of this process I too am learning all the time and I don't feel very comfortable about some of the check boxing it doesn't do a good job the form itself about describing all the things that are going on the differences.

and then further I would add that's exactly why we need to do the kind of comprehensive program review that we are undergoing here for the next two years for both spectrum and for highly capable services.

I think that this is one of many examples that's requiring us to go a lot deeper than checking boxes.

Dr. Geary.

Part of that lively discussion I think was generated from my concern that while this is just a check the box document that we provide to the state and the state gets to define the boxes and we do the best we can to fill it out in order to meet compliance.

I think what is interesting about this document is that for those of us on the board who are relatively new to the breadth of topics that we're expected to understand and weigh in on especially at oversight committee meetings etc. that this shows us at least a greater breadth of possibilities.

There's lots of boxes that aren't checked and when our own programs are brought to us for review it would be interesting to have access to a survey document that that shows us what we think we're doing what we're not doing and would certainly I think make for a richer discussion about why we've chosen to mark the boxes we have and whether or not other boxes should be under consideration.

So I throw that out just because I think the allusions to the robust conversation for the public's benefit should be explained a little bit.

And I'd like you know as we do go through this process over the next few years I would invite the public to look at this document.

It's not a particularly stimulating or fun document to look at but it is it does have the options at least that we can choose and still meet state requirements.

So I just highlight that for the public not so much a question for you because we've discussed this in depth.

Thank you.

I'll also weigh in on the I share Director Harris's concern when we use the words compliance document or a checklist that we have to do.

Does it actually add value to our processes?

Are we checking the boxes because we have to or are we checking the boxes because we actually deliver that particular thing and the conversation that we had in CNI around some specific boxes was that many of these boxes each have a backstory.

you know we look at oh why is this checked?

Oh it's because this type of thing is offered in this school or this grade you know just a couple of examples that Chief Jesse mentioned.

And so I agree that the work that's being done around you know like the deep dive evaluation of spectrum the work under SMART goal 3 for program evaluation.

I think it's probably a higher value area for us to look as a board and as a district but that this document does provide a really interesting table of contents.

And one of the thoughts moving forward is if we feel this is something that could add value transparency to our community and remind us what we're doing or what we're supposed to be doing that maybe putting a little bit more of a wrapper around it that references when a box when these particular boxes are checked we have some level of evidence or some level of description of what that actually is rather than just saying yes.

recognizing that's more work.

I don't want to put that out as a demand or request yet but it just is something we should consider if it's a value add somewhere in the process.

I have a few questions.

So I think one of the things that's probably might have sparked some of the conversation in C&I was the fact that it says here that this plan has not changed from the 2015-16 plan.

So it seems can you speak to why a plan would not change at all?

Is there truly nothing different on this one than there was in the 2015-16 plan?

Well they haven't had a significant change in structure of services and so that's why some of these boxes are checked but I would I'm not going to and we were this was part of the conversation at CNI is I don't I too don't feel very comfortable representing the depth and breadth of work and the services we're providing out there to you know at the minimum for the highly capable you know 4200 students.

So I just looking on this page is like 100 boxes and how you're going to represent what you're doing across the way is just not how we should.

I do recognize that this is some way of connecting obviously the compliance field but also tells us again what we have to do is describe in the services that are going on out in the schools.

and there are there are differences than what is always necessarily represented.

These are things that we do in all schools.

We do differentiate.

We do have content acceleration for highly capable.

But in the same sense I also know that other environments there's other things you could definitely check in here because every classroom does pacing flexible grouping independent study.

So that's the that's part of the issue is how much is that going on?

What's the frequency amount and all the things that go on in particular environments that can be different classroom to classroom depending on the pedagogy and the professional discretion of some of our teachers.

Do we have any way of actually measuring any of this?

She asks innocently.

Because I mean do we even do a survey of schools that offer highly capable services families and teachers and say hey are you doing any of this?

Yeah that's a that's a great point.

We actually if you read the family survey data that's one of the things that comes out from families was around specifically can you please define better about the services and expectations I can have for my student and so that's stuff that's wheeling in wheelbarrow loads for us right now.

and we've actually called together the principals this month is to start pulling them together to go.

Hey what's going on?

It's part of moving forward in our ability to dive deep into what are the services we're providing each one of the schools.

Well it seems to me you'd also have to sort of cross-reference your responses.

You'd have to ask the teachers and principals what are you doing and then ask the families is this what you see being done.

And the students.

Right that's what I mean the students families and see if it matches because I can see everybody might feel compelled to check off some boxes without giving it too much thought.

But we I think the frustration I'm feeling is this is an inadequate document.

I think we all know that that it's just pretty basic.

So what do we do?

Do we add more detail to the descriptions?

Do we check off more boxes because we're going to aspire to do more stuff?

That only gets us so far.

It doesn't really prove that we're actually doing any of these other things.

And that's really what we want is to actually have a program that does what we want it to do and reach the students it needs to reach and be meaningful.

So anytime we have a complexity of different documents that need to be you know combined we crosswalk them.

So what I could do is next time bringing into the CNI I could I could demonstrate how we do a crosswalk.

We actually are doing this for MTSS with T PAP AWSP and also the Indy Star which is a compliance document from OSPI for schools of improvement.

And I can demonstrate how we how we are doing that actually now and how I could do that with this particular document to crosswalk it so that it doesn't just be compliance but we actually use some of the same terminology in this document to link to what we are going to define for Seattle Public Schools as we move forward in this program review.

Okay then I have a question, one other question that's a little bit different in that it has to do with in the bar it says student benefits item number eight.

And it says approximately 5,000 students are referred by parents guardians each year for advanced learning eligibility testing.

Is it only parents and guardians who do the referrals?

I thought teachers were also empowered to do that.

Is it just parents and guardians?

Just ultimately the parents and guardians.

They can go ahead and move that forward but it's the parent and guardians that have the approval and that's something we actually discussed at CNI.

Well this says refer.

It doesn't say approve.

So you're saying that teachers are not allowed cannot are not empowered to refer students for advanced learning.

So there is a difference between the ability to refer a student and then to go ahead and recommend and so that's something that was changed about the language for us and so there is an ability for people to do that but ultimately at the end of day the parent has to authorize us the parent authorizes us to go ahead and have a formal referral to assess the student.

I completely understand the parents have to authorize that but what I'm wondering is are we not empowering our teachers to be a part of this process?

Yes we are.

Okay well that isn't really reflected in this language here and that's that concerns me because we've had long discussions about one of the flaws of our system is that we are not adequately referring you know students of color for this these services and the referral and this is a point that I was making at our last work session.

Referral is where I think things are falling apart.

We're simply not referring as many students of color.

so it seems to me we should be empowering as many people as possible to help us identify these students and if teachers are empowered to do that then we should be saying so and encouraging that.

So again that's absolutely right and that's the difference between the recommendations so anybody can recommend is the problem is about the I'm sorry there's just a language issue that was about the referral for the formalized approval by a parent or guardian to have their student assessed that's why It seems wonky.

I hate to have to defend that wonkiness but that's part of the legal aspect of this that was agreed upon.

Okay well we can continue this discussion some other point then.

All right.

Director Burke.

since there's wonky language associated with this I can't help myself.

So there's a there's a dollar amount listed five hundred twenty four thousand dollars nominally and it indicates five thousand students are referred.

What is the trigger?

for that is referral the trigger for funding or is enrollment the trigger for funding?

Is it monthly?

Is it yearly?

How is that $524,000 number determined?

I'll have to get back to you on specific.

I think we can answer that.

Give JoLynn a moment please.

The state's funding formula funds us for 2.14% or 2.4% of our enrollment.

That's what highly capable funding is.

So it's not how many kids you're referring.

It's not how many kids are actually highly capable.

It's a percentage of your enrollment.

And the form is something that is a matter of compliance and submittal.

Probably not something that

No that's good insight.

The form has to be done as a compliance thing.

We have a percentage of our enrollment.

We get a funding allocation that's based on that.

I think that's that's all fine.

What I heard from Wyeth is that we're nominally 4,000 students nominally five hundred five hundred twenty thousand dollars.

That's like 120 bucks per kid.

That's right.

Yep.

So yet another unfunded mandate.

And it's on the unfunded mandate list.

Thank you.

Along those same lines just by way of comparison we have a similar issue with our special ed funding.

Is that correct?

The state funds is at 12.7 percent or something like that of our students but we actually have 25 percent.

I don't think we have 25 percent but there is an artificial cap put on special ed.

So it's similar to this where there's just a cap regardless of what our needs are and so there's a gap.

That's how the state controls its cost.

So we're funded, you're correct, we're funded at 12.7% for special ed and we have about that percentage of students but the cost is substantially higher.

And Mr. Jesse can tell us what that is.

Yes so I just yeah 60 million dollars in base I mean that's a lot of money 60 million.

So that's when you're talking about real outrage.

Yes there you go.

Which equates to translated into percentages.

Again we're funded for 12.7 percent of our students and we are expending at what would appear to be about 18 percent of our students.

60 million extra dollars of your levy dollars that should be used for other things not basic education.

Did we mention that we have a funding crisis?

I have just one more question for Wyeth sorry.

So we have two weeks before we have to vote on this.

is there any value in trying to improve this document or is there any way to improve this document or are we just this is just all we can really do with it.

This is a gift from OSPI.

If you looked at the iGrants packages like they're all a lot of them are very similar like this they have a lot of boxes and fields that put the information in it and then you submit it.

But we could talk more and we do have some influence obviously with OSPI on this so.

I don't just mean the OSPI side of it but is there more content that we should be providing or more boxes we should be checking off.

I think it's for them and some of their own database.

I think the more important thing is about directly the services we're providing students.

And again that's the part of not only our own program review but as I've gone over and this is what the oversight committee was is like there we have to de silo this this particular department.

That's really what we're talking about so everybody gets better training to go ahead and provide those services for people.

That's something that came through in the parent survey.

That's what staff are asking for and that's actually what our plan is and I'm happy to put more of that information together and that's again a lot of the stuff that was in the oversight work committee almost a month ago.

Dr. Pinkham.

and while you're still up there with all the things that we get in the checkbox as far as what we use for assessments.

If we don't check anything then we can't use it or are we just saying these are what we currently use and.

These are just the ones that we currently

So it doesn't limit us we can use other assessments we're just saying what we currently use.

Well part of the part of the assessments there are criteria related to the assessments because it does have to be meet the various thresholds for assessments that we would want for our students because they do have to be standardized and so and norm based so that we can most certainly put that's what the requirements would be for us and that's why they're on here.

Okay because the reason I asked and just some of the COGET I got some problems with that but other kind of assessment tests that looking for that may have intentional or unintentional biases that may be limiting our students of color from being recommended or referred.

And Nate was in a class of mine yesterday where I talked about education.

and one thing I looked at they had the good enough draw a man intelligent test show that Indian children demonstrated about the same level of intelligence as white children actually 1,700 Indian children who took the test under the auspices of the National Study of American Education had an average IQ of 101.5 which was slightly higher but definitely superior to the average white children.

So again looking at tests that don't have either some kind of racial bias.

All right there's no further comments.

You are free to go gentlemen.

All right item 4 BEX for award contract P1515 for architectural engineering services to NAC architecture for Wing Luke Elementary School project.

Let's see.

Oh chair you're back.

Would you like to speak to this?

Oh you already did.

Thank you so much.

We can move right along.

Thank you.

Good evening my name is Mike Skutak I'm a senior project manager with the capital projects and planning department.

Tonight I'm introducing the BEX IV contract P1515 for architectural engineering services for NAC architecture for the new Wing Luke Elementary School.

This was presented to Ops on February 16th with recommendation to move it forward to the full board for approval.

If approved the superintendent would execute an agreement with NAC architecture in the amount of $3,060,715 plus reimbursable expenses of $30,000.

Design work would include the construction of a new 650 student capacity facility located at the current Wing Luke site.

the existing school would be demolished.

The size of the new school would be 93,000 square feet and it would be a K-5 school.

We followed the board policy as far as the RFP process.

We had 13 firms that applied.

Three firms were shortlisted and NAC was deemed to be the most qualified.

The architectural contract was based on the OFM guideline fee guideline.

We followed that very closely and some additional expenses were added mostly involved involving the school assistant construction assistant program that OSPI provides and some of the requirements that we have to do for that.

Are there any questions?

I have a couple questions that if they're too elaborate to respond to then you could respond perhaps in a Friday memo.

I'd like to know about the ed specs for this.

Is this the same 660 ed specs as the other schools?

What kind of footprint are we looking at?

What kind of playground space?

I'd rather not run into a Loyal Heights issue again.

So if you could just give us a preview of what's planned for this and then let us know what we're looking at in terms of project.

It is a good question the ed specs will be brought to the board for approval so you'll you'll see that the ed spec is based on the May 31st 2016 update.

So.

I could provide that ed spec for you in the Friday update or at least point out where it is.

But we will be circling back to get approval of that site specific ed spec which will have all of the classroom counts including playground square footage and the like.

Director Harris.

We had that very same question at the Ops meeting and Mr. Best did a great job in responding to it and perhaps he could just do a one pager and throw that in the Friday memo.

He answered it I believe to Director Pinkham's and my satisfaction that we are not headed down that road.

Any other questions or comments about this item?

Thank you.

Our final item for the evening is BTA 3 award construction contract K5080 bid number B11637 to Mike Worlick construction incorporated for the Blaine water mains and fire sprinklers project.

We already heard from the chair ops on this.

Are there any questions or comments?

Sure it was presented to the ops on February 16th and also the recommendation was moved forward for full board approval.

This is a BTA project.

This is more of a summer of 2017 short cycle three to four months.

It includes installation of fire sprinkler system throughout the building except for the portion that's owned by the parks department.

It will require a new main line from the utility to the boiler room and then the extension and full coverage inside the building.

We picked up the alternate.

The alternate came in at an extremely low price so we decided to go ahead and pick that up.

It was a little bit over our budget but the value that was there was definitely worth taking.

Any questions or comments on the side?

Director Burke.

Sorry if you mentioned this and I missed it but is this a replacement refurbishment of existing or just adding sprinklers to a facility that does not have them.

It's the sprinkler coverage was limited to the boiler room so this extends that coverage to the entire facility except for the portion it's owned by parks.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Okay.

Director Patu has a question for Dr. Herndon.

this is actually not concerning this project here but it just dawned on me just wanted to ask a question you know the students that came from Rear Beach but a lot of pictures of dangerous things that were happening at the school I mean how dangerous is the stuff that they're pointing out

I hadn't seen the pictures so I actually had emailed the board office to forward the pictures to me so I can see where they are and then talk with our facilities folks and find out exactly what that was because when I heard the particular testimony then you know I was a bit concerned as well.

Again we want to make sure our students are safe so we'll follow up on that and figure out where that is.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

If there are no further questions or comments I call this meeting adjourned at 823. Thank you everybody.

Good evening.

This is the first step of the step of the step of the step.