BoardMeeting 5∕23∕18 Pt2

Went before CNI April 17th for.

I'm so behind.

Consideration.

For consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you sir.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to execute a contract amendment with school data solutions in the amount of two hundred seventy four thousand dollars for the student data portal homeroom in the form of contract amendment dated March 28 2018 may I have a motion please.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a contract amendment with school data solutions in the amount of $274,000 for the student data portal homeroom in the form of the contract amendment dated March 28 2018 and attached to the school board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take necessary actions to implement the contract amendment.

I second the motion.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues and I see that we have chief Jesse here willing to answer same.

Director Burke please.

I have a question related to this and I think we've spoken about it in C&I committee as there's a lot of centrally customizable features and then also site level customizable if people are using their own assessment tools or to comply with the work that buildings are doing so we can build that forward.

one of the conversations that's starting to weave into things you might have heard earlier we were talking about the since time immemorial adoption as something we want to look forward look towards in the next month or two formalizing it.

Is this a structure which would support you know if there's an assessment or I believe there's a sort of a benchmark tool or some sort of contemplation.

Does this homeroom tool in its current as amended state is it flexible enough to use it for that purpose or for any other subjects.

Good evening.

why Jesse Chief of Student Support Services.

Yes Director Burke this would be a tool that was is customizable that was actually one of the reasons why it was selected during the RFP process was because of its customization.

And so there's some tools that are very rigid as you know only can put in certain information or even sometimes just send your information and the vendor does it.

we can just create right in the profile pretty easy customization of really any kind of assessment.

Something like that something like time immemorial would be something if deemed what the school wanted to do they could do that.

Other questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Pinkham.

So it was brought up in public comments about do students and families have the right to examine and delete entries from the data portal.

I think for me also do families also have the right to see what's in it.

You know again public records do families get to see it or is it just something that the student I guess the student can see it but who has access to it and how secure would it be.

So director Pinkham this is a tool meant for educators.

What is specifically the interface.

We have other tools to do interface.

This particular tool is really meant to give information about the students you know that really just comes from other sources.

It's really a centralized source.

for some of the school based data that would typically be in a file folder sometimes or an Excel spreadsheet and then also the data merge off of something like power school that has all the same information in it.

If there was a request a parent wanted to come in and see what that information we could print that information.

It prints out to about 92 pages usually per student that much information you know it's like those those kind of data warehouses.

But the really nice thing is we're working on the graphs.

So when you do have parent conferences you have the data and you can just print out nice graphs to just put in front of parents and that's just what we would consider best practice.

So would like instructor comments be put in this type of portal or is it just more assessment scores that are going in here and then so you can see the graphs and see how they compare against maybe their peers or

Typically that information goes right into the report card as you know or progress reports I'm sorry.

So those things usually hold within that or they go on emails and I mean there's just different vehicles some teachers use.

But then also specifically some of the intervention data that would go into there depends on how much services and supports go for those students.

one thing like an example why it's so important to have some of that information there's like McKinney-Vento.

So really some educators don't go away into power school searching for who are their students who are identified for homeless.

That tool can help flag that and you can actually identify subgroups you can create that group so that all those educators can know that's part of that student story so we can get better supports them.

I'd like to follow that up.

Mr. General Counsel could you come to the box please.

Yes Noel Treat general counsel.

Let's go with a hypothetical if we might.

If a parent feels as though their student is being inappropriately or unfairly labeled and made a request to the school district to see the homeroom data aggregation What would our response be as the Seattle Public Schools.

Yeah I believe that the student who is at issue in the record their family would have a right to look at that as part of their student records.

Obviously because of FERPA and other privacy laws one one student or one person couldn't look at another student's records.

But I believe as we do with most student records you have the right to look at records about your student.

Thank you.

Director Mack you had questions comments concerns.

Actually it's connected to the question you just asked because as we're talking about student records I'm thinking of that Pink Floyd song.

It's going to be part of your permanent record.

and concern around whether or not whether or not something gets in there that's incorrect mislabeling and potentially is in the future damaging to a student.

You know teacher reads it five years down the line and it's problematic for their impression of that student or something of that nature.

So I have two questions that are somewhat related one is No three questions.

One is specifically what is the process by which a student or family member of that student that have that has the right to see that record.

Do we have a formalized process in place to make that request.

So that's one question.

The second is if there's something incorrect in the record do we have a formalized process by which amendments or changes or corrections can be made.

And then my third question is around the actual security of that data and how we ensure that it doesn't land up in in somebody else's hands that it shouldn't.

Those are my three.

All right.

So let's talk practically.

So on this particular issue this information that goes into homeroom is just like kept like any other record instead of it being in a file folder for some of this information really a low level of it for most students it would be just what would be represented in PowerSchool or any other device where we're tracking information for student records.

So the information that if requested of course the parent when parents come to the front office requesting what's my student records those records would be made available and they print them out.

They usually you know sometimes can just do it.

They would just usually generally do it right on the spot not even having to hardly wait if they're busy then most certainly those requests can be made within a within a timely basis.

So parents do do that and that's how they tend to come to I don't usually get principals don't usually get emails or front office emails.

Sometimes there are record requests for things like advanced learning.

We have some of that data you turn around we give them copies of that information upon request.

So parents make requests for all sorts of information.

We turn around and we give it to them just as special counsel Noel Treat just mentioned.

They all have a record and write As far as errors for the information that.

I'm sorry if I could interrupt you for a second.

Is there a specific place on our website or like is there an actual process that says if you're interested in getting your record this is where you go and how you get it.

Is that procedure clear to families and students.

That's right.

Roland Boyes Senior Assistant General Counsel.

At the beginning of the school year we are required by law to send FERPA notices to all families which explains a parent's right to their students educational record.

The right to dispute the educational record on the right to see their educational records that's laid out.

That's also laid out in our board policy under student records and the way that the policy works and the way the law works is that If a parent has accesses their student record finds something that they feel is a mistake or misleading or inaccurate they call upon their principal to address that.

They stay you know this is why I feel it's inaccurate.

If the principal agrees they'll make the change to the record.

If the principal doesn't agree they'll inform the parent of that and then the parent has the right under the law to insert their own statement into the record explaining why they believe that it's incorrect.

So that would also become part of the student's record as well.

That work.

Thank you.

The other questions that she asked security etc.

Chief Jesse.

Mr Jesse I think that he did just respond to my first few questions about how you go about getting the record and then amending it.

But my third question is about the security of the student data.

So that information is held with us so we have a part of this is a student data agreement that we make with vendors like this.

The homeroom is the same one.

That data is secured.

No exchange for outside sources.

so it's just kept within the loop between school data solutions as well as with Seattle Public Schools.

Is that actually in the contract with them the language around those protections.

So we do have a We do have that agreement that's I can get you a copy of that.

But is it formally in the contract that we have with.

We have one with them.

I will have to get the record from that.

I know on the one that was posted the DSA is not in that one as attached but I do know we have one with them.

So I'll have to come back to you on that.

I just want clarification whether or not it actually is a part of the contract that.

I'm looking over to.

It is in the contract.

Yes.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

I think this this one of the elements of this conversation when it came up before which I just want to confirm while it's fresh on all of our minds.

The access to the homeroom portal is only available through a district login.

So if you're at home you can't just pull up a web browser and pull it up.

You have to do it on a district machine through a district authenticated login.

So just in terms of the ability of data through homeroom to migrate beyond the box we've put it in.

There's actually a pretty strong box around that because of that that login authentication.

So I just wanted to make sure that both my interpretation of that is true and then

That is that is absolutely accurate.

We were trying to work against as I mentioned in introduction about getting rid of some of the spreadsheets that exist out there with a lot of student information that is really troubling for us and that is one one measure as you're laying out Director Burke to tighten up our business rules.

Chief Jesse did you by chance I know you're very busy.

Did you by chance have an opportunity to read my email question back to you today.

Speaking of technical things I have had password problems today so I'm so sorry.

And so I've just gotten my laptop back after we figured out my password.

I'm going to shoot a couple of them your way if that's all right with you sir.

Please.

Is PD for homeroom part of our onboarding process.

Yes.

Yes.

And that is attached to this particular bar.

OK.

You mentioned other districts.

a couple of them three comparative comparable districts that you used as the basis for your research which districts were those?

So those were not identified I didn't the vendor didn't give me the names but they are medium sized districts 25,000 two of them are about 25,000 the other one was 20,000 students.

and so I went with that particular data just because you know they're a local company out of Spokane mostly primarily serve here in the West Coast.

I would appreciate it if you could follow up with which districts from the data provider and my hope would be that the data provider would be more than pleased to share that information with you because we have to do our due diligence.

If they don't I absolutely want to know that.

if we could.

The numbers that you sent me appear that folks used at 14.3 sessions per year which to me means 1.5 times a month if you do the arithmetic on that.

I thought it was more iterative than that.

So those are averages.

So the issue is this as we're talking about briefly both at CNI and intro is not everybody is going to be an absolute user of homeroom.

It's not a it's not a meant to be necessarily an everyday tool for some of the educators.

There will be opportunities when teams sit around and PLCs might have one user who manages that for their grade level or the department where they'll start going through information.

high end users would be something like counselors and school administrators as well as some of the specialists.

So those particular users again this is an averaging would have that many sessions where they would look on and it doesn't tell you how long they've been on there or how many reports they were printing off.

So there's it's limited in some ways.

but as the way to measure it and I know I'm trying to respond to you for a common way other districts are getting measured for usage for sessions.

So I wanted to hold this to a goal to say at least I know we're using it for that many sessions for the users we have.

Okay so we have you quoted seventeen hundred and sixty seven users presently out of how many teachers what's our denominator.

Almost about four thousand teachers.

Okay so we're climbing up to about fifty percent.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then my question is how do we.

implement this into our school culture.

How do we make sure this is not another use it or lose it tool like schoolology that drives parents nuts that teachers don't use it with fidelity.

So my answer to you Director Harris is we are going to integrate the homeroom with the professional development and other content.

So instead of again as mentioned before instead of just a regular introduction here's homeroom training and walk away where people don't know how to exactly use that for the purpose that it was intended.

this is where Homeroom is going to get integrated with the professional development for sessions like professional learning.

Oh CCC how do we start to integrate some of our CCC data into Homeroom.

CCC is English Language Arts K through 5 correct?

Correct curriculum.

Thank you.

That's correct.

And so that and then they have the Faunus Pinnell assessment work that we have for every school and they're able to take and merge that data and then then our trainings can with them could be like around when we're talking about oh you're in how do we have a strategy.

I see that students are really struggling with understanding author's craft.

Then they have that data.

Oh let's look at that.

What does that look like.

Who needs some intervention.

How do we track that.

That's the way that vehicle of homerooms embedded in the training not just homeroom training but the training across many different content and strategies.

Perfect segue.

I'm excited about this tool because it talks about it allows early intervention is where I see the best use.

But if we're not using it with fidelity and robustly then we've got another fancy make your breakfast kind of tool that doesn't give us what we're paying for.

Do we have SLI which is the principal's leadership two days in June two days in August do we have SLI sessions on this and are we making it really clear to folks that we expect it to be used.

So here's the scary thing.

I was just going to mention that you and I are in the same level.

I was going to invite you back to come see.

I know you were there last August.

Come come come to the August session.

I'd love for it.

It's actually more than two days.

It's three to four.

I don't know what we're exact number on in August.

And I'd love for you to any of the directors to come and check it out because there's going to be some really a lot more dynamic conversation not a longer just intro but actually having us to have identified groups related to the CSIP for target student populations pretty powerful stuff and of course we'll de-identify that in some of the trainings up front where we have all school staff.

Terrific.

OK.

Any more comments questions concerns.

Director DeWolf.

I'm supportive of this just but curious the 1700 you have a breakdown of where those teachers are that are using it kind of regionally.

Is it more central south.

You have an idea of where those most of those teachers are.

Yeah that's the that's in the bar too.

It's all over the place.

There's there's just different schools take up on this.

You know when you can have one school that has a super power user.

you know there's just some of those people that are super data geeky.

But the thing is when I come back and I notice that I know we talked about this with Director Burke is coming back to CNI and reporting about not only usage who's using it where they're at.

I do have it by school.

I don't want to shame schools but I will be happy to talk about that.

I think accountability is very important to this board.

I don't think it needs to be set up in a deficit manner.

Yeah.

Well since we're on the introduction of this our first year I feel like it's appropriate moving forward most certainly.

Okay Director Burke please.

I just have an ask especially given how lively this conversation was when you bring it back.

The idea of using an average as our metric could be a little bit dangerous because of the different types of use cases whether you've got an educator that's using it quarterly for report cards or an interventionist that's using it much more frequently.

So in addition to average if you could also just bring a median use I think might be a better measure of central tendency.

Okay let's vote on this.

Roll call please.

Director Burke.

Director DeWolf.

Director Geary.

Director Mack.

Director Patu.

Director Pinkham.

Director Harris.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Number two approval of purchase of equipment from black box to replace existing voice network that supports desktop telephones and five year software and hardware support for three million six hundred seventy one thousand five hundred seventy five dollars and forty cents.

This came before Ops April 5th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would approve a five year contract for the telephone system upgrade with black box may I have the motion please.

I move that the board of directors authorize the superintendent to execute a five year contract with black box to provide a telephone system upgrade in the amount of three million six hundred and seventy one thousand five hundred and seventy five dollars and forty cents plus Washington state sales tax and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

I second the motion.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Patu.

So I would like to know I know the first system we had last for a long time.

So what is comparison to this new equipment that we're actually getting.

How is that going to give us more for our money like we did the first time in comparison.

Thank you director Patu John Kroll chief information officer.

Our first systems did last about 20 years.

So the new system brings newer technologies to connect to broadband systems to take advantage of more digital and mobile technologies.

Other questions comments concerns.

Director Mack.

We were looking to take action on this last meeting a couple meetings ago and we delayed that with a specific question that I believe Director Geary had raised around the contracted terms and whether or not we actually would be covered for 10 years or five years.

I can't remember the details but can you actually please update us on what has happened with that request.

Explain if you could please explain what the request was and then explain where we're at now and what we're actually approving.

Thank you Director Mack.

Yes last last board meeting when this was up for approval it is for a five year contract per the RFP but I was asked to go back to the vendor to see what support that we could get for 10 years even though it's a five year contract.

We work closely with Black Box and our legal team and came up with some terms so we could mutually agree upon support for 10 years in this five year contract.

So the language that we added to the contract so I'm going to read that to you and put that into the record.

Black Box will use commercially commercially reasonable efforts to provide Seattle schools with ongoing support for 10 years from the effective date provided that the district has met all obligations under the initial contract and subject to replacement part availability at the After the five year initial contract term black box will provide annual support renewals at prevailing rates if mutually agreed upon for by both parties.

Other questions comments concerns Director DeWolf.

Director Patu.

So I guess my curiosity is what's the prevailing rate?

Is it the same as what we actually have in the past or is it more more so?

Generally those those support costs go up about 5 percent a year.

But it's hard to predict 10 years out.

But we did get from the vendor that it would be about 180,000 for one year of support for year six.

So that gives you an example.

Absolutely Director Patu.

Is that a normal price?

Is that I mean I'm not quite familiar with.

Yes normal normal pricing is actually whenever we enter into a hardware contract the normal support pricing is 20 to 22 percent of the cost of the hardware.

Thank you.

Other questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Seeing none roll call please.

Director DeWolf.

Director Geary.

Director Mack yes Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke yes Director Harris aye This motion has passed unanimously.

And thank you to the legal department Mr. Kroll and the black box for making sure this got embedded into the contract much appreciated.

Number three approval of successor a collective bargaining agreement between Seattle School District number one and International Brotherhood of Teamsters local union number 117 for September 1st 2017 through August 31st 2020. This came before exec May 17th for approval.

Approval of this item would initiate approval of the successor collective bargaining agreement.

negotiated between representatives of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Number 117 and Seattle School District Number 1. This agreement is for a three year period commencing September 1st 2017 and ending August 31 2020. This item is up for introduction and action this evening.

Mr. Burke.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute the collective bargaining agreement with the International Union of Teamsters local number 117 with the wage schedules and other attachments in the form of the draft agreement for the period September 1 2017 through August 31 2020. as attached to the school board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contracts.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

I second the motion.

Mr. McCarty.

Thank you.

A very short synopsis.

Thank you.

This agreement was ratified by the Teamsters bargaining unit on April 27th.

A three year period.

Three percent pay increase retroactive to September 1st and then the larger of three percent are the consumer price index for the next two years on September 1st.

Affects how many employees please.

We have a total of 12 current employees three in the science materials center and nine in the warehouse right downstairs.

There's a little and this unit also got an additional personal day off that makes them consistent with the other classified units represented by 609 and the Trades Council.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

I'm not sure if this question is for you or for our budget office but I'm curious to know about the impact on our budget of the retroactive aspect of this.

I don't know that answer for the retroactive part.

Thank you.

Ms. Berge.

Assistant Superintendent for budget and finance JoLynn Berge.

Yes so when I sign the bar that will indicate my approval budgets there no worries.

Other questions comments concerns roll call please.

Director Geary aye Director Mack aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham yes Director Burke aye Director DeWolf yes Director Harris aye this motion is passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Number four approval of settlement agreement with Lydic Construction and Seahurst Electric Inc regarding the Hazel Wolf K-8 project and transfer of three hundred twenty five thousand dollars plus Washington state sales tax from the building excellence BEX IV levy contingent fund for the project.

This came before exact May 17 for approval.

It additionally was a subject of an executive session as well and robust conversation between all of the board of directors.

Approval of this item would approve the settlement agreement with Lydic Construction and Seahurst Electric in the amount of three hundred twenty five thousand dollars plus Washington state sales tax and approves a budget transfer from BEX IV levy program contingency to pay the settlement.

this item is for intro and action at this meeting and a little bit of an explanation on that because this was a mediated settlement and having that settlement ratified by this board was critical to this matter not moving forward through litigation.

Is that correct.

Mr. General Counsel and Mr. Associate Superintendent.

Yes that is correct.

Motion please.

I move that the school board approve the settlement agreement and release with Leiden Construction Inc. and Seahurst Electric Inc. in the form of the 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 agreement.

I further move that the superintendent be authorized to transfer $325,000 plus Washington state sales tax from the BEX IV program contingency to fund payment under the agreement immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

I second the motion.

Can you make it short sweet and tell us how we ended up in this place to begin with.

I can.

Thank you.

Richard Best director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools.

And I can tell you that I visited the Hayeswolf K-8 project site on a monthly basis while it was under construction.

Towards the end of the project we became aware that there was a dispute with Seahurst Electric on some of their compensation.

They were alleging that there had been a substantial amount of electrical changes on this project as relates to their original construction contract that that amount was approximately 10 percent.

The original construction contract was 2.5 million.

and they were had construction changes in the neighborhood 250,000 excuse me.

The original contract was 4 million and the construction changes totaled 400,000 and they alluded that there were so many changes that they were inefficient with their workforce.

In addition you'll remember that 2016 was a very wet winter and so they filed a request for equitable adjustment.

The request for equitable adjustment was in the amount of 1.2 million dollars.

We had a mediation settlement in which April 25th.

Why does the weather matter?

I don't mean to cut you off but.

The weather actually had a big part to play here.

The weather did have a big part to play because we were able to grant some time for weather but they were alluding that we did not grant adequate time for weather and that we actually compressed the schedule creating inefficiencies with their manpower and also creating more oversight required of their manpower.

And so that was part of their claim.

We did not agree with the claim amount.

We went to mediation.

We had that mediation on April 25th and the settlement agreement is attached and before you.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns again this was a matter of executive session and discussed ad nauseum.

Director Pinkham.

When you have these kind of situations come up we can't control the weather unfortunately and the weather patterns are changing.

People believe in climate change or not.

So future going are we going to hopefully have contingencies to maybe prepare for this in the future that hey we don't know what the weather may be.

We may get another harsh winter rain or whatever that maybe we need to plan for that contingency so such thing doesn't come out.

Yes you got to get this done or yeah we had that in our plan that Yes weather may delay it and so that we don't have schools that are waiting to move into other schools as we rotate buildings.

Yes we did have some time in our construction schedule allowed for weather delay.

Unfortunately 2016 was the wettest winter on record at that time 2017 subsequently passed that and it just In order to meet school opening we authorized acceleration on this project.

But this this contractor alleged that he was damaged not not by the acceleration but just by the inefficiencies that that compressed schedule created Director Pinkham.

As we look forward we will be working with our schedules to make sure they're earlier in the spring.

This year I can tell you that both EC Hughes and Loyal Heights will be opening at the end of May. 2018 was not 2017-18 winter was not as wet so.

OK.

Seeing no other comments questions concerns from my colleagues roll call please.

Director Burke aye Director DeWolf yes Director Geary aye Director Mack aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Harris aye This motion is passed unanimously.

Intro item number one approving board policy number three two four two open slash closed campus and repealing board policy D 42.00 student access and ingress.

This came before ops on May 10 for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would repeal an older policy about open and closed campuses and adopt a new one with clarifying language changes but would not call for a change in current practice.

May I have the motion please.

We don't have a motion.

It's intro.

Hello.

Mr. Ronald Boy will you speak to this concisely please.

Yes this is a simple motion before the board.

This was a previous lettered policy which you I'm sure you guys know our old policies and we updated to the current numbering system and we also updated to reflect current school practice.

Can you do current school practice in a nutshell since we're creating a record here kind sir.

Yes I can.

Current school practice is that students especially our elementary and middle school stay on school campus during school hours.

High school is a little different where they can choose choose to have open lunches and students also have individualized schedules that may take them off campus during the school day for different educational opportunities.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Patu.

So I guess you're saying then the the rule stays as is so we have not made any changes.

No we did make changes to the proposed 3242 policy as a reflection of current practice there.

It's still a very short policy and I could read it for you if you'd like.

It's it's actually quite a bit different than the previous.

I just want to know what's the slight difference between what we already have and what we have looking at right now.

The current policy did not distinctly define a high school ability to have different ingress and egress from school from the school campus.

We defined it as during lunchtime and during educational experiences that are available to the kids.

That's the that's the main change.

Director Burke.

I think back to my high school days when actually you could have spaces in your high school schedule and I took a late arrival so I could have a morning job.

So how does this impact late arrival early dismissal sports you know all the things that our kids are doing that are individual student level not even necessarily school level.

since I see that individual school schedule has been stricken through on this policy.

The way that we currently have it proposed is as approved educational activities and that would encompass the work study experiences the athletics experiences that are all offered through the school.

Director Mack.

I'll also add to that that we had a robust conversation around the potential impact of switching to more credit bearing opportunity schedules which add time in the day in which students may actually end up with holes in their day in the 32 credit and how that would be handled in this in this policy and we didn't we.

the policy ends up actually not making any statements around that.

It's the same policy that you stay on campus but there could be and I want to flag this for the public and for us to be considering there could be issues around what do students do if they have a two hour time block in their schedule and they're on campus and do they go to the library do they have a place to go and from an educational experience and facilities perspective is something that we need to be considering.

as part of the whole picture so that we had a robust conversation around that this policy doesn't address it other than they're expected to stay on campus but we need to consider what are they going to be doing on campus and where will they be if they are not in a scheduled class.

Director Burke.

Since the word schedule has come up multiple times in this conversation I would be interested if if that would be viable to include the word schedule in this revised policy so it would be approved educational schedule and activities or something around that just as a suggestion.

Make a motion to that.

So you can take a look at that at this point it's intro and potentially add some more language prior to action.

Thank you.

Number two approval of the 2018 19 student rights and responsibilities.

This came before C&I on May 15th for.

Approval.

approval of this item would approve the 2018 19 student rights and responsibilities document.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues director Burke would you lead us off.

Sure.

I would like to essentially turn it over to staff to present and discuss but I just want to emphasize that one of the new conversations that's come into this is around dress code and I think there's been a good and appropriate question around is this the place for dress code is this the time for dress code and is there a need for dress code.

So if you could kind of weave that into the narrative time place need.

And Mr. Boy if you could also add in because I understand you're part of the looping on this conversation as well sir.

Yeah that's correct and I'm actually happy that this came up and I think that it would be most efficient if I just address it up front and then we'll let Erin address the actual rules and responsibilities handbook that she's created.

The thought process behind dress code being a part of this is that the rules and responsibilities document is a discipline document.

It guides due process rights and discipline offenses and from a philosophical viewpoint yeah I don't believe that it's appropriate place to include dress code.

You know we are at a position where we are trying to move forward in the way that we handle discipline in our schools.

We want to reduce time out of class.

And I really believe that in most cases unless the dress code violation is a actually violates one of our established discipline rules and discipline offenses that it should not be used as an opportunity to remove kids from class and miss out on instructional time.

So as a result and I've been thinking about this the last few months I would not suggest that it be part of the rules and responsibilities but I actually feel it would be helpful potentially to start a discussion around having a district board policy that addresses dress code.

And from a legal perspective I feel like Right now we know that individual schools are creating their own dress codes.

From a legal perspective I do see that there is some risk there because a dress code can be written in a way that it could potentially have first amended implications or freedom of religion implications.

And I really would feel more comfortable with a board policy related to dress code and a board policy about dress code that really just addresses the problem that we want to solve.

and that's making sure that kids feel safe and welcome in school and making sure that kids aren't wearing something that's vulgar, promotes gang affiliation, promotes drug use.

Other than that I think that we can have a pretty open viewpoint about dress code.

We just want to solve the problems that can come into it and there are pretty few.

So I have been working on a potential dress code also working going to be meeting with students at Garfield next week to get their voice and their opinion on sort of the draft that I've come up with to see what they think about it.

and then I think that hopefully we'll be able to potentially have this rolling to maybe something to propose to you in the next couple of months.

And Erin and Pat did you want to address this as well please.

I do Aaron romantic program manager discipline.

I do agree with Ronald.

We did speak after the CNI committee meeting a few weeks ago.

I do not believe philosophically it does belong within a discipline document.

I do support the idea that it lives somewhere else.

I also support the idea that we do some extensive community engagement.

I know that it's worked for us with our discipline documents working with school leaders with staff represented by SCA.

students families community members that have a vested interest as well.

So I do agree with everything Ronald said and feel that we should move forward in a different place.

Thank you.

Other questions comments concerns Director Geary and Director Patu.

Just quickly two points.

I'm really happy to hear that students are working on this issue and exercising their voice.

I want us to make sure and I think this could be a great opportunity for us to look at what Garfield's doing but then also think about a platform that includes a wider swath of voice before we look at doing anything from a centralized perspective.

And then did we did you have more to present on what we're presenting here.

And so when will should we get that.

Let's get comments questions concerns and then we'll go back to Erin to continue.

Director Patu.

I guess my comment would be just to follow up what Director Gary already has commented about getting a more wider perspective of different kids and students all over our district for their opinion other than just choosing one school to give their opinion because I believe that all students think differently and it would be great to get new better and wider perspectives.

Director Pinkham.

And I just want to go back to the dress and then you're saying not leave it to the board policy but reading what's currently in it.

We have student responsibilities say dress appropriately for school in ways that will not cause safety or health problems.

Is it possible to consider as add to add dress appropriately and respectfully.

I think that we do have issues with subjectivity and I'd say that as it's written could be kind of subjective I don't want to make it further subjective.

Director Mack.

Just for clarification is this the same document that comes out in the first packet of the year which in the past has been like on blue paper and a little trifold and it was.

Is this the same document but it's been redrafted and it's in a different format.

What's in front of you is the Student Rights and Responsibility which is our large document that has all of our appeal rights.

What you're speaking to the trifold is a basic rule so it's a condensed version with the highlighted pieces.

It's extremely difficult.

We do print those for all 54,000 students and distribute them throughout the summer to our schools.

With that said typically dress code that aside from the one line that Director Pinkham had just quoted for us there's nothing else in this document related to dress code.

So my follow up to that then is that we not remembering if this actually came out in public comment testimony earlier in the year or if I just heard of it when I was on the campaign trail.

It but there was there was multiple folks who noticed that that document that goes gets printed for 54,000 students had pictures of African-American children right next to negative.

And it's been.

And so yeah.

So I just wanted to raise that question and clarify have we taken a look at that document to deal with those issues of.

When that was raised to our attention we immediately corrected it.

It's corrected in our online version.

Unfortunately our printed versions go out in July and August so we weren't able those had already went out to students but it's been corrected online.

Moving forward once we have approval of this we will edit that document again before the end of June to get to printing as well.

So we definitely are taking that and community feedback into consideration as we edit that document.

Okay I'm going to make a statement and close out this portion of the intro item.

I have seen numerous times where building based management and or principals have addressed this issue with a lack of sensitivity and in fact misogyny.

I don't want to have other conversations about whether or not a young woman's bra strap is showing.

that is discriminatory that is outrageous and I am beyond thrilled that we are moving beyond those conversations and that we have traction for student voice and input and we can meet that wonderful tension between administrative oversight and having 104 different policies.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Let's go back to the student rights and responsibilities.

Thank you.

Larger topic please.

We didn't mean to take you off track but when you see an opportunity you got to take it.

That's quite all right.

So we bring forth before you the 2018 2019 draft student rights and responsibilities and accompanying documents.

This is part of school board policy thirty two hundred which is written rules of student conduct that comes before you each spring.

The proposed edits that we have incorporates language from the revised school board policy 3224 which was approved in December 2017 which is student behavior and disciplinary responses.

The language shifts away from just relying on exclusionary practices to one of shaping behaviors and the use of restorative practices.

These practices would not have been possible without the support of the school board by way of the superintendent's goal.

This money also allowed us to start putting our policies into practice.

Throughout this year we've been working with school sites to reduce the use of exclusionary practices by not only providing direct service but also by helping shift adult beliefs.

The proposed edits also include specific changes that indicate adding the disciplinary response and appeal rights for students who possess a firearm on campus.

Previously this was in a school board policy that wasn't called to the attention within the parent document which we felt important to incorporate.

We also added to the school leader document which is also available to our public an expulsion review board process.

It's an internal process for us to be able to go through before a student is formally expelled from a school.

We also removed excessive footnotes lots of different pieces were footnoted to other components that weren't in the document itself.

So we made sure we footnoted the larger WACC and RCW language but we took out and just cleaned up a lot of what was there for our parents.

Also worked extensively with the general counsel's office with Ronald Boy to make sure that our changes were in line with legislative changes and we also continue to align with all of the conversation that we've held between the last three school years.

and we also incorporated the feedback that we received from our basic rules flyer as well throughout the school year.

So I'm happy to take any questions.

I had more prepared for the dress code but we've already covered that.

Any questions I can speak to on this document.

Director Mack.

I'm wondering if this is actually covered in this document or if it's covered elsewhere but I hear a lot about students being held in from recess in the elementary years.

And I believe we have a policy that excludes that that says no you cannot hold your student in from recess for for not finishing work or disciplinary reasons.

I would have to look it up and find it again but I remember reading it in a policy somewhere.

And so I'm wondering whether or not that's actually folded into this document.

And what are your thoughts on that?

So that would be we talk about school based responses and we have a wide range of school based responses within our buildings and so we cover what school based and some examples of those would be to my knowledge and it's not incorporated in this document as far as holding in or removing students from recess is not allowed.

And I will defer to Ronald potentially if it lives somewhere else besides this.

Nate Van Duser director of policy and board relations.

I think it's in 6705 maybe one of our school lunch nutrition policies.

Can we bootstrap it into this policy Mr. Van Duser.

It's a terribly important point to folks.

Well, so the, I would defer to Erin as to kind of what's, she's a content expert on the student rights and responsibilities document and what's appropriate for there or not.

And if we are talking about another board policy, my general feeling is trying to avoid redundancy where possible because when we change one thing then that's where we run into problems.

Director Mack and Mr. Boy.

So one of the one of the issues that I think might be floating out there which is what you're trying to resolve by having a parent facing document is clarification on what's allowed for discipline and what's not.

And this is something that I hear a fair amount a lot about on social media parents that are saying you know my kid was held in six times.

and if it's a policy that we have and it's not a disciplinary procedure that we actually support but it's happening in our schools we have a disconnect between educating our educators and that kind of thing.

And I as far as the policy there is a policy that does say that kids cannot be held out for meal time and meal time is usually paired with recess but they are separate.

So the policy does indicate that students should not be with not allowed to participate in mealtime because of a discipline.

I am not aware of one relating to recess specifically and and we do find that that with our elementary schools that could you all go back and talk about this and see whether or not it's appropriate to add before action because it is an issue of great import to a great many folks.

I think that it could potentially added to this.

I think that again it would probably have more power as an actual standalone board policy.

So I think that that would be the discussion of appropriate placement.

Director Burke.

I would maybe suggest that we look at 3405 student wellness which speaks to sort of access to food and recess and things like that might be a place to put it as well.

I think that's one of the good suggestions.

Okay if we can put that on the action plan for C&I then for discussion.

Much appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Number three and time check 7 35. We are not going to make an eight o'clock adjournment.

Approval of the annual highly capable program plan.

This came before CNI May 15th for.

Introduction.

for approval.

Approval of this item would approve the district's highly capable program plan which must be approved every year per Washington Administrative Code 392-170-25 to receive state funding.

Mr. Burke could you lead us off and lay the table here please.

What this is and is not.

So this is a compliance document comes before us every year.

It is a description of what our advanced learning highly or what our highly capable program is offering in the current academic period.

So it is not looking at next period.

It is our current period to cross sections required by OSPI to essentially fill in the document with the elements that we are currently using or not using.

to provide that transparency.

And then I'm going to look to staff to correct anything that I said wrong.

Short and sweet please.

No corrections.

This is Carrie Hansen director of student support services.

No corrections to add.

Comments questions concerns Director Mack.

Yeah I wanted to bring to the public's attention and a letter that was sent to us in the district from nine licensed psychologists and it relates specifically to I don't have page numbers on this it's actually kind of a funny document on how this report is written that OSPI has done but it's under the the WAC 3 9 1 2 3 9 2 1 7 0 0 4 7 related to the process for appealing.

And I believe that WAC requires that Washington administrative code requires that districts have written appeal processes that are clear to the parents.

and it was my understanding that earlier this year that changed the process changed midstream and the letter that came to us from these psychologists states that they have two concerns that they're writing about that the written information available to families and private psychologists about the appeals process is a policy process is conflicting and at odds with how the multi multidisciplinary committee is making decisions about appeals.

and that the identification process is not applied equitably to all enrolled students.

So if I understand what happened there was previously a threshold number of 95 or 90. I can't remember the numbers were but that got shifted for appeals to be set at a 99 percent or ninety nine point nine percent.

But the procedures didn't change at the same time online and that there's conflicting information about it.

Can you speak to that to what happened and why there was a change in that appeal process and why it didn't get updated notified to families.

Steven Martin supervisor highly capable.

The law requires that we have an appeal process which we do.

Every district determines their own and our process used to be that students simply got a second chance to take the test.

Students are required to, for highly capable, get a 98th percentile on a cognitive score and 95th percentile in math and reading.

And for appeals, since it's the second opportunity for a child to be assessed, usually under ideal circumstances, that is to say in a private setting, one on one, essentially receiving accommodations, the threshold is higher which is an equity issue I think.

Students who are tested once all students get the opportunity for an annual assessment and if a student gets a second opportunity the threshold should be higher.

that is not that is not written in a policy or a procedure that is a practice.

The appeal situation was published in the fall in September or October.

Appeals do not begin until decisions have been made in December and January.

So it was well ahead of the appeals window.

I'd like to follow up on your question and your response if I might.

You talked about it being an equity issue.

I've read a great deal that appeals actually are very much an equity issue for so called twice exceptional or three times exceptional students.

highly capable students that have special ed needs.

And how is that addressed?

And the second question or comment I have back to you is how did we advise parents?

Did we put it on our website?

Did we send it loud and proud and stand up and get counted?

Because there's box checking and then there is robust community engagement.

and my recollection of last fall was that this was pretty weak.

Well it was changed on the website and well ahead of the appeal process and when the eligibility decisions were made and published that was called out on every single notification.

Notifications were sent out and published on the source and were followed up with robocalls but the robocalls did not specifically call out that particular information.

and can you address the twice or three times exceptional students please?

Yes.

Because to me that is absolutely an equity issue.

Oh of course and that's addressed in the regular eligibility process.

Any child who has an IEP or a 504 plan that requires an accommodation such as one on one testing or even a scribe or whatever is called for in the 504 RIP is met by our department and we send out people to schools testers to schools to do that one on one testing.

So that is not accomplished on Saturdays or in a group setting.

Director Mack and then Director Pinkham and then Director Patu.

I know I didn't send these questions ahead of time so you might not have the data on hand but my understanding from the licensed psychologist that wrote this letter was that they provide every year pro bono private testing in order to support our equity efforts and that those pro bono that what in fact happened this year was that students that did private testing pro bono were admitted but students that had private testing that may have met the old threshold of the 98 95 95 but didn't meet the 99 99 99 threshold were not admitted.

Can you tell me and maybe you need to find out this data by going back and looking at the records of who was admitted and who wasn't how many students were admitted on private appeal.

that were pro bono and how many private appeal students were admitted otherwise.

The pro bono aspect is not at issue.

Those psychologists, and not all do, but some do provide pro bono testing.

That is handled through our office because the appeals don't go to the psychologists, they come to our office.

Families that are on free and reduced lunch and are eligible for those considerations are given the opportunity to be given a pro bono test if the psychologist can be found who will give one or to be tested by a school psychologist at no cost.

I'd like to have before we actually because this is an intro tonight I'd like for between now and action to get the data on private appeals whether or not they're pro bono which ones were accepted in at the lower threshold and which one and not which ones but how many.

So I'd like that information to be provided to the board as part of this report.

May I suggest that the MSC, the multidisciplinary selection committee, looks at all scores both for the initial eligibility and for the appeals testing.

and they consider there are special considerations which by law include low income ELL and other special considerations of that kind.

So that might account for what Director Mack is speaking to that some students would be given an additional consideration because they belong to a protected class.

Is that a no you won't produce the data or yes you will.

No of course not.

Sorry I didn't get an answer in there.

I'm trying to explain in the absence of data but we certainly can provide the data.

Terrific.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham Director Patu and Director DeWolf.

I had a comment or one of my past community meetings a parent had a concern about the appeals process where he said it was on the web but apparently it sounds like there might it might have been multiple places on the web and one side of the web said one thing and another said another.

So when you say it was updated on the web are we sure that's updated if it is in multiple places in all sites because they felt they weren't informed of the appeal process in time and it changed for them in the middle of the process.

Well the appeal process is listed on the appeal page and that's what's quoted in the statement that goes to families on the source.

So that's where they are directed to.

Could they have been directed from another site that led them to an older site.

So that's what I want to see how we can find out that we're sure that all the appeal processes are up to date wherever they may be on our site.

It should be in one place.

Okay so but it should be but we do you know so I want to make sure we get to know this is it definitely just in one place and do we maybe have some old links from other sites that are sending them to an older link that because if that's the case we need to make sure we're taking care of that.

Director Patu.

I guess my question is more of a clarification questions.

So how do we actually it's all how do our students actually pick and choose in terms of getting them tested whether they're actually kids that actually has that kind of talent for them to be in the program.

Are they randomly tested or do we test them all the students or they refer.

Yes there referred there are a number of there are a number of approaches.

As you've heard for the last five years we've been doing targeted universal testing of second graders in Title I schools so that that's one way that students can come to our attention.

we have a portal that is open to all teachers and all parents starting on the 15th of May so we're now a week into that and we've had over 300 parent referrals and about the same number of teacher recommendations a teacher and those aren't necessarily the same kids So some students are recommended by their teachers and that generates a letter from our office inviting the parents to refer the child because a parent has to give permission for testing.

So it's the parents actually so if a parent refer their kids.

Yes.

Wouldn't they have to also be a reference from the teacher to support what the parent actually is referring or they can they just refer their kids and.

They can absolutely just refer the kids and then the teachers are notified that this parent has referred the child and that appears in a power teacher.

with the class list and the teachers can go in and do the teacher recommendation form.

So it can start with a teacher recommendation at the beginning as is going on right now at the beginning of September or the beginning of school then it will be the parents who make the initial referral and then we notify teachers that we would like a recommendation from them as well.

Thank you.

Director DeWolf.

Director Mack.

This is going to be a little off topic.

So I apologize.

So it's not necessary for you.

I sent an email to this board in January asking about our time management.

This thing that we're talking about.

this annual plan is for the 2017-2018 school year.

It is an end of year thing to talk about the former year.

I appreciate all the questions.

None of them had to do with the actual thing we're talking about in the direct way that this is approval of the 2017 — Mr. DeWolf you're very close to being out of order kind sir.

Please do because this is about disrespecting time and these people's time.

Your point is well made.

Thank you sir.

Thank you sir.

Director Mack.

This report is a status update as to how we're complying with state law and it's important to have it A be accurate in my opinion and B I think the reason why we do reports like this is to flag issues for the future and things that may need attention.

And I want to point out that also in this letter it was specifically called out to my colleague's point around Is there conflicting information on the website about what the actual appeals process is and according to this I haven't read into it but there are specific there's three different places where it says three different things about what the actual threshold is.

So in fact there are conflicting if there is conflicting information on the website about what the appeals process is what the threshold is and there is evidence of conflicting practices and how those are being carried out which gives me great concerns from an equity standpoint that we are not identifying and serving children that need it.

And it gives me concern that we have not accurately reported that in this report.

Wyatt Jesse Chief of Student Support Services.

So on a couple notes just to follow up on that so is around the information so we did not to Director Pinkham's concern we did not receive any formal complaints about the but the misinformation directly to the office around the information regarding that.

You can have it sent to us but.

So I know the letter from the school psychologist I'm commenting directly on what Director Pinkham had mentioned just in regards to a parent.

So that was just off a parent concerned about where the information was.

I would love for that to get directed to the department.

We'd be happy to cover back up on that.

that's just on that particular issue.

On the issue of the school psychologist I read that we did reach out to them.

So as Director DeWolf was saying that that information in the appeals process is actually not part of our reporting.

It's a reporting on services to students who are identified for highly capable.

That's the that is the reporting that we do through iGrants.

Okay let's not get into that.

Excuse me please.

Thank you.

We're not going to get into a back and forth.

Director Burke did you have a question comment or concern before we move on.

Just to reaffirm that this conversation that we're having here right now is the purpose of the advanced learning task force and that that will be part of board discussions there will be work sessions associated with it and.

And the deadline for application is tomorrow at noon.

If you care about this issue it is time to stand up get counted and do the hard work.

Last comment and then we're moving on.

The funds that are given to AL are only for identification.

They are not for curriculum purposes.

Is that correct?

Highly capable funds are for identification services and professional development.

and are we using the funds for highly capable for professional development.

Yes.

Could you get back to us and show us how much of your budget is used for professional development for developing curriculum please because there is a storm of social media and fake news and extreme concern about these issues.

We are addressing them with the task force and moving forth but obviously you can tell how important this is to folks.

So the more information that you can desegregate and send to us the better.

Thank you very much.

Number 4 City of Seattle Project Services Contract Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction United States Department of Agriculture OSPI slash USDA Summer Food Service Program.

This came before Ops May 10 for approval.

excuse me for approval Director Mack I stepped on you.

I apologize.

This is one I think we can all agree on and be happy about.

Approval of this item would provide meal and delivery services to approximately 4000 vulnerable youth during the summer through an agreement with the city of Seattle.

Assistant Superintendent Peggy McEvoy please short sweet.

Thank you.

I would say that we've been doing this since the 1970s.

It's an annual program that is very popular.

The only difference from previous years is that this year we have gotten an additional $61,000 from the sugar sweetened tax from the city which is going to be allowing us to buy more fruits and vegetables and provide more vegetarian options for our populations.

and I might add an initiative has been filed to roll that back this week.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Seeing none.

Thank you so much.

Number five approval of contracts for annual power school maintenance and support plus online registration subscription.

This came before Ops May 10 for.

Consideration.

approval of this item would approve two separate contracts with power schools for a total of three hundred eighty thousand eight hundred seventy three dollars and sixty seven cents.

And can we get rebates when we make good changes to power schools or credits against our bill.

John Krull chief information officer.

I'll check into that.

Thank you.

So I'm presenting this this went to operations committee operations committee asked for a slight change to the bar so hence it came for consideration just to provide some more background on what Power School is.

Power School is our district's student information system.

It's been used since 2002. It is used to manage and report on student information including data on student demographics classes attendance grades.

It is also our system of record for student data and that data feeds into homeroom which you heard about earlier the Atlas data warehouse the health system the truancy system similar systems like that.

Additionally along with power school.

Excuse me I don't want to cut you off but I want to keep an eye on the clock here.

What were the pieces that the operations committee had concerns with that needed to be added to the bar.

It was just giving some more background which I was just giving.

Super.

And so that's already on the website on the bar is that correct.

Yes.

Outstanding.

Other questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Thank you Mr. Krull I didn't mean to cut you off but I got to keep an eye on the agenda.

Director Burke please go for it.

Sorry John you don't actually have to come back to the podium but just as a.

you know we're a visual board and if there's a way you can help us with a visual tool that shows the relationship of the Atlas data warehouse with power school with homeroom you know sort of the student facing and family facing components because they all sort of work together some of them store data some of them just display it.

if there's a way you could create a visualization for that just in future I think that would be really helpful for us in understanding how they work together.

OK.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Number six approval of contract for implementation services from LSI consulting for HR's success factors recruiting onboarding project.

This came before A&F May 14 for.

For approval.

approval of this item would authorize execution of a contract with LSI services in the amount of three hundred eighty five thousand dollars for software implementation services and process redesign consulting.

Assistant Superintendent Dr. Clover Codd.

Yes good evening.

So the purpose of this bar as you stated is to request approval for $385,000 in the form of a personal service agreement in order to implement SAP's success factors which are the HR modules for recruitment and onboarding.

This is actually part of the 1.5 million dollars that the board approved earlier in the year to move the automation and modernization work forward in the infrastructure funds.

Is this what was the subject of the conversation at the last work session.

having your systems talk to each other.

Yes.

I had to remember which work session you were referring to.

The one where you were the star.

My team.

And your team.

My team is a bunch of stars.

So I'll open it up for questions.

It's pretty straightforward.

There's a full statement of work attached to the bar.

It's 49 pages.

So if you'd like to read through it line by line it will tell you every step of the way what the consultants will be doing for us.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Burke please.

Quick request I see it in the bar but since I had forgotten until you reminded me that this is actually an SAP add on if that could be included in the description just to reaffirm that this is a thing that goes on top of SAP and it's not a new system.

I can I can do that I'll work with the people that have the right technical knowledge and make sure that.

Is one of your long term goals to kill the SAP in decades.

I would I've asked staff a couple of times is SAP something that we should have a long term obsolescence plan and I get back.

Some people smile and some people frown.

So I have no personal agenda around keeping or not keeping ultimately it's what's the best tool for our systems.

Thank you.

No further comments questions concerns number seven renewal of the Washington schools risk management pool coverage for fiscal year 2018-19.

This came before A&F May 14 for approval for.

Approval.

approval of this item would accept the proposed Washington schools risk management pool coverage agreement for the 2018 19 fiscal year and that the expenditure of two million five hundred fifty six thousand five hundred fifty six dollars.

How'd they get that to match and premium contributions to the WSRMP loss funding pool be authorized.

Richard Stout director of risk management.

It's my understanding this is compliance.

It's my understanding this is a cooperative and we do not have a choice in this matter in terms of having insurance coverage and that you can tell us why this is a good deal.

You are correct.

We are part of a cooperative.

We have no choice as to whether we renew with them for next year or not.

There is board policy that requires us to have liability protection and property protection for our activities and our buildings.

At this point there are two pools in Washington state to which all school districts belong.

The Washington schools risk management pool I believe provides greater level of service to its members in terms of loss control services training and other opportunities.

And I believe it has a greater focus on maintaining financial strength and stability to be able to pay claims on behalf of its members going forward.

Are you still on the board of directors of the cooperative sir?

I am not this year.

I attend all of the meetings of the executive board so I.

Are we cross training our staff so that we can get someone else on that board.

I've been working with Troy White on insurance.

He's been at a number of risk management and insurance meetings with me so we're working on that.

He's not quite got my 30 years of experience in the field at this point but we are bringing him along.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns for this compliance and very necessary item.

Seeing none.

Thank you sir.

Number eight.

Approval of the annual head start grant.

This came before A&F on May 14th for.

Approval.

approval of this item would accept four million six hundred forty seven thousand one hundred thirty eight dollars in funding from the Department of Health and Human Services DHHS to operate Head Start Services and the Seattle Public Schools SPS for fiscal federal fiscal year 2018 19. Mr. Goody please.

Gene Guzzi program manager Head Start.

Yes we we come annually to ask for approval to apply for the Head Start grant.

This coming year's amount would be about 4.68 million little change on that.

The feds clarified that last week and the grant will serve 357 children in nine locations across the city for the coming year.

Director Geary you're on the Head Start committee.

Did you have anything to add to this ma'am?

Head Start has needed to continue to look at ways to be more efficient with the money that it gets from the feds because while the costs with regard to staffing go up the amount that we get from the federal government doesn't necessarily match that.

and so what we've seen over the last few years is just the efficiencies that we've had to build in in terms of looking for ways to make that money go as far as it can.

And while that looks in some ways as if though we are serving fewer students because we've had to the program has had to continue to pay the salaries of people to serve the students at the dictated ratios and so we can't serve necessarily as many.

but without going into the detail Gene Guzzi and his team does very carefully look at ways to maximize the way to use the money that we get to serve as many kids as we can throughout the district and now working harder to combine with the Seattle preschool program to the extent that it makes sense.

in order to move towards the full day scheduling which is something that the feds have also encouraged Head Start programs to do.

Does that sound about right Jean?

Yes.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Thank you sir.

Thank you.

Number 9 City of Seattle families and education levy funding for Seattle Public Schools for summer learning 2018 and the 2018-19 school year this came before A&F May 14th for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would accept 19 million six hundred forty six dollars sixty six hundred forty six thousand six hundred eighty seven dollars in grant funding from the city of Seattle's family and Ed Levy.

Good evening directors.

Michael Stone director of grants fiscal compliance as for this is the annual funding coming from the city of Seattle family of education levy that will fund elementary middle and high school innovative programs for next year and the summer learning for this year.

I hesitate to open Pandora's box here given the fact that we've got another Department of Ed Levy being ready to be kicked off for November.

Can you give us in a nutshell the buckets of this 20 million approximately 20 million dollars.

So it will continue to fund the elementary programs the 23 programs that are going on this year could be off one or two schools and go back into my notes real quick.

The middle schools that have been funded the high schools family support workers summer learning and the also the health clinics at the comprehensive high schools and middle schools and some elementary schools throughout the district.

And so to clarify this is the last year of the last levy is that correct.

From the 2011 yes this is the last year of funding.

So we're not talking about the controversial so-called donut holes K-5 that folks are talking about.

We're not talking about the additional Seattle preschool programs combined levy.

That's future.

We're not talking about sustaining the gains.

We're not talking about year 13 and 14. Seattle Promise is that correct.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Other questions comments concerns and who wants to turn down approximately 20 million dollars that will assist our students.

Director Mack.

I certainly don't want to turn down the dollars and we're excited and grateful that we have these dollars.

I'm curious to know for clarification how many family support workers are funded through this.

We had testimony earlier today about funding family support workers through our general fund and.

that isn't covered by the state.

State doesn't pay for family support workers.

It's not something that's allocated.

So these have always been paid for for as long as they've existed through dollars that come down from this levy correct.

Yes.

OK.

So how many are we going to be funding for next year.

So I well I know the numbers that are coming from this funding source that's in here the additional is 7.5 that the city refunded for this next year.

So we were losing funding for 7.5 we're getting that back.

Elementary schools are also using their levy some of their levy funding to fund family support workers at their building.

So I believe it's 5.5.

Oh Pat Pat is here.

Yeah clarification on the total number that we had last year and the total number that we'll have next year.

Are we losing gaining.

What's happening.

Pat Sander Coordinated School Health.

So we're actually losing some positions.

We have one of the school based positions was reduced to a point five.

We also had a family support worker at Rainier Beach family support specialist that that position was not reallocated for us to be able to use.

So we had also one of our family support workers has taken on a master's of social work and so she's been hired as a social worker.

So what we're actually losing right now is one person.

We have one person that's in the RIF status for the current population of family support workers.

So we're basically down 2.0 positions because we had we had purchased a position with some one time money that we had also.

Other questions comments concerns Director DeWolf please.

I think and I was just talking to Jolynn that schools can also decide to hire family support workers and it's just in their options per school and so it could be more.

It's just dependent on certain schools.

Yeah.

Are those the weighted staffing standard choices that have to be made assistant superintendent Berge.

And Ms. Gallardo could you come up and introduce yourself please since you're alumna of this fine place and since we're working so closely together.

Thank you.

So I think Pat was going beyond this this bar this action had expanded past what this grant was giving us.

Family support workers it's an option they can buy it with their discretionary dollars.

There's enough dollars given out to the schools that oftentimes they'll buy up certain FTE and they have choice on that.

so that would be outside of this city dollars.

Yeah and just to bring back clarification to this bar and what the city is currently funding for next year that was actually my original question and I'm glad we get the overall picture of how many family support workers there are but

7.5 is what the funding from here specific funding for family support workers but then buildings are purchasing 5.5 FTE with their own FEL funding but that's not I don't have the breakdown of each building.

A total of 13 FTE 7.5 of which are covered by the family and education levy.

That's I'm counting that in the 7.5.

Yeah.

So it's 13 total funded by family and education levy.

Some is building funding.

Some is the central funding.

There's two pots of money that's paying for family support workers from family and education levy dollars.

But it's all still being covered by the family and education levy dollars and it's not state dollars and it's not operations levy dollars.

That's the clarification I'm looking for.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Ms. Gallardo could you introduce yourself quickly please.

Thank you.

Veronica Gallardo I am the proud division director for K-12 education for the Department of Education and Early Learning for the city of Seattle.

And you used to work with us doing what and for how long.

So I have the proud honor of being the former principal at Wedgwood Elementary and the former director for ELL and international schools total 15 years.

Thank you so much.

Okay we are moving on.

Thank you.

Number 10 acceptance of screening and brief intervention and referral SBIRT services grant for the amount of one million twenty thousand dollars three hundred forty thousand dollars per year through August 31 2021. This came before A&F May 14th for.

Approval.

Approval of this item with authorize the superintendent to accept the school based screening and brief intervention and referral to treatment grant from King County in the amount of one million twenty thousand dollars three hundred forty thousand dollars per year for the three year period from September 1 2018 to August 31 2021. Quick intro please.

So this was a grant written by Lisa Davidson to bring in some more support.

Written by whom?

Lisa Davidson.

Whose title is?

I'm going to have you say whose job description is.

I'm the manager of prevention and intervention.

Thank you.

As part of the Best Start King County Best Start for grants to bring in some more support at our middle schools for early intervention and referral treatment.

Questions comments concerns.

Thank you.

Number 11 Center for Disease Control and Prevention CDC promoting adolescent health through school based HIV prevention grant.

This came before A&F May 14 for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to accept CDC.

Promoting adolescent health through school board HIV prevention grant for the amount of $1,790,425 $358,085 per year for five years should the grant be awarded to the Seattle Public Schools.

Should the grant be awarded.

It has not been awarded.

It has not because of the process for committee and getting things forward we needed to bring and ask approval for your approval to accept the funds should we get the grant.

This is a grant we've had in the past.

We have not had it for the past five years we are now eligible again to apply for it.

So the district has done that applied for it and we're hoping to receive the grant.

but if we were to receive it the funds come due we can get the funds starting August 1. So to start the process we want to make sure we could get this up and running by the time school starts.

We're asking your approval now.

And for the last five years we've been funding our HIV prevention how?

Let Ms. Love speak to that.

Lisa Love manager of health education.

So for the last five years we were not eligible to apply for the CDC funding and the funding has been baseline dollars and very small grants from community agencies and partnerships with community agencies as well.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns Director Mack.

I'm super excited for this one and the last one that I didn't ask a question on in the interest of time but the question that I have that gets raised around these grants that we're accepting is ensuring that every student across the district actually has access to these really important services.

And in the previous grant we know that some schools did not apply and are not getting those services because of you know for whatever reason it didn't happen and for this one it is more comprehensive across the district but my question is more of a systemic question as to the grants and funding and overall picture of are we providing the same services in every school for every child to have access to these services and where those gaps are.

I'm curious to know if we have a comprehensive report somewhere that actually shares that information or we have a way to look at that because When I look at the funding and the grants that are coming in it says this school has it this school doesn't.

It leaves me concerned that there are schools that are missing out on needed services.

Specifically to this grant that we applied for or just grants in general.

Specifically to health related services so we get so grants that fund health related services so fund we didn't talk about it in the family education one either but we family education levy dollars fund health clinics at some schools.

There are other schools that don't have full time nurses.

So we have a big discrepancy in actually the services that are being provided in our schools for nursing services for things like HIV prevention services for mental health for suicide all of these things.

are a lot of them are grant funded which means that there are schools and students that are missing out on those services.

And so I'm curious my curiosity is getting a better understanding of where those gaps are.

And it's probably not something you can answer today but I approving each of these on their individual face is exciting to say yes we're serving these students but then I'm concerned about all the students that may not actually be getting served.

Does that make sense?

So kind of do a gap analysis of where we have services at based on the funding across the district.

Director DeWolf.

I just want to reply to that because are we using target sorry almost said the F word.

Are we not using targeted universalism in this approach for these grants.

Just one thing that came up with with Director Mack was that Everybody needs to have access to this but under our approach that we're using per EOG target universalism targeted targeted goals to reach targeted strategies to reach universal goals.

So aren't these grants targeted universalism not just universalism.

Does that kind of answer the.

Yes.

I would say yes.

So can I request that you all put together a response to that that addresses those concerns and with the overlay of targeted universalism sustainability and equity.

Thank you so much.

Number 12 kids in the middle grant from the Nesholm Family Foundation this came before A&F May 14 for.

Approval as well as the next two items.

Thank you sir.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to accept the kids in the middle grant funds from the Nesholm found family foundation in the amount of six hundred fifty five thousand two hundred fifty five dollars for the 2018 19 school year.

Triple dog dare anyone to talk against this.

Questions comments concerns.

Thank you.

Number 13 approval of contracts for special ed related services RFQ 5790 came for ANF May 14 as he said for approval approval of this item would authorize superintendent to execute contracts generated from agencies provided providers approved through RFQ 05790 related service agency contracts for educational staff associates ESA's for a not to exceed total of one million six hundred seventy five thousand dollars for the 2018 19 school year based on yearly 2017 18 ESA contract totals.

It's my understanding that this is for.

folks like occupational therapists physical therapists speech pathologists where we cannot and have not been able to fill the positions so we contract for them.

Is that a fair recitation Chief Jesse.

And can you introduce your compadre there as well please.

Most certainly.

Thank you for that opportunity.

The answer is yes.

It's for those wonderful positions.

They're always in high need well documented year and year out.

So this is the sandwich between what the is on the students needs on their IP as well as our collective bargaining agreement with SEA.

And so when those services are needed and we're not able to fill those particular roles we do have to go to outside vendors.

And so this is one of the things we took up part of our comprehensive correction action plan.

was to actually pull together all those vendors and do an RFQ to request all those vendors and have them tracked under one.

So we didn't have to keep going back and forth as frequently for contracts.

But you know it can be very troublesome to manage all those contracts for us and how frequent because we have all those services you know within a day a couple days.

And then this is one of our new directors.

This is Beth Mills.

We stole her from Tacoma so I feel very very fortunate to have her and so she'll usually answer the questions on these.

Welcome.

And we have a federal mandate to provide these services under IEPs correct.

You said it very well.

Yes.

So there's no choice in this matter.

Correct.

There's zero choice in this matter.

OK then.

Thank you ever so much.

Number 14 approval of agreement with Seattle.

Whoops.

Mr. Burke.

Please.

And Director Mack.

I just wanted to ask you know not wanting to drill down into the contracts but I noticed that the individual positions and the hourly rate varies across providers a little bit but even within providers.

Is that because the contracts relate to specific individuals at a certain rate or why would the rate be different for example for an occupational therapist.

at the same organization there's multiple purchase orders that are billing at different rates.

They contract those.

Those are different people sign up for different contracts so those are billable rates.

Thank you.

Director Mack please.

We had this discussion at the AF AF committee and if I remember we agreed to approval as long as we got some additional data provided around the amount of demand and need for these services and how much of that is being provided by our district employees and how much are we moving into these contracted billable hours which are I think at a substantially higher rate than if we are providing it during you know through staff and to tack on to So that's my first question but that I want to tack on to Director Burke's comment about the variation between the billable hours and a generalized concern I have over having some analysis to the appropriateness of those billable rates and so forth.

But.

So the billable rates are set in the RFP.

That's part of the process that we go through.

We agree to pay certain rates.

So that's part of the contracting that we do.

I think that the discussion that we had at A&F is that we would try our best to see if that data was readily available.

I don't know that we've been able to identify that data that we can easily pull forward.

On as far as the number of.

We don't have a sense of how much we're contracting out versus how much we're providing in house.

as far as how many kids are being served by each person.

How many hours or some measure of that.

Yeah.

I think the program is still working on it.

We had sent the email out.

I don't know that we have an ETA yet for you.

I think that's important information for this contract approval personally because it shed some light into a trend potentially.

So I would say I don't believe it's important for this contract approval.

I understand that you want that information overall and that's important for how we structure our services.

In the next two weeks can best efforts be made to get this information to the board.

Yes we always make our very best efforts and we will continue to do so.

And I appreciate that very much.

Thank you.

OK.

Number 14 approval of agreement with Seattle Children's for hospital based educational services.

This came before A&F May 14 for approval as said the chair previously approval of this item would approve a contract for four hundred sixty five thousand five hundred dollars with Seattle Children's Hospital to provide hospital based education services.

This is another compliance issue mandated by federal law.

Is that a fair comment?

Yes it is.

We have this contract every year.

And we're not going to leave children at Seattle Children's Hospital without educational services.

That is correct.

Yes.

Thank you.

Number 15 BTA 4 BEX 4 approval of four actions related to the Daniel Bagley School modernization and addition project.

This came before Ops May 10 4. Approval.

Approval of this item would authorize a 10 million dollar budget transfer a contract amendment a resolution and the GCCM alternative construction delivery method for the Bagley modernization and addition project.

Take it away.

Yes this is a project that was contemplated both in the BEX IV capital levy and the BTA IV capital levy.

What was contemplated in BEX IV was construction of 10 classrooms and an addition to the existing gymnasium.

I highlighted at the operations committee the existing gymnasium is very narrow.

and to expand that you would essentially be creating a bowling alley because of its current configuration from a structural standpoint.

And so this budget increase is to build a new gymnasium.

to relocate the existing library to the current gymnasium and then infill the covered play area to create a music classroom and add an additional classroom on this on this school site.

In addition we will have two what we say are small group learning areas outside the new additions to create some spaces for classrooms to gather and then also to create some spaces for accelerated learning or for kids who need individual help on catching up.

And so that is the background information for the budget request.

We are also would have to modify the architects design contract and you have the mountain in front of you of $482,000 and then we're seeking approval to utilize GCCM construction and asking that you approve the resolution.

I will open it up to your questions.

Has this gone before the BECCS oversight committee and what did they respond?

We have had we have notified the BECCS oversight committee Director Geary was a standing member on that committee.

Director Mack attended the last committee.

We talk about project updates.

and express concerns.

We'll note that we are utilizing four different contingencies for implementing this.

The BEX oversight committee is very careful to note that they want to reserve some program contingency in BEX IV until we get to the end of the program.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Pinkham.

Just with all these budget transfers how are we doing with the contingency budgets on the other programs?

We are getting down on the BEXFOR program contingency Director Pinkham.

I will note we only have two more projects to bid on BEXFOR and when I say projects to bid large projects of the scale of Bagley Elementary School.

One is Bagley and the other is the second phase of Wing Luke.

All the other projects on the major projects have been bid and have been awarded and have either been delivered or are currently under construction.

Loyal Heights is finishing up this month.

We're going to be touring that on the Beck's oversight committee in June.

Lincoln High School will finish in the summer of 19. Queen Anne Elementary School will finish in the summer of 19 leaving us just two more projects.

Wing Luke will begin will bid in the fall of 18 and Bagley's plan to bid in the fall excuse me the spring of 19. So we only have two more projects to bid on BEX IV.

On BTA IV we have all of our projects under construction or nearing completion with the exception of Webster that will bid again in the spring of 19. So those are really the two.

The projects that bid are the projects that we have at greatest risk as to what you know the market could potentially do.

And we believe we have adequate funds in our contingencies to address market conditions should they change.

Director Burke.

Apologies if you already covered this because I was trying to read and listen at the same time and my brain only takes one input so it's probably I probably broke both of them.

So was the this Bagley project or this this represents an addition to an existing planned project.

This the Bagley project was initially contemplated as a BEX IV 10 classroom addition and expansion of the existing gymnasium.

Those were the big items cited.

That was that was planned as part of BEX IV and put out to the voters saying we're going to do Bagley we're going to do it this way.

We're going to do an addition to Bagley.

and now we're going to when I do it.

Well when I came on board we went out and we did I went and surveyed all of the BEX projects that and one of the comments I heard from our facilities department at the existing Bagley Elementary School.

So the school that is there today is the mechanical systems are not you know are not functional.

They're original to the building and the building was constructed in 1930. The electrical systems are not supportive of a current educational program.

They're original to the building structural system should have significant improvements as well for seismic upgrades.

We made that part of BTA for prior board approved that of which director Patu was the only member on the diocese that approved that capital levy.

Construction market conditions have changed.

Costs have increased.

But we've also recognized that the initial plan for the gymnasium was not did not recognize the structural system.

And so we're proposing the size of the gym a new gym that's sized to the elementary ed spec.

So to echo back probably oversimplified Bagley was identified and landed on earlier BTA levy and Beck's levy.

Correct.

And then through the combination of recognizing a need for more capacity ed spec alignment and cost escalation due to the construction environment we're looking at this bar today.

Correct.

Thank you.

That would be a great summary.

And it would also would it also stand to reason that we're being responsive and nimble in making these changes recognizing earlier plans that were left wanting.

Yes that would be an accurate statement as well and I would also say responding to the elementary educational program that has been revised since BEX IV was initially contemplated.

We updated the elementary educational program EdSpec Director Harris in summer of 2015. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

OK number 16 BEX IV BTA IV approval of the site specific educational spec specifications for the Daniel Bagley Elementary School modernization and addition project.

This came before Ops May 10. For consideration.

I've got for approval here.

on number 16.

I was skipping ahead.

Yes for approval.

Just checking.

Approval of this item would provide the design teams with information about the program space required to support the education program of Daniel Begley Elementary School.

Quick synopsis sir please.

So as indicated in the last conversation we updated the elementary educational specifications in summer of 2015. While the levy was clear as to what the BEX levy was clear as to what the additions were.

We asked that our architects do a comparison with the 500 student elementary school because the added classrooms.

were most closely aligned with the 500 student elementary school.

They've given you a summary sheet as an attachment that notes where the differences are.

And I would say we're going to have a fantastic school when this is approved and completed.

Thank you.

I love that segue you got in there on the last one.

Well done.

Number 17 BTA for award contracts K 5 0 9 8 K 5 0 9 9 K 5100 K 5 1 0 1 and K 5 1 0 2 for athletic field lighting projects at Ballard Cleveland Franklin and Roosevelt High Schools and Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.

This came before Ops May 10 4. Consideration Approval of this item would award contracts with the King County Directors Association KCDA with the total combined amount of two million three hundred eighty one thousand five hundred eighty nine dollars for the athletic field lighting projects at Ballard Cleveland Franklin Roosevelt High Schools and Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.

So this contract is really in response to an action of a previous board that revised the bell times for our high school programs for our high school for our high schools and so therefore we are short shortening the duration of time after school in which light is available to implement co-curricular activities.

We're asking to install field lights at those high school athletic fields to allow those co-curricular activities to extend into the evening with the field lights and the projects are planned to be implemented late summer early fall.

once we finish and conclude the SEPA and master use permit process with the city of Seattle.

Comments questions concerns.

I'd also like to add that these are under budget right.

These are all under budget.

All under budget.

Yes.

Other comments questions concerns.

Did you hear public testimony concerns about the SEPA process.

I did not.

The cameras are not working on the web today.

I usually listen upstairs but I did not hear public testimony.

My understanding is it will be uploaded tomorrow.

So if you could listen to those public comments and be ready to address those at action.

Much appreciated.

and one real quick question before we move forth.

These are energy efficient lights.

These are lights that don't have the same kind of spread than the lights of old that drove the neighbors crazy.

That is correct.

These are LED lights that are highly efficient and we will have very minimal foot candles leaving our property literally the point two range so at most of these school sites.

so there's very little light spread off of our property.

Thank you so much.

Number 18 Becks 4 we're just going to keep you there till the end of the meeting.

Award construction contract P 5 1 1 6 bid B 0 1 8 3 9 to Rhine Demolition LLC for Wing Luke Elementary School replacement project phase 1 came to ops May 10 4. Consideration.

Approval of this item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of one million eight hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred seventy five dollars plus sales tax for the Wing Luke elementary school replacement project phase one.

So yes this is the first phase this would allow work to begin on July 15th.

This would be the demolition of the existing school and then all of the rough grading required for your future erection of the building which is planned as phase two.

This came forward to you for consideration because we're asked by the operations committee to articulate why we're not able to save the 2005 edition.

The 2005 edition is a U-shape around the existing gymnasium.

The existing gymnasium is way undersized.

and we also noted that there were several public comments that the public was asking us to address with the redesign of the building that would have been much more difficult to address had we not demolished that existing gymnasium.

That information is in your bar.

Questions comments concerns.

Director Mack.

Just to thank you for being so responsive and pulling that information together.

Well there's no question about the fact that we're making a public record here folks and appreciate that we're partners in that.

Number 19. BEX IV and BTA IV resolution 2017 18-13 racial imbalance in balance analysis for Lincoln High School modernization project.

Ops May 10 for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would certify that the project will not create or aggravate racial imbalance.

Yes.

So what we did after you established the boundaries for Lincoln High School.

We looked at those boundaries and the new boundaries that were created for Roosevelt and Ballard High School from a time period of 2010 to projected enrollment of 2021 or to the projected enrollment of 2021. We had eight years of actual information and five years of projections or four years of projections.

and what we learned is from the time period of 2010 to 2012 Lincoln High School Roosevelt High School both would have been racially imbalanced from 2013 forward.

Those are no longer would be racially imbalanced and as they're projected they will not be racially imbalanced.

with the new boundary for Ballard High School from the period of 2010 to 2021 excuse me 2020 it will be racially imbalanced.

In 2021 when we have all four grades at Lincoln High School Ballard High School will then become racially racially balanced school.

And so we have reviewed our methodology with OSPI.

They've concluded that our methodology is correct and so we're recommending approval to you.

Again I think for the importance of this point is to recognize that in 2019 Lincoln High School opens with 9th and 10th graders.

2020 it's 9th 10th and 11th graders and in 2021 all three all three of these high schools will be racially balanced by the WAC definition.

Seeing no comments questions concerns I go to 21. Excuse me I go to 20. BTA 3 final acceptance of public works contract K 5 0 5 8 with Neely Construction and Cabinet Company for the athletic field improvements at Franklin High School and athletic field improvements and new fire sprinklers systems at Salmon Bay K 8 project.

This came to Ops May 10 4. Approval.

Approval of this would give final acceptance of public works contract K 5 0 5 8 with Neely Construction and Cabinet Company for the athletic field improvements at Franklin High School and athletic field improvements and new fire sprinkler systems at Salmon Bay K 8 project.

Yes so your approvals required for us to release retainage on this project.

We have to submit paperwork to the three state agencies that are listed.

Once you approve the project 45 days later we're allowed to release project retainage provided they have no liens against the project.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

These are action items that are like a celebration.

We get to we should have like exploding confetti or something so.

We can arrange for that.

So here.

Yay.

Thank you.

21 and last.

BTA 4 final acceptance of contract K 5 0 7 7 with Western Ventures construction for the Garfield High School roof replacement project.

Ops May 10 4. Approval.

Approval of this item would approve final acceptance of contract K 5 0 7 7 with Western Ventures construction.

As Director Patu said at one point is this last we have to hear about that roof.

Yes that this is the last you will have to hear on the Garfield High School roof.

We will have the Ballard and West Seattle roof yet to bring to you but you will not hear about Garfield's roof anymore.

That's worth confetti on its own.

Yes.

Any questions comments concerns seeing none.

We adjourn this meeting at 8 45 p.m.

Thank you ever so much.

Thank you.

And Mr. Associate Superintendent Herndon how nice is it not to have to come to the box.

There you go.

Oh, oh!

and the other side.

www.fema.org