School Board Meeting Date: 8/24/2016 Part 2

I will now move into the action portion of the agenda.

I would note that per the approval of the executive committee as its August 17th meeting, action item number one, principals association collective bargaining agreement has been moved to the September 21st board meeting agenda and action items number three, cloud book laptops and number four, construction contract for Ingram High School waterline upgrade projects have been moved from the agenda.

So the board, okay.

Yes, let's start with item two.

And it's 2016-2017 city of Seattle families and education levy community based organization contract approval.

Okay I move that the board authorize the superintendent to execute contracts for a combined total of approximately $1,771,313 with city of Seattle's parks and recreation department, university tutors for Seattle schools, communities and schools, YMCA of greater Seattle and city year for school year 2016-17 for the purpose of providing families and education levy FEL funded activities and selected elementary K-8 middle and high schools with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contracts.

I second the motion.

Committee Chair's recommendation.

Yes, this was brought and discussed at the audit and finance committee meeting on May 12, 2016. The committee moved this item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Any questions?

Okay, comments?

Just how extraordinarily lucky we are that we have these supports in place.

We couldn't do it without our partners and I bow to them.

Any other comments?

Okay Miss Ritchie, roll call.

Director Peters?

Aye.

Director Pinkham?

Aye.

Director Blanford?

Aye.

Director Burke?

Aye.

Director Geary?

Aye.

Director Harris?

Aye.

Director Patu?

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Okay item number five.

Northwest School of Innovative Learning Fairfax Hospital contract.

Okay, I move that the superintendent be authorized to enter into a contract with Northwest School of Innovative Learning, Fairfax Hospital to provide educational services for students in private placement for the 2016-17 school year in the amount of $619,992 in the form attached to the board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

for the next day.

Any comments?

Well I'll go with the recommendations from the committee.

This came to the audit and finance committee meeting.

So this motion was discussed at the June 9, 2016 audit and finance committee meeting where it was approved to be included for introduction at the June 15, 2016 board meeting.

This motion was discussed at the June 13, 2016 curriculum and instruction committee meeting.

The committee moved this item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval and I hope Director Burke doesn't mind me stealing his line right there.

Okay and then on July 6, 2016 the full board declined to approve this item with a recommendation to review the procedures and communication documents used by Northwest School of Innovative Learning and Seattle Public Schools to revise their behavioral management policy and procedures to clearly comply with the WAC 392.172A-02105.

Please see two documents as evidence of the changes by Northwest School of Innovative Learning.

I hope those are included somewhere here.

The revised documents went to the audit and finance committee on August 18, 2016. On that day the committee moved the item forward to the full board with the recommendation for approval.

Now I do feel it necessary to say that what we were told at that meeting differs from what we heard in testimony tonight and I would like to see the different information reconciled because that did influence our recommendation for approval at that time.

I second the motion.

And further, Chief Jesse, if you could comment please on the coordinated success plan that testifiers address that they never received and that they report to be critical to this decision.

Thank you.

Good evening, YHSC, Chief of Student Support Services.

I'm here for both introduction and action for a contract with Northwest School of Innovative Learning, commonly referred to as Northwest Soil.

And coming back to you, following the disapproval of the contract on July 6th and you know based on those conversations and further input went back and continued to work with Northwest Soil in regards to their communication.

There was a lot of a general agreement between us and you is there was some confusion about exactly what were the policies and things that they were being asked of parents and specifically the actions that they were gonna perform at Northwest Soil that would have led to some confusion around what is, at that time, they were using the term physical management and now it's behavioral management, which is a more preferred term.

Also in there, there was some things that were not clear about what is gonna receive a physical restraint or isolation and that new now termed behavioral management policy acknowledgement was a shift and a change in this.

We had this conversation at the curriculum and instruction policy committee meeting last week.

This particular changes do refer to as well in here in the letter by Northwest Soil.

and I heard the comments was really around what would garner any kind of physical restraint and so the things that are imminent danger, danger to the self, danger to others or significant damage to property and that's in alignment with our own policies and superintendent procedures are related to isolation restraint and is in compliance with the RCW related to this So I think Northwest Soil has made some changes, there was some clarity in language and I think the one thing that really does remain well remain clear around this is just what is it to mean to have any kind of physical guidance and physical guidance is a term that could be exchanged for as what we call an escort and so for those practitioners that have been doing this work that an escort happens fairly frequently especially with younger students where you're just escorting them usually grabbing a piece of clothing and moving them from one environment to another but it's not a as you can see in the laws holding of a limb restraining them down on the ground which is also in part of the concern around a prone restraint they've cleaned that up they said hey we're not doing prone restraints we do do escorts when someone's disrupted the environment they can have those kind of students usually the younger students are the ones that are escorted and moved to another environment in a safe manner it's a way of what we would term as lower physical interaction with a particular student and helps to de-escalate a student, get into a calmer, quieter environment where students can de-escalate, we can work on those strategies with those students, oftentimes in those environments or even oftentimes sometimes when other students are inciting them.

and I think I would also call out that this is a very unique service.

It's a therapeutic services at a hospital in a hospital setting and there are going to be differences in what they have as their own policies and procedures.

I think in our work with them when we were doing this it did take some time because it was multiple hospitals across multiple states who were using some of these forms and so Again I think right as it rightly states some of the concerns were do they do a prone restraint?

No they don't.

Do they use some physical guidance?

Yes they do.

It would be called an escort and not a physical restraint and I think the really thing that we've been lost a little bit out of this is the unique needs that are placed on these student's IEPs.

and there are very few places that do want to take and serve these kind of students.

And as I've stated before and I was talking to Senator Murray's people last week just around therapeutic services, there's only 19 CLIP placements in this entire state.

so that's only 19 places and beds for students with mental health services that can get those services and then is borne upon districts including Seattle Public Schools to most certainly provide services for students in the oversight and we feel so strongly about this is that that's why we have our own staff out at Northwest Soil at least every other week.

We're out there observing things, we're seeing their practices, we're holding them accountable and we're working with OSPI and that is the continuous improvement plan that was referenced.

That particular document is just, I believe public record request was met yesterday so I'm a little surprised that that wasn't done or stated that someone didn't receive it because I was informed of that but also just to say That plan is, that's the state's, that's OSPI's because they're a non-public agency recognized by OSPI.

So OSPI has also their own oversight in addition to ours and the other dozens of districts who do use the services by Northwest Soil themselves.

And so coming to you today to say, hey, we do have this oversight.

We're gonna continue to be out there every other week.

They've revised their own policies so that they read better, they're clearer and they are in support of the RCW in relation to isolation restraint and we are working with OSPI and continue to do so just to further support the practices done by Northwest Soil.

Dr. Plainford?

So I am struggling a little bit because I was in the room when the presentation was made at the committee meeting last week and then I heard the comments that were made in public testimony and what you've shared with us just now and I'm wondering how do you reconcile, I'm assuming that you also heard the public testimony comments.

So I'm wondering how you reconcile or how you would speak to those particular comments.

Do you understand my question?

I think I do.

And the two things that I heard were around physical guidance and that they're still using prone restraints.

And again what I would say is how do I reconcile that?

I say well Northwest Soil, a hospital MPA status having a lot of accountability, they have a board, a lot of oversight for themselves, not just with us, not just with OSPI, has on letterhead that says they don't use prone restraints.

I have to go with what the agency says, that's the observations by our own staff.

That was a practice that I'm sure was used by Northwest Soil at one point.

I kind of reconcile sometimes myself to also say Some of our parents or members of the community use information that could have been a previous experience.

And so I think for me I say this is what I know today.

This is the work that we've been collaborating with with Northwest Soil and that's why I feel like today I can support this contract myself.

If I had those concerns I would not.

So is this an issue of interpretation that the person who spoke in public testimony reads the language different than you do?

Is there a different language?

I'm still struggling to understand why we're not in agreement, why the public testimony person is who I understand is well versed in these subjects is so radically in a different place than where you are telling us and where we heard last week.

Sometimes it's very difficult for me to understand exactly the intent or intentions of others.

In this particular instance I am just again reiterating that on this piece of paper it literally reads we do not use prone restraints.

That was one of the concerns I've heard from some of those constituents.

they said hey they use this particular type of methodology and so as you know some methodologies subscribe different ways of doing things and so in this particular how do you deescalate students, how do you provide physical management of students and in this particular case they don't subscribe to all of that what they provide in that training and one of those is prone restraints they do those in other states perhaps other agencies this one does not and that was a major primary bulk of that concern they've got it in writing I haven't observed it and they're under that oversight of dozens of districts as well as OSPI that's what I do know today and I feel with that confidence we'll provide that continue to provide that oversight

you know it says I'm looking at this procedure in here and it does says that procedure and a restraint and isolation that relates to Washington state law so what it says is that they do use restraint but it's according to the Washington state law that's correct so obviously they do use restraint you know and what you're saying is that there's something here that says they don't use restraint but there's two paragraph here that actually says that they do use restraint actually this whole paragraph here talks about how they use restraint with according to the Washington state law.

Thank you Board Director Patu for clarifying.

They do use isolation restraint in this particular environment.

What I'm saying is a particular strategy is called prone.

It's really a floor hold and what I'm saying is they don't use that specific strategy to physically restrain a student because that's deemed to be unsafe and that's been a concern by our community.

That's also something out there that we don't want to support and so they don't do it as well.

Well, I actually agreed with Director Plantford.

I think it's the way it's written, that when parents read it, it's translated a little differently, you know, in terms of whether they are there or not.

But it says on here, when you read it, you know, I mean, if I was a parent, I would read it and it tells me that they do use restraint, but in a certain way.

I mean, this whole, whole, Paragraph here talks about restraints and it doesn't say anything in there that they don't use restraint It's just they said that they use restraint according to Washington state law and then they tell you about different ways of how they use it So I'm confused.

So, and you know, if I'm confused, I know the parents that actually that reads it are also confused.

I think there has to be a more easier way of understanding exactly what do they mean when they talk about restraint throughout this whole paragraph in this other procedure and restraint isolation policy that they have on here.

So I think that's where the confusion is.

Does any other board directors feel the same way I do?

Yes, I am also confused.

if I can.

Their opening line really is around talking about if students not able to have behavioral control when verbal de-escalation techniques have not worked, the staff at Northwest Soil Physical Invention is always used as a last resort.

and will only be used in cases again where there's imminent threat to danger themselves and others in property.

That's in compliance directly with the law and that's what the emergency response protocol would be.

That specific information for those situations would be in the student's IEP as per the IEP team.

There would also be a lot of details around the student's behavior intervention plan.

that would have been crafted.

The language you have here has a lot of depth to it.

I'm gonna just add up my pieces and say I think some lawyers have gotten a hold of this document and there are some things the way people do have to provide their liabilities.

If you even read our own superintendent procedure, and there's a lot of details too in that procedure on isolation and restraint.

It just has a lot of, what is isolation and restraint?

What are those mechanisms?

What constitutes it?

What does not constitute it?

And we do, and I've heard before, parent-friendly language.

This is clearer than it was before, I think there's always room for improvement most certainly but it's right there up front that they don't want to do physical intervention only in a last resort just like we do.

It's the exact same things that we're doing right here in Seattle Public Schools.

Thank you Chief Jesse for the work and to help us clarify this because it's a tricky issue.

I'm looking at the board attachment.

This is page 15. There's a letter from Northwest Soil to whom it may concern that includes context, history and rationale.

that indicates this document was updated to reflect the changes in the revised code of Washington, RCW, that went into effect on January 1, 2016. For me, I'm trying to reconcile what I had heard in public testimony that the NW soil documents or contract are not in compliance with state law.

What I read there is that it is.

And so is this what you were speaking to, that if we're entirely evaluating this based on the documents provided, we're in compliance with state law, but we have historical information about potentially past practices of this organization that might be impacting perception?

I'm trying to understand for myself as well what

Yeah and I often times try not to speculate I understand the care and concern of particular community members and we continue to work with those particular community members on a lot of things but again that's what I wanted to provide that evidence that that's why that letter was written in support of that that they were going to be following you know RCW 28A-600.485 around isolation and restraint.

And so that's what we have here.

That's what they're doing.

That's what OSPI recognizes.

Those are what I call credible sources.

Director Harris.

Thank you.

I'm so troubled when folks that I respect so much are saying things apparently very differently.

I would like either general counsel or counsel who has reviewed this contract to come up and speak to their interpretation of it.

Good evening, Noel Treat, General Counsel.

What I can tell you is, as we've heard already tonight, this provider is approved by OSPI as a non-public agency provider, which means they're subject to OSPI oversight.

They're required to comply with state laws that regards restraint and isolation.

Their contract with us mandates that they comply with state law.

and so that's what I can tell you about their need to comply and we also have our own oversight to ensure that during the course of this contract they are in compliance and if they're not we'd have the opportunity to terminate if we needed to and go a different direction.

I don't know the reasons for the disagreement exactly between what you heard in public testimony and what you've heard from staff wasn't exactly clear to me but they are required to comply with state law under the terms of our contract.

Did Seattle Public Schools legal sign off on the last contract and the new language in the letter?

and the hold harmless?

Yes, and we've got the contract that's proposed in our standard form which has independent contractor, has indemnification, insurance requirements, so it's got the host of things that provide legal protection to the district, along with the compliance to comply with the law provision.

Okay, and legal also signed off on the on the proposed letter to be given to our parents?

We didn't see the letter before they, oh you mean the letter or the consent or the acknowledgement?

We didn't sign off on it, no.

They didn't send it to us review before they provided it to the district.

but I have looked at it and the acknowledgement, it's not a consent form so I want to just clarify that, but the acknowledgement of policy does track what state law says about using restraint only when there is imminent danger of harm and so it's consistent with what I see in the WAC if that's your question.

Thank you.

Dr. Blanford?

I'm trying to, recognizing the time, I'm trying to at least be curious about the implications of not moving this forward and so I looked at the alternative section of the bar and it says this is not recommended because not approving the motion is not recommended because students legally mandated IEPs would not be met.

The district does not currently have a program to meet the high needs of these students.

Can you say more about that?

I could see a lot more about that.

There are- Rich version maybe.

I'm trying for that.

So there are very limited service providers for therapeutic services that are similar to Northwest soil.

We contract with really only three of them.

Child which is down in Renton Over Lake Hospital which is in Bellevue and these folks right here that are out there in Redmond, sorry.

They have a couple locations.

We are working to get in tandem therapeutic services here.

We started really small in some services over the summer.

We're looking to expand those.

We have currently out a RFQ that is out there to work through the same request for those kind of services.

We'll have to move through contracting with folks.

This was done for very much around just for summer services to meet our needs of our students.

that was done well in advance of this but these students have to be served right along with the other school calendar we owe those services that's on the IEP and those particular placement needs are on the student's IEPs and the IEP teams will also have to have to talk about the placement and if there was to be a change in placement.

But a parent could exercise stay put if there was an issue and around those issues and we'd have to continue to provide those services.

My concern given the date where we're at today I gotta look at this and we're looking there.

We're always looking for better services that's why we'd like to bring them back to Seattle Public Schools but that takes time, that expertise, the training.

I mean this is just, these are like very few people have this skill set and desire to serve this population unfortunately.

We want to make sure we do it right and that's why we have this level of oversight like we do with Northwest Soil.

Dr. Peters.

So another thing that was brought up in public testimony was the claim that we do have within the district a therapeutic day school operated by Seneca at original Van Asselt, is that correct?

Yeah I've updated, these are regular updates that I've been providing the curriculum and instruction policy committee and so those are things that we said we would start really small working ourselves so it's like just like literally a couple students just to get services over the summer, right?

And that's not during regular placement.

We can most certainly extend those things.

We are doing that, but we're not set up for most certainly nine or really what I'm looking at more like at 12 students that we would be looking at for Northwest Swell in preparation as students move in.

So those needs are amazing.

A classroom really would, we would think of just, you know, typical classroom, the size and everything, would really serve about six students and that's all we really are having.

we're set up for right now as we start small on this work.

We'll see how the RFQ, we do have other people interested in working with us on this.

It's just gonna take some time.

Another source of confusion was at the audit and finance committee meeting last week we were told that the Seattle council PTSA and the special ed community had been informed of the changes that were happening with this agreement since it was last brought to the board and they were informed and I understood that they were supportive of this and that's why it was surprising to have members of that community testify in opposition to it.

So were they engaged in this?

I think I got your question hopefully and there's so many comments I can't quite I think this one's around whether we've been talking about therapeutic services I don't get into conversations around specific contracts but we have been in conversations for at least a year plus around therapeutic services I know that Director Geary has been part of those conversations just when she was on SEAC from a year previous it's been a need mental health services the things that we wrap around and so we have engaged and continue to update the community around therapeutic services I'm not sure all members have been in all part of those meetings just because the attendance wanes and flows sometimes at those particular meetings whether the formal PTSA meeting or executive leadership team of the Special Ed PTSA.

Well just to clarify I wasn't being specific to the topic of therapeutic services I just meant this whole contract with Northwest Soil which has been controversial when it was introduced to us earlier in the year and the board did not support it at that time when it was brought to us again in audit and finance we were assured that all the problems had been pretty much dealt with and that the Seattle Council PTSA and the special ed community had been engaged on this topic.

and so what I'm saying is today to have two members, one in particular who we all know to be a well informed prominent member of the special education community come out and again be opposed to this contract was surprising and so that's the source of my concern and I think some of my colleagues concern.

So are you saying that her understanding of this contract is not accurate?

That's what I'm saying.

Yes that's the evidence that I'm trying to present today is not in support of exactly what they are saying because that's the evidence that I have here today.

Okay so this contract does comply with state law?

Yes it does.

Okay and all the issues that were brought up the last time this came to the board have been addressed?

Yes they have.

Director Harris.

When I brought this up originally it was several of the provisions in the emergency response protocol that parents were being forced to sign that caused me concern.

and that I do see that the use of a behavior management system rather than a physical management system, that language has been changed, that physical guidance has been defined as not restraint.

That was one of the issues that I brought up because it wasn't differentiated as to when restraint would be used or not be used through the language, even though there were two different sets of circumstances which might call it into question.

I do understand how difficult these students are to place, and my history is such that I also understand that These students, their parents often have been through a lot to get their students to places like this, and nobody wants to know that their student has to go to a setting like this.

It's a heartbreaking moment, I think, for a parent, and parents carry a lot around those placements, but they are necessary.

The changes that I have seen and that I have heard do give me comfort or do, I believe, meet the letter of the law in a placement that is just an uncomfortable placement to think about putting a student.

So a lot of times what you find out in the parent community is just a sense that why does any student have to get to this kind of a placement.

But the alternative if we don't place these students and this is what they're needed is that we will have to find other placements.

And that gives me concern because those placements may be farther away because we don't have placements close by.

So then we are sending these students farther away from their community where transitioning them back at some point becomes far more difficult.

Their parents' ability to see them regularly is far more difficult and our ability to go and monitor the placement that they are at becomes far more difficult for us.

And if we are going to see this placement every other week and we have clearly now a relationship that has been, let's say, highlighted or we have put Northwest soil on notice that we are watching them and that we are very concerned and that we are going to have an alternative placement we are developing it up and we'll be able to at some point hopefully place these students.

I believe that's a good oversight relationship to have with this kind of a placement.

It makes us very close to them.

And close is good because close is monitoring.

And the alternatives as I see them wouldn't give me that level of assurance as difficult as these types of placements are to think about for any student and knowing that no matter what the situation, an IEP, a contract, a policy, they're just words on paper and we may hear and In the law you know words on paper, people are supposed to follow them, but it doesn't always happen.

But these words aren't the worst words.

These are pretty good assurances.

They say no restraint.

They say we're not using prone.

They say it's a behavior management program and they have a relationship with our school district.

And so while I wish parents didn't have to sign such a document ever, that's why I would go ahead and support this.

contract for now.

And hopefully by next year we will have a program suitable that we don't have to rely on these types of contracts.

and I actually feel comfortable why Jesse actually had did mention that our staff will be monitoring what's going on over there to make sure that they are income you know they're actually doing what we have asked for them to do so I feel comfortable with the district actually doing monitoring and making sure that there's a follow-up and I will support this contract Any more questions?

Director Pinkham?

In the letter from Northwest Soil on the context and history rationale just kind of one thing that's standing out for me is they're saying we are currently reviewing our physical management and the necessity of the requirement of the signature for proof that requires parents to acknowledge our procedures.

So to me that's saying they're still doing a review process to even if they're going to require such a signature so something can change after this is signed they may toss this whole thing out.

Yeah, I appreciate that, Director Pinkham, because Northwest Soil isn't just like an independent hospital, it's actually tied to other hospitals, and so their policy is used by multiple hospitals, and so it has to get that kind of approval.

you know but we're actually the ones pushing the envelope to keep working on improvement and it's really that's something that they said they were going to continue to do and everybody should we do constant reviewing ours you know we go with student rights and responsibilities coming back to you every year those are just another example of that.

And then do we know of other school districts that have contracts current with Northwest Soil has there been any issues with them?

almost everybody around the lake, I mean everybody up and down.

They have three sites actually in the Puget Sound area and so almost every district ends up contracting smaller districts maybe every year or something like that but yeah everybody does because there's only again very limited placements.

So have we had any complaints from any of the parents that actually been a part of Northwest Soil?

Not not recently And so I know someone would want I've talked a couple when they would want to stay there They want to be there and so but I really appreciate you know director Gary It's a very difficult and challenging situation every family who has to face this and I just met with one Just a couple weeks ago they have their placement in Idaho.

I mean you have these kind of situations where it's very challenging and they're also fluid and there's just the needs, the physical mental health needs of these students can change.

And so I do feel very much for the situations when we work with them to try to be as flexible as we can be to meet their needs and their families needs.

Any more comments, questions?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

Director Pinkham.

Aye Director Blanford.

Aye Director Burke.

Aye Director Geary.

Aye Director Harris.

Aye Director Peters.

Abstain.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion has passed.

Six to one.

Or zero one, sorry.

That's the end of our action items.

We're now into our introduction items.

Our first one is resolution 2016 17-1 acknowledgement of Duwamish tribe and this motion was discussed at the Executive Committee meeting on August 17, 2016 to review the item and move the item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Any questions, comment on this item?

Do you want to say anything about it?

Who wants to say something about this item?

Yes it'll be me.

Yes I brought forth this item and in particular just want to think about when you travel around the world and you go to places and The school systems that they're at, a lot of things that they teach will be about the people that were there.

You're learning about the history of the people who are there.

And I think for us here in the United States, North American continent, to be able to acknowledge the indigenous people that were here is a way for us to say yes, we're stepping forward to make sure we're being really inclusive.

You know, the race and equity initiatives that we're acknowledging the people that first occupied this land.

And if we can acknowledge them, here in Seattle, the Duwamish tribe, the Duwamish nation, this was their land, this was their area.

And by having this as kind of resolution that we can pass, I think it's a great step forward to acknowledge where we are as a city, as a state, as a nation.

Because too often I have seen that Unfortunately yes I know native populations are very small you know less than five percent less than two percent in some places that oftentimes get marginalized but if we can stand up for the minority saying yes we know you're here we acknowledge your existence and their continued existence not that you're no longer here yes the Duwamish people are still here and they've been struggling to get their recognition they had it.

for a number of years they were actually the first tribe listed on the point Elliott treaty I believe it was if I remember the correct one but then during the termination era in the 1950s they lost it and it's just they have been struggling to get it back so some of the documentation I hope you'll see they're not seeking new federal recognition, they're seeking the restore of their federal recognition.

And when we think about the Chief Seattle, this is the land that we're on, the chief of the Duwamish nation.

Yes, he is buried over with the Suquamish nation.

But my tribe too, one of our famous chiefs, Chief Joseph, he isn't buried on our reservation, he's buried on the Colville reservation.

But that doesn't take away from us as an expert of who we are just because one of our great chiefs is buried elsewhere.

So I'm glad that the executive committee and Director Harris being the co-sponsor listened to this proposal and have agreed to pass it on for approval.

Dr. Blackford?

I have a question for Director Pinkham.

It is my understanding and you can clarify, let me know if I'm wrong, that there is more than one tribe that is represented in the greater Seattle area.

Is that the case?

There are a number of tribes I would consider the Puget Sound area home, from the Suquamish, I don't want to keep on listening because I'm afraid I might leave someone out but Duwamish is probably the one that's even many of the native communities when they have meetings they'll say you know I want to acknowledge that the land that we're on is the Duwamish of the nation so.

But are there other tribes that would call Seattle home?

Yes, I would probably say so.

The reason I ask the question is I'm just curious if this puts us in a bad position in recognizing the Duwamish and not recognizing the other tribes.

Do you see the gist of my question?

Yeah I can see that but I would say the Duwamish have the more claim to this territory than probably the others in the Muckleshoot are in their area, the Suquamish are in their area right now and the Duwamish they were moved out of the Seattle territory to basically settle the Seattle area where we're at right now.

And one more point and this is not so much a question but a comment.

In some ways I wish this resolution had gone a little bit further and the reason I say that is since I've become a board member there have been a few occasions where we have named schools and I always have a little bit of discomfort with naming a school, recognizing that we are on the land of the Duwamish or other tribes and that name never comes up or a name that's associated with the tribe never comes up.

I wish in some ways that this resolution had encouraged us as a board to take that additional step of naming our schools, recognizing the indigenous people on whose land those schools are located.

So maybe in a future resolution, and I'd be happy to work with you on this and have some conversation, but I'm conscious of the colonial nature of naming sites that you have taken over, naming them and then one day they become yours.

They no longer have the association with the indigenous people on whose land the building is actually located.

and so I'd love to have some conversation.

I don't want to do anything that would be too far afield but I really would like to have some conversation about how we can go beyond the symbolic to potentially actually naming some of our buildings after the people on whose land those buildings sit.

Yeah, I think that part of that was added to the resolution.

Yes, acknowledging the Duwamish, but also to see how we can better the education and for the natives in our district.

So, you know, that could be definitely something to pursue and I thank your input on it.

Any more questions, Dr. Peters?

I want to thank Director Pinkham and Director Harris for bringing this to us.

I think it's important to recognize the history and the culture of this land that we're on and I think we could probably do a lot more to recognize that in what we teach, how we teach and when we talk about the diversity of our district, acknowledging the breadth of that diversity.

to Director Blanford's point, we do have a high school named Chief Self and we are going to open a school named after a Native American educator, Robert Eagle Staff.

So that's a good start but I appreciate your point that we could be doing more of that sort of recognition.

As far as whether we want to work that into the resolution I think that would be up to Director Pinkham if he would want to do any changes between now and when we next we actually vote on this.

But anyway my basic point is I appreciate this being brought to us and I do have a question for Director Pinkham.

What is the next step with this?

Where do we send it and can we make something happen?

The next step with this, hopefully we'll vote on it at the next board meeting.

As far as maybe adding something to it, I'm comfortable with this, keeping it the way it is and then pursuing maybe even further action as the district moves forward.

Because I think what Director Blanford added, that could be a whole other issue.

And again, this is just for me a chance for the Seattle School District to basically Symbolic gesture.

Yes, we must acknowledge where we're at the land that our schools occupy and you know even the cities you are named after Chiefs Seattle and You know we see that we have you know Martin Luther King with King County that being you know things being changed to acknowledge his Contributions so you know I just feel that we can acknowledge where we're at Share that with the city of Seattle.

I think the city of Seattle hopefully will be on board because there were help and support the building the Duwamish longhouse Finding you know some space for that And I think Just again for me that opens it up and lets the people of our district know and it's not to say the natives are anything more special than anybody else but the place that we occupy, all students of color, students that feel like they are marginalized or being overlooked, let them know yes we know you are there, we acknowledge your existence and appreciate what you can contribute to the school district.

Director Harris.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Chris Jackins who has worked hard on this as well and I'm wondering Scott whether or not we can flesh this out a little bit to make sure that this resolution goes to the BIA and goes to the litigators who have been involved in a 30 year struggle to have the Duwamish federally recognized and those of us that are old enough to remember the end of the Clinton administration and the really lousy execution of politics.

Just standing up and getting counted and sending it to our state's congressional delegation and end of the BIA and in fact even the White House because there's some question as to whether there'll be another executive order at the end of the Obama administration and you know I'd be very proud to be referenced in a footnote someplace that we stood up and got counted.

Yes that you know the federal recognition process the Duwamish did go through the process that's laid out by the federal government and they got denied so the next only other course of action is to take it to the courts and if they can bring our resolution as a means of support for them I think it would be great.

Any more comments?

Director Burke.

I just want to share a quick thank you and word of support as well, Director Pinkham and Director Harris for your work on this.

And I also wanted to recognize our superintendent, Superintendent Ireland for the words that I've heard from him and the actions in support of the Native community and Native education.

And so I want that on the record as well.

I too would like to thank you to Director Pinkham and Director Harris for moving this forward.

I think this is wonderful that we're actually able to move this forward and recognize the Duwamish tribes.

So, kudos to both of you.

Okay, next item, approval of board policy, number 6501, data privacy.

Good evening Clovercott assistant superintendent of human resources.

Oh you're supposed to read something.

I'll just slip in here that it came to the audit and finance committee meetings on March 15th, April 19th, May 12th, June 9th and August 18th.

And on August 18th the committee reviewed the motion and moved the item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you, sorry about that.

So I am here to present a new proposed school board policy 6501 which is an umbrella data privacy policy.

So as you have read in the board action report in 2012 human resources received an audit finding from our internal auditor because we had a lack of written policies and procedures that protected employees' private information.

So while we currently have policies and procedures regarding student records 3231 and personnel records 5260, this proposed policy was developed as an umbrella data privacy policy regarding the personally identifiable information of students, parents, guardians, volunteers and employees.

It also includes language that third parties who are granted access to personally identifiable information are also required to comply with our laws and district policies and procedures.

So I did include a graphic to help sort of visually understand what this policy was in comparison to the other policies that sort of fit under it.

I think that helped hopefully.

We were asked by directors at the audit and finance committee meeting to use some of our community engagement tools to see what level of community engagement might be needed.

before moving this forward.

And I did sit down with our chief engagement officer, Carrie Campbell, and we used some of our draft tools to go through the policy and look at how it might impact our students, our families, our communities.

and what we found was that while it does not have a large, this policy in particular is umbrella policy, does not have a large impact on our external stakeholders, it does have an impact on our internal stakeholders, our employees.

So what we did as a result of that is convened a working group from various departments so people could look and give feedback into this policy and what it has done is it has really been a catalyst to mobilize staff to think about what kind of training we might need to develop to help staff understand how we can better protect and store and share personally identifiable data.

So with that I will open up for questions.

Any questions or comments?

Thank you for the work on this.

Love the graphic.

If policies were raindrops, think of that.

Is there going to be a superintendent procedure associated with this or is this an umbrella policy that doesn't have a procedure?

I believe we are drafting a procedure but I also want to make it clear that Aaron Bennett and Ronald Boyd worked really hard bringing this in the first four times it came to audit and finance committee.

I sort of came in and swooped up at the end so I definitely cannot take credit for all the work that went into this.

There will be a procedure that's a superintendent procedure that goes along with it but it's in draft form.

Any more questions, comments?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, our next item is approval of the 2016-17 student rights and responsibility.

Can I get a recommendation from CNI?

This bar came before CNI on August 15th and was moved forward for approval.

Thank you.

Pat Sander, Executive Director, Coordinated School Health.

I'm going to have Erin Romanek, our Manager of Attendance and Discipline introduce the amended recommendation.

Erin Romanek, program manager, attendance and discipline.

I'm before you again today.

As you might remember, June 15th school board meeting we approved the 2016-17 student rights and responsibilities document.

June 9th, which was shortly before that, there was a piece of legislation that was passed that was implemented on that day.

Our timelines didn't match up with the timelines of the legislative session that just finished.

We felt it was extremely important to incorporate those changes that went into effect on June 9th into the document for this 2016-17 school year.

So with that there's four main components that we definitely felt was very important to add and start implementing.

The first one is the limiting the length of time a student can be long term suspended from school to an academic term.

So we were already doing that, we were in compliance but we just made sure to call it out specifically within the document.

The second piece was also any student who has a long term suspension or expulsion, we are required to have a re-engagement meeting and plan developed.

that was recommended in previous years but now it is required as part of the law and again we felt it was extremely important to get ahead of it this year to start implementing that.

Also we had several discretionary behaviors that the law called out that we were no longer going to be able to long term suspend and expel.

It impacted 12 of our current behavior codes.

Again extremely important to get ahead of that for the school year.

and also there's a new requirement for us to provide educational services to students for any student who is excluded from school so short term suspension, long term suspension or expulsion and felt extremely important that we needed to again start working on that for this school year.

Questions?

So those changes won't be in the student handbook starting next week or the week after?

If we have approval on September 7th, absolutely.

We worked to incorporate them.

We had some training at SLI as well with all of our administrators.

So they are aware and we have been prepping them that hopefully we will get approval that was kind of out there in draft form.

but we definitely, that's what we had been working on the month of July mostly was making sure we could incorporate that into the written documents for the start of the school year.

And what's the method of dissemination of information to students?

Is it online?

So what we've proposed for right now because we had to have documents translated we had to make the decision to go forth translation of a document that was approved at the June board meeting.

However the plan is to have an updated very simple kind of outlining these changes and be able to translate that and it would be up on the website.

And hopefully again schools will be able, I've already had a lot of administrators contacting me wanting this information to make sure parents are aware.

There will also be a component on the discipline website that will call out specifically the re-engagement meeting since that's very important with timelines associated with that and that will be up on the website with approval.

If I can ask one more question.

Recently I've gotten requests for information from community members around the effect of the resolution that we passed last year regarding suspensions and expulsions and I was just wondering what is the cycle of where we're able to report that type of information.

What should we expect?

How frequently should we expect to know the impact of that resolution?

Do you know that answer?

I know we had discussed that we were waiting to see at the end of the school year.

We had sent all of our data into OSPI at the end of July.

So we were waiting for some type of reporting out from that.

I know informally we can look at it and we can see, but as far as the formal presentation and when it's released, I know we haven't seen anything back from OSPI yet.

And we'd expect to see it on a yearly basis sometime probably the first part of the year based on what I'm hearing you say?

Yes.

Okay.

Any more questions, comments?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

is team read memorandum of understanding.

Can I hear from CNI chair for your recommendation?

This came to the CNI committee on August 15th and was moved forward to the full board for consideration.

Thank you.

Maureen Massey Good evening, my name is Maureen Massey and I'm Team Reed's project coordinator and it's been my privilege to work in that role for the past 16 years and this month actually marks my 16th anniversary.

So I'm here tonight to talk about this item and share with you that we're seeking authorization for two items.

The first item, number one, is for the district to enter into an agreement with Team Read, which is a non-profit that has partnered with SPS for the past 18 years to provide the Team Read program.

And number two, for the district to receive funds from Team Read, the non-profit, that are above the threshold set by the board.

funds awarded to the district from Team Read the nonprofit pay for salaries and benefits of three program staff members, program printing, deferred tuition payments which is one of the compensation options that the reading coaches can choose, office and program supplies, transportation, mileage for staff and extra time.

So I wanted to share with you a little bit about the Team Read program.

Team Read works to eliminate the opportunity gap for low income second and third graders who are striving readers.

We do this by hiring Seattle teens who are as diverse as their students and training them to be tutors, role models and mentors for their students.

We partner with 11 SPS elementary and K8 schools and engage teens from 15 middle and high schools.

Our model is unique we believe because teens benefit as much as their students.

They can choose to work for either service learning hours, hourly pay or save money for college.

If they choose to save money for college, Team Read the non-profit matches their earnings by 50% and those funds are sent directly to their college or vocational school.

Just as importantly, teen coaches gain job experience that builds their work and college resumes.

And one of the things that it's I think important to understand about the work that the teens do is that these are really challenging jobs.

and I'm so happy tonight to have the opportunity to introduce to you Jack Koo.

Director Harris had recommended when we presented to the CNI committee that we bring, ask a student to come and speak to the program.

So Jack is here tonight.

He has been a part of Team Read for more than seven years.

and he's going to tell you about his experience with the program.

He's an amazingly talented young man and it's a privilege to work with him.

Good evening everybody.

Good evening everyone.

My name is Jack Koo and I've been a part of Team Read for more than a third of my life.

I was a student reader in elementary school.

I was a reading coach and a site assistant for middle and high school and it's left a large impact on my life.

In elementary school I had limited exposure to English because my parents were immigrants and they didn't speak any English.

At home everything we had was in Chinese, we watched Chinese TV, all the books were in Chinese and my only interaction with English was at school with my peers or with my teacher.

Initially this was fine but after the years it became evident that I was falling behind with my peers and Team Read came at this crucial moment because after the second and third grade, once you start moving into fourth and fifth grade, it becomes really hard to catch up to your peers because you're not only falling behind in English and reading, you're falling behind in math, you're falling behind in science, you're falling behind in social interaction.

And through Team Read, it made me more comfortable with English, more comfortable with reading.

It taught me that it was okay to ask questions and how to ask questions.

So in middle school when a representative from Team Reed came and was looking for volunteers, I took this opportunity to give back to the community that had helped me so much.

And my first and one of my most memorable students, his name was Yakub.

He, in general, he has reminded me of myself when I was his age since His parents were immigrants from Ethiopia.

They didn't speak English.

Yacoub himself had limited interaction with English and he was shy.

He, in general, did not like reading.

It made him feel inferior.

It was something frustrating.

I knew how this feeling was.

I knew how he felt.

So I wanted to help him as my reading coaches helped me.

So what I did was I was patient with him.

I kept encouraging him to read more and more difficult books.

I kept encouraging him to ask questions.

If he had anything that he wanted help with, ask questions.

Anything you don't understand, ask questions.

And after he graduated the program after the second and third grade, he was able to ask questions.

He enjoyed reading.

He was able to work with other people, not including, not just me.

He was able to work with other staff at the school.

He was able to ask his friends for help.

and while this is one case I worked with Team Reed as a tutor for five years all the way through high school and in junior and senior year I was also site assistant and the beauty of being a site assistant is Instead of working with one student one-on-one, I worked with 30 students.

I worked with the entire site and the best thing about working with the entire site is I was able to see 30 students improve before me.

I was able to watch 30 students grow over the school year and just watch them flourish and enjoy reading.

While currently I am a sophomore at UW studying computer engineering and while I'm not in a liberal arts or a teaching field, team read has left a lasting effect on my life.

For example, If I have trouble, I know how to ask clarifying questions.

I know how to show people how to ask others for help, which is something a lot of people my age have a problem doing.

Just being able to walk up to a TA or walking up to a professor and asking a question and knowing what they're struggling with and how to ask for help.

And in addition, being able to directly assist my peers without taking away the educational value of that experience.

In general, Team Read has left a permanent mark on who I am like it has everybody else who was in this program and I'm proud to say that I still enjoy reading and I still enjoy teaching others.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

So one of the benefits of my job is that every year I get to work with hundreds of the most amazing young people and I think that Seattle Public Schools can just be so proud of the work that thousands of teens have done since 1998 that has motivated and supported and encouraged thousands of second and third graders to become better, more confident readers.

I'll tell you just a little bit more about the program.

I think that there's a couple of things that it's important to understand about the work.

The curriculum that we use is developed in partnership with district literacy specialists and it's aligned with classroom instruction and literacy best practices.

It's reviewed annually and every year it's improved and changed to better support students.

So a recent change that was developed just last year and introduced this past school year was the introduction of fluency and comprehension guides that are leveled to the level of the student's current reading level.

So that was just one example of the kind of alignment that happens.

In terms of the benefits to the reading coaches Jack has I think given you a very good overview of those benefits but I'll tell you that last year 60% of the 425 tutors that work for the program chose hourly pay, 30% of them chose service learning hours and 10% chose the tuition option.

And over the life of the program almost, well actually over half a million dollars in tuition has been paid out to colleges and universities and vocational schools literally around the country.

So we're so happy that we're able to provide that kind of support to the teenagers that have worked so hard on behalf of their students.

One of the things that principals tell us that they love about having Team Read as a partner in their school is that it's academically successful teenagers of color serving as role models, mentors and tutors for their students who are predominantly students of color.

And I think it's an amazing thing when you can have a workforce that's as diverse as the Team Read workforce.

Last year, Our coaches spoke 24 different languages, excuse me, 21 different languages and the student readers spoke 24 different languages.

So I think that that's a testament to the diversity of the teenagers who choose to spend their time and energy in making this commitment to helping kids become better readers.

and one of the things that was a learning for me when I first started working for Team Read and that I've continued to just be encouraged by so deeply every year is that teenagers join Team Read because they want to make a difference in the world.

They're not making enough money for this to be something that they're excited to do because of the money.

They're doing it because they want to make a difference in the lives of the kids that they're working with.

They want to give back.

And that's a truly wonderful thing that gives me hope for our community and hope for the future.

So to move back to the agreement being presented for your consideration, Team Reed has recently, the nonprofit, has recently adopted a five-year strategic plan with the goal of doubling the number of students that we serve.

By 2020, we hope to be partnering with 15 elementary schools in Seattle.

In light of the new strategic plan, we wanted to codify and memorialize the responsibilities of all the parties in the delivery and implementation of the TeamREAD program.

We also want to comply with the board policy number 6114 regarding the acceptance of grants in excess of $250,000.

When we presented to the curriculum instruction committee, three issues were raised.

Two related to student data and one related to the timeframe of the agreement.

Regarding student data access, a question was raised regarding whether or not teen coaches would have access to confidential student data.

As I shared with the committee, coaches have to know their students' reading level and what areas students' teachers would like for them to focus on in their work with their students.

But that is the extent of the data access that our coaches have.

In regards to the broader issue of student access provided to the nonprofit, beginning this year, we will, and this is again based on feedback from the committee, we will include in the award to the district funds for the district to pay for an evaluation of the program.

This is spelled out on page three of the agreement.

Item D, number one.

Identifiable student data was never shared with the nonprofit, but this change to the agreement further tightens data access.

Another question raised at the CNI committee was in regards to Team Read, the nonprofit's access to teens' student discipline data.

The change in the agreement that I just described addresses this issue as well.

Student discipline data will not be shared with the nonprofit.

The hiring of the teens is done by the SPS Team Read program staff, of which I'm one, working with the district HR department.

and then finally regarding the term of the agreement, the agreement now specifies that the term of the agreement is five years and the cancellation option for both parties is spelled out and this is found on page five item N.

And at this point I'm happy to answer questions.

Director Plattford.

I'll just start off by saying to you and to Jack.

I so appreciate this presentation.

As someone that worked in non-profit organizations that partnered with Seattle Public Schools, I can tell you that and someone that researches achievement gap issues and I can tell you that your theory of action has so many elements that are best practice, that you partner closely with districts, that you identify students in need at particular ages and the age that you have chosen is one of the critical areas or the critical times in our student's life where they can make great progress with a little bit of help or we lose them in many cases.

And so I applaud you for your theory of action at that stage.

And then also the fact that by offering stipends or tuition assistance to many of our graduates who are looking for higher ed There's a double whammy effect.

There's a multiplier effect that gets kids at both ends of the spectrum and I so appreciate that because I know that the partnership between our community-based organizations and the school district has a more profound effect, positive effect on our achievement and opportunity gaps than nearly anything else.

And so I appreciate the fact that you've been doing this work.

I say that in particular because I know that we politicians have thrown a couple loops in your work primarily around $15 an hour which has some impact on revenue for the organization and expenses and then I also understand that the that our position around flipping the bell times has had some implications for the operations.

Can you speak at all to how those have been resolved or if there's still issues that you face?

I think that we do still face issues around the bell time schedule change because it really there's it just sort of turned our model upside down but one of the things that's been very heartening as we have been working this past year to resolve that and develop strategies to address that is the level of support that we're receiving from our partner elementary schools.

It's been a very kind of gratifying and rewarding thing to see principals sitting down with me and saying, we have to have team read we're going to help you figure out how to make this work and so can I tell you across all of our 11 elementary schools exactly how it's going to work come October unfortunately I can't but what I can assure you is that we're working really hard in partnership with principals and the schools that we serve to figure it out and I'm feeling with every day that passes I'm feeling more confident

Dr. Geary.

Thank you for being responsive to the comments in the committee.

You're welcome.

And so I just want to clarify.

So the Appendix A data file description from last year's contract is no longer needed because we're not going to be doing that data sharing back and forth.

We're going to do all that work internal.

That's correct.

That's great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Dr. Burke.

I want to coattail on my colleague director Blanford that stated everything that I had in my mind much more eloquently than I could say it so thank you for that.

And then I have kind of a left field question for you because this model everything about it is so tight it's so brilliant and so effective I have to ask can this be replicated for numeracy for math or is it being worked on?

You know I think that that's part of our strategic plan is to really grow the program.

I think that what we want to do though as we look at growing the program is we want to do it wisely.

I think that most of us can point to all kinds of examples of organizations that have grown too fast and that have not grown wisely and the other thing that we want to do is we really want to stay focused on our mission.

I think that one of the things that's very easy to do is to sort of slide into mission creep without even knowing that you've gone there and so I think one of the things that we're really proud of is that that hasn't happened yet.

We're pretty determined as an organization to not have that happen so we want to grow but we want to grow in a way that is totally aligned with the mission of the organization and do it in a way that's both smart and sustainable.

Dr. Peters.

I just simply wanted to add that I also think this is a fantastic program and I am so glad that the district has this as a part of its offerings.

And I also wanted to thank Jack for your eloquent presentation.

I mean wow I am going to tell people to come and watch that.

So I mean this touches on so many different needs and it is so beneficial for all the students involved and so I am glad we are able to support this.

Thank you.

Dr. Pinkham.

Just want to voice my appreciation for what team Reed is doing and also to mention to Jack why haven't I seen you at the college of engineering?

But for your people that have gone through the program for them to then go on do you have a way to track those students you know you brought Jack here do we know how our other students you know date on those performances?

you know we haven't long sort of longitudinal evaluations as everybody knows are expensive but because I've been with the program for so long I'm sort of an informal longitudinal evaluation so literally every year as I go out to the tutoring sites I come across young people who I remember from being in Team Read in second or third grade who are now working in the program.

And it's so fun to go up to them and say, oh my gosh, you're back.

And it literally happens every year.

And at Concord Elementary, for example, last year, six of the 25 tutors were former Team Read students themselves.

So eventually, to answer your question, we do want to be able to do a better job of tracking long-term outcomes for the kids that have been in the program.

Dr. Harris.

You know how I feel about your program.

I think it rocks.

Jack, way to go.

I hope that we can work with Kerry Campbell and her team.

and take Jack's presentation and put it on our website and yell from the top of our roofs about what our young people can do.

I think that that's a wonderful suggestion.

Any more comments?

I too would like to say thank you for all the great work that continue on in our district and Jack your story was amazing.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next item is Renew, Refuse Disposal and Mix Waste Recycling Collection Services, BIT number, B03230.

Ops, Chair, recommendation?

Okay.

The ops committee heard this item on the 16th of August and moved it forward for approval.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Bruce Gowra, director of facilities.

So we bid this contract out in May and I came to the board at the June 15th board meeting to intro it as a three year contract.

Unfortunately the winning bidder decided that they couldn't honor the terms of the contract due to a potential price increase from King County for tonnage rates.

So because the next bidder was so much higher than the winning bid, we decided that it was in the best interest of the district to leverage the last option of our current contract.

So we're here tonight to request approval of a 10 month contract renewal with Recology for refuge disposal and mixed waste recycle collection.

Value of the 10 month contract is $522,000 and this is the final extension available on our current contract.

But extending the current contract offers us a savings of about $209,000 over offering the contract to the next highest bidder from the bid in May.

Any questions, comments?

Yes not, thank you.

Thank you.

Our next item, BTA 4, Resolution 2016-17-3, Racial and Balance Analysis for ECU's Elementary School Renovation Project.

Since Ops Chair is not here, I'm gonna go ahead and read the recommendation.

This motion was discussed at the Operations Committee meeting on August 16, 2016. The committee moved this item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

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

OSPI requires as part of their deformed submittal process that Seattle Public Schools board of directors pass a resolution indicating that the project will neither create nor aggravate racial imbalance.

As part of the funding for EC Hughes we will receive SCAP funding, state construction assistance participation funding for this and so we are asking the board's approval for EC Hughes that the project will not create or aggravate racial imbalance.

The current plans for EC Hughes are that it would be a neighborhood school and that it would relocate Rocks Hill Elementary School to EC Hughes.

Rocks Hill Elementary School currently has a minority population of 88% and by the WAC just WAC 392.342-025 would be considered racially imbalanced.

Our project will not aggravate the racial imbalance or create that because it already is a school that is considered racially imbalanced.

And so we brought this to the Operations Committee as Director Patu and reviewed that with them.

So opening it up to questions.

Director Pinkham.

Yeah just some language questions here where it refers to Roxhill Elementary School and then it talks about Roxhill program I guess again some clarification what is Roxhill?

Roxhill Elementary School is a neighborhood school in southwest Seattle.

So then what is the Roxhill program that's also referred to in this

That would just be a reference to the educational program there at Rocks Hill.

Director Pinkham.

So is this then a sense we're moving Rocks Hill Elementary School into E.C.

Hughes?

Correct.

And now calling that E.C.

Hughes Elementary School?

That the intent is to relocate the existing Rocks Hill Elementary School into E.C.

Hughes.

That's correct.

So I guess then Rocks Hill Elementary School is no more?

That would be correct.

We'd probably use that for other educational programs.

So I guess then in the sense is that closed at Rocks Hill Elementary School and does that need to come to a board for approval?

I think just to clarify the building as I understand it the building itself is being closed but the school as school is defined in policy and state law is being moved to the E.C.

Hughes location so it's not as I understand it a school closure where we're closing the school and not having anymore we are transferring the school to a different site and we'll need to look go back and look just confirm under your new board policies on program placement and site closure whether what that's going to trigger in terms of eventual need for board to take a look at that part of this equation but it might it may have to come back to the board but I need to just double check that Dr. Harris

I'm real familiar with both of these school sites.

I remember in the days of the closure wars when we had to address exactly that issue whether or not moving a school population to a different school required statutory hearings.

I remember some of those hearings.

I remember back in the day when EC Hughes had been locked up and there were dead crows and broken windows and the COO at the time Mike Green was embarrassed because the weeds were three and a half foot high on the playground.

Since then we gave it to Westside School at a pretty penny they helped rehab the building.

We kicked them out because we need the space understandably so.

But part of what really concerns me is we don't have a plan for Rocks Hill School.

So we're going to move an entire school to a different place yet we haven't told them what's going to happen to the facility.

Are we going to sell it to the parks?

Are we going to use it as leverage in our dealings with the parks and our dealings with the parks are pretty amusing.

at best and I think we owe that community better answers and moreover when Flip you came out a year ago or so and there are probably 30, 40 folks there.

We were talking about moving certain segments of folks out of Sunrise Heights and West Seattle Elementary where some of us still like to call it High Point Elementary.

It doesn't feel good and I know there's a great many folks in the neighborhood that don't feel very well respected.

So part of this is again multiple variables that we have been putting into place for the boundary changes that have been and will continue to be implemented.

This move of Rocks Hill to EC Hughes is one of those.

It's within the current boundary that they have or the previously approved boundary which is what we were talking about last year.

So we're not redrawing a boundary moving Rocks Hill from one boundary to another.

We're moving them from a building in my opinion which is very substandard to a better conditioned building.

That's the whole point.

It's got more room.

It's a bigger location.

And another little bit of clarity was West Side School also was building their own school.

So they actually left on their own accord.

We didn't really have to kick them out.

I mean yes we need the space.

Yes the building is in better condition.

But they were ready to move on their own.

They had already had pieces in place.

Yes ideally Rockshill for us what would we use that for?

Currently the population that's down in that particular area of the city between EC Hughes, Rockshill and Arbor Heights do not necessitate three neighborhood schools currently.

So I'm not an advocate of selling any of our property.

I would not advocate right now regardless of an undetermined future of Roxhill selling that property.

I would say we would need to keep it if we were to use it for school programming again.

I think it would need an investment and reconstruction to happen in that particular site.

You've done some of the tours of some of our brand new buildings.

We can give you the other end of the tours and show you some buildings that definitely need some help.

And as we start to do our planning for BEX V, clearly we're going to start addressing some of the buildings that need that help.

But Rocks Hill is one of the locations that we'll be talking about with the Capacity Management Task Force about what do we do with some of our buildings that we have left and how do we continue to address our capacity needs.

I would concur with what general counsel Noel Treat said which is saying we are actually just moving the school.

The school still exists.

The boundary still exists.

The children are getting a better facility right now.

We are doing an investment in that particular property and we have been talking about this.

This was part of the boundary conversations that we have been having for a bit of time.

Thank you.

So Flip, I have a question.

So when we talk about racial imbalance, what is the makeup of ECUs versus we know Rocksteel has a lot of kits of color.

It will be exactly the same because the boundary is the same.

So we're not taking two different, sometimes in some cases when we open and you'll see on the next one when we're talking about Madrona, when you're creating a new boundary then you're taking portions of one school boundary to another and creating a new one.

We did the same with Cedar Park and a couple of the other newer schools that we've opened.

So we have to do the calculation for whether or not a particular school will necessitate or will trigger a racial imbalance or aggravate that imbalance.

and there's a parameter that we can look at there which is a challenge and that imbalance basically is are you outside of the norm or the average demographics of the school district which is what we've been looking at here.

So right now Roxhill because that boundary is the same there's not any different.

Roxhill as a school is just moving a physical location within the boundary that exists.

So you're saying then that ECU, the makeup of ECU is pretty similar to what's the makeup of Roxy so it won't make any difference.

So the imbalance would actually be.

It's the same.

It's not bringing it closer to the average.

It's already at a racial imbalance which is what Richard was saying.

And the key to this is that we don't aggravate it which means even if a school is out of the imbalance If the move were to move the demographics of Roxhill from 88% minority to 95% minority, that would be aggravating the situation.

But moving from 88, staying to 88 or even 88 to 85 means yes it's still an imbalance but it's not aggravating that imbalance.

Thank you.

Anymore, Director Peters?

What is the distance between the two sites?

I want to say maybe a mile.

Maybe about a mile.

About a mile, okay.

Alright, so in terms of how this will impact, I am assuming that there will be a group of students who will be moving from one building to the other, the same students, is that correct?

Correct.

Will that be the majority of the students?

Yeah I would say so.

I mean there's always a certain number of students within any particular boundary that ask for exceptions to be in another boundary during open enrollment.

It's quite possible that more of those students who are actually assigned to that attendance area might stay within there but I'm not sure.

Okay.

So in terms of the impact for these families, to what extent does this change the walk zone for them and transportation?

Will it be a hardship for anyone?

Well it might change.

The students who are currently going to Roxhill that are closer to EC Hughes are probably in that situation where they may be getting transportation to go to Roxhill and outside of the walk zone.

So this is just the kind of other end of that.

Yes there may be some new students that are on there but there will be other students who previously had to ride a bus that won't because they will be in the walk zone.

Okay so it's not a drastic change in terms of location.

I don't know the exact numbers of students that are in there.

We can certainly take a look at that but again because it's within the same attendance area boundary that's established it should be fairly similar for families.

But I can look up and get the numbers for you.

Okay thank you.

Any more questions?

Director Pinkham.

I just am still kind of stuck on this as far as you know we're calling a program at Roxhill Elementary School to make sure that we get that definitely addressed and clarified as we need with general counsel because it sounds like as I read this the only thing happening at Roxhill Elementary School is a program So is Rocksdale Elementary an actual school then?

So we need to get that clarified and get the language in this to kind of reflect that because again we mentioned at Rocksdale Elementary School and just talked about programs there and that program moving to EC Hughes but nothing saying officially what's happening to then what's happening at Rocksdale Elementary School.

Make those changes and just to add one further comment to director Peter's question.

Rocks Hill Elementary School is at the southern edge of the Rocks Hill, you know, boundaries.

So EC Hughes is more centrally located than Rocks Hill in that geographical boundary that we've defined for that school.

Any more questions, comments?

Thank you.

Next one is BTA 4. Resolution 2016-17-4, racial imbalance analysis for Magnolia Elementary School renovation and addition project.

Ops, chair?

Recommendation?

This item was heard by the Ops Committee on August 16th and was moved forward for approval.

Thank you.

So again, similar to EC Hughes, Magnolia Elementary School also will require your approval of the resolution for OSPI form D5 that we not aggravate or create a racial imbalance.

I do want to highlight to the school board that at this moment in time Magnolia Elementary School's boundaries have not been defined and so we are extrapolating information from Catherine Blaine K-8 which is on the west of Magnolia Elementary School.

Lawton Elementary School which is north of the existing Magnolia Elementary School and Coe Elementary School which is east of Magnolia Elementary School.

we believe the population at Magnolia Elementary School will draw from those three schools and so we have provided you with information at those three schools that notes that all three of those schools would also be considered racially imbalanced if you look at these criteria again this school will not aggravate or create the racial imbalance already exists at those three schools and in the narrative we've given you the percentages of ethnic minorities at each of those schools.

It's a different problem than what we had on the southwest corner.

The majority of the population at these schools is white and we exceed.

The state law indicates that when a school's enrollment of a single minority group with a district-wide enrollment of 30% or more exceeds the minority group's district-wide percentage by 20 percentage points or more and that's what occurs at this school with the white population.

It is substantially greater than the district's population of 47%.

Dr. Burke?

I was wondering if possibly you could help address the concerns that were brought up during testimony around the question that this does actually create racial imbalance whereas the bar explicitly states it will neither create nor aggravate.

In the neighborhood it's not creating or aggravating but since we're creating a school we are essentially creating a racially imbalanced school.

Can you speak to the intent of the de-form or the guidance that we're provided by the state?

The guidance that we're provided is that the racial imbalance already exists Director Burke and that we're not creating the racial imbalance by the construction or the renovation of this school.

That racial imbalance already exists and so that's the guidance that we've been provided.

And again, I'll go back to Flip Herndon's comments concerning EC Hughes and Rox Hill.

We don't know the boundaries of this school at this moment in time.

We'll want to be sensitive to the fact that we look at the boundary or the racial makeup of Coe, of Lawton and of Catherine Blaine K-8.

but we won't hopefully be aggravating that racial imbalance.

We just don't know what those boundaries are going to be at this moment in time for that school.

Yeah I appreciate that and I think it was I also appreciate the discussion at at ops where this was where I had the opportunity to be a guest I think the specific guidance that I'm looking for is whether the lens that we're evaluating is the neighborhood or whether the lens is the school because the neighborhood has an existing racial imbalance we're putting a new school in a racially imbalanced neighborhood by sort of de facto it will be a racially imbalanced school but the letter of the law does it say are you creating a racially imbalanced school and what would be the consequences of that interpretation for us as a district.

Well the consequences would be the loss of state funding for creating a racially imbalanced school.

But from conversations that we've had both with prior legal counsel Ron English and then also with OSPI, we do not believe we are creating a racially imbalanced school.

This is already a racially imbalanced neighborhood and this will be a neighborhood school.

Thank you.

This is a fascinating conversation.

It has umpteen layers to it, so this particular law is, I don't know, it would be interesting to know if it had any implications whatsoever We also have I-200 on the books which prohibits us from using race However, as these two schools illustrate and as, I don't know, I don't know Seattle specifically, I believe nationally we are more segregated than we were in 1965 when the law was passed that we should no longer do business that way because of the separate but equal piece.

I suppose that the only way that you could impact either one way or the other.

This particular indicator would be to gerrymander districts and in essence try to rather than consolidate neighborhoods make sure that school attendance boundaries spanned I hate to say naturally but naturally segregated neighborhoods to make sure that students were coming from different portions of the district.

It may be something that we ought to look at.

I mean this is I suppose the district manifestation of what we were just talking about in a classroom or within building manifestation.

at Garfield and Thurgood Marshall.

And it's also, I suppose, representative.

I mean, this goes back to Reagan.

Reagan came in post, well, in the middle of desegregation and took the money away from desegregation efforts and applied it to teacher evaluation and so we've been on an accountability piece for the last 30 years saying that, so we abandoned the idea that desegregation worked and there's evidence to show that it did.

So, yeah, I mean, I don't know what an alternative to this would be, but it does create a fascinating opportunity, or I don't know about an opportunity, but observation.

Thank you for the history lesson.

The one piece that I think you missed was the parents involved in community schools, the 2007 which was the, to my understanding was the prime mechanism that we had to address this issue of racial imbalance and the Supreme Court of course took that away from us and Louisville and all the rest of the schools in the nation.

We were the plaintiffs in that soup.

I agree with you that we are very limited in the ways that we can address this, particularly given the fact that we're one of the most segregated cities in the United States.

Ultimately, particularly as long as we have a neighborhood schools policy, we'll always have this level of segregation in our schools.

with all the implications that come along with that.

Inability, achievement gaps growing, fifth largest in the nation, all of those are all complicit in this mix.

Dr. Geary?

Oh no, Dr. Peters?

Yeah I was going to say something along the same lines that Director Blandford was saying and that is our student assignment plan has had some repercussions that some unintended consequences and that is where yeah the plan that went into effect was it 2009 or 2010 so we now have students who are oblige, obligated for the most part to go to school in their neighborhood and there has been concern that we have effectively resegregated or further segregated our district and I am wondering whether we need to have this conversation about whether that was a wise move.

I mean I know there were advantages to having everybody have a stake in their local school and there have been some pluses and I know there have been some costs that were saved in terms of transportation but if the upshot, the ultimate upshot has been entrenched segregation as this conversation has led us to tonight, this is something I think we need to take a look at.

So director Peters I would just point out that we have provided you some historical information with the bar and these problems predate 2009 at both EC Hughes Rocks Hill and Magnolia Elementary School or the boundaries of what potentially would be Magnolia Elementary School and you may want to look at that information just

Thank you.

I actually do love having historical context so I appreciate that.

So maybe the word I should have used was exacerbated.

Exacerbated existing conditions.

Thanks.

Dr. Harris.

Does the historical context go deep enough to address the sordid history of redlining in this city?

Don't understand the question.

Sorry Director Harris.

Redlining in neighborhoods where folks of color were not allowed to purchase property.

Does your historical information address Redland?

No our information would only address school population data not real estate practices or anything else that would deal with restrictions of where people might be able to live.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

So I guess my concern of the imbalance you know knowing that Magnolia is that it's already an imbalance racial imbalance school and and I hear you that you're Taking kids out of three schools that actually that are impacted with kids of color And so is boundary actually what's going to actually make that happen?

Or I guess I'm just a little concerned and confused at the same time in terms of how we're going to be able to balance that out.

So basically what this is, we have capacity issues in that area.

Lawton, Blaine, Coe are all packed, which is why we're bringing on Magnolia.

This particular, what this information is showing is that particular area of the city is not very diverse.

So whatever new boundary we create for Magnolia also probably will not be very diverse.

It's just that area of the city is more homogeneous than it is heterogeneous.

Isn't that going to be a problem for us?

it's a problem for us in a lot of parts of the city quite honestly and my guess is if we were to look at many of our schools we would probably have a lot of imbalance at the vast majority of our schools the only reason we get to kind of the Median is we kind of put them all together and that's how we kind of have our average but when you look at individual schools the percentage at which they're off of the average is on one end of the spectrum to the other and again it's a reflection of much of the demographics of our city as our city becomes more expensive to live in I don't see that getting any better anytime soon but how we can address it and how we can try and serve our students, that's conversations we can continue to have about how we do address being able to meet the needs of all of our students and I think part of that is making sure we have great teachers, great programs, great services and fantastic schools available in every single area of our city.

Thank you.

Any more questions, comments?

Director Pinkham?

Just a note analysis Magnolia elementary school is planned to be a neighborhood attendance area school.

Are there other options being considered besides attendance area?

Not that I know of.

But possibility that it could be used for like an option school.

It's possible although in this particular area those schools need the direct relief and the challenge is that if an option school we're not going to default assign students to that particular area.

So there's no guarantee of relief to the other schools close by.

So where are these kids actually attending right now since there's no school in Magnolia right now?

They're attending Catherine Blaine, K.A., Lawton Elementary School and Co. on Queen Anne.

Thank you.

K., the next, our next one.

It's actually BTA-4 Award Contract P1460 for Construction Management Services to Shields-Bless Johnson for the Ingram High School Classroom Edition Project.

Operations Chair?

This one was considered by the Operations Committee on the 16th of August and moved forward for approval.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, that's for consideration.

Next one's for approval.

Correct.

Director Blanford has moved forward for consideration because we had provided a range to the Operations Committee for the fee that we would be paying SOJ.

We have now finalized those negotiations and the contract amount will be $1,397,000.

Shields, Obelitz and Johnson will be providing construction management services from beginning of design which we have just started and I will highlight to you in the background information it does note that we entered into an interim contract so we could begin those services.

We wanted to look at the existing condition of the systems within that building to help us in our master planning effort as to where the addition should be located at Ingram High School.

We're recommending approval of this agreement construction management services has been something that Seattle Public Schools has utilized since CIP 1, HIRI International has provided construction management services as well as in BEX4 SOJ and we're recommending SOJ be awarded this contract.

We did have four firms submit their written qualifications.

We reviewed the written qualifications, made a decision to interview all four firms.

The selection committee recommended SOJ as the most qualified firm and so making that recommendation tonight.

Any more?

Director Peters?

In public testimony the issue was brought up of possibly trees being removed from the Ingram property, is that related to this particular project?

It probably is related to this particular project.

It has a storied past about tree removal or not tree removal, not removing those trees.

We'll definitely be looking at a location for this addition in which tree removal will not be an issue.

We're familiar with the area of concern and we'll not be proposing an addition in that location.

Great, thank you.

Any more questions, comments?

Thank you.

Our next one PTA 3 and BEX 4 final acceptance of work performed under public works contract P5057 of Bates Roofing LLC for the John Muir Elementary School re-roof and seismic upgrade project.

Operations chair.

Ops committee August 16th move forward for approval.

So, as you probably know by now, your approval is required when projects achieve final acceptance for us to submit state closeout paperwork to three state of Washington agencies, labor and industries, employment securities and revenue.

At John Muir Elementary School, the contractor, Bates Roofing, has completed their work.

Reluta Architects has indicated that they've completed their work.

and so we are seeking your approval.

I would draw to the board's attention that the overall project budget was $878,919.

The project actual cost was $915,283 for an overage of $36,364.

we are recommending that that overage just be taken from BTA 3 underspend and that's how we fund that with this completion of this project.

Any questions, comments?

Thank you.

This is the end of our meeting.

The board is now immediately recessing the regular board meeting into executive session regarding labor negotiation and potential litigation, which is scheduled for 30 minutes with an anticipated end time of, we haven't decided yet.

But when the meeting is finished, all board directors have to come back in here so we can actually end the meeting in here, I was told.

Please all right and the microphone Okay