School Board Meeting Date: December 2nd, 2015 Pt2

Our action item for policy 3246 has been revised.

So We want to call staff forward to speak to the edit since introduction.

Was that the one that was moved off?

Oh, okay.

All right, our next item is amending board policy.

Was that the one that they took off?

Okay.

Approval of Board Policy Number 2170, Repealing Board Policies, C4800, C4900, C5200 and Board Procedure C52.01.

I move that the school board repeal board policies C48, C49, and C52 and board procedure C52.01 and adopt policy number 2170, career and technical education as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

Someone come up and speak on that?

We should have the committee chair.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Directors.

Blanford.

Blanford.

I'm sorry.

Don't take it personally.

Though I wasn't in attendance, the curriculum and instruction committee heard this particular policy on November the 9th and moved it forward to the board for approval.

So can we have someone come up and speak on this?

A little background.

Former policies were outdated.

The language was outdated.

They've been retooled for the 21st century skills.

We've removed outdated language, we've modeled the WASDA policy, the WASDA recommended policy, and we got our, we received approval from our advisory groups, our various advisory groups to move it forward.

And I don't know if there's any other comments.

Is there any questions among any of the directors?

Director Bingham.

Yeah, again, I apologize.

I didn't get those questions to you sooner.

But will this new policy have any advanced timeline or procedure for the reduction or realignment of the CTEs, as was noted in Section 8 of 5201?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Sorry.

Okay.

And what's being asked to, you know, To be replaced, let me find it here.

The former policy was trying to encourage more programs across the district, and we certainly would like additional programs, but I think that was at a time when a lot of our programs had been reduced, and so that policy That part of the procedure, excuse me, is not necessarily required anymore, but we'd be happy to review it based on any comments.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Okay.

Can we go ahead and have roll call?

One question.

Is there a period for comments?

Yeah, go ahead.

I don't have a question, but I just wanted to publicly thank you for the work and offer reinforcement for the CTE program.

I'm a staunch supporter of it.

My fellow candidates probably got tired of hearing me say the words woodshop on the campaign trail.

It actually became one of our running jokes that Rick is going to say woodshop at every forum he goes to.

Some of them would actually try to say it before me.

So I just had to say it first here.

I wanted to say personally that at Ballard High School I took woodshop twice with Mr. Bogota.

I took Metal Shop with Mr. Taylor, and the skills that I learned there helped launch me into an engineering career, helped me get my first job, and I still use them on a daily or weekly basis with house improvement projects or things like that.

And so I'm an enthusiastic supporter of these types of classes, and my ask to you or request as we move forward is That some of the language that's in this policy, it's very focused on career and technical pathways.

And I think that's an excellent, excellent goal, excellent strategy.

But I'm looking to also leverage the resources within the CTE program to the entire student population.

Because I think these are classes that engage kids that maybe they don't even care about that pathway.

But to get some hands on time, those are some of the things that keep kids in school and keep them engaged and provide life skills.

So thanks again.

Thank you.

President.

Director Harris.

I would like to say thank you.

Again, this is a matter near and dear to my heart and I think it's hugely important given the fact that we're going to be losing an entire generation of skilled people and we don't have enough bodies and folks trained to replace them.

And I would offer to you, after having worked on the Highline College worker retraining programs for years, And having worked with organized labor for years, I will hunt them down and help you get them engaged because I'm a huge believer in building those bridges and setting up mentorships and it can only help all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dr. Geary.

Likewise, I do believe in these kinds of opportunities.

I did in reading the policy.

I personally wished it had been more There was more language that talked about making sure that these programs were being made available to the kids that we see identified in our achievement gaps and making that just a stronger message so that we know as a district that we're continually looking for ways to reach those students and that it is, as with any of our programs, It can be trickier and different than the standardized rollout that we have traditionally done, both making sure that these programs exist in their traditional form, but also always looking for ways to reach kids who would So benefit, but don't even necessarily know how to access them appropriately.

So I would like to see more of that.

And then in terms of the superintendent's policy, I hope that we can have a chance to talk a little bit more about that in terms of some changes that I would like to see to make sure that we are making, we have Performance measures and targets, but then I don't necessarily see that in our evaluation we're covering to meet and answer those performance measures and targets, the accountability piece.

So I want to make sure that when we are going to evaluate Our programs that we're actually evaluating things that will answer back to our targets.

And I'm happy to point out and sit down with any of you, and I apologize again, trying to get into the flow of saying I'm new to this, but I did have some ideas on some language that perhaps we can include in the superintendent's policy and hopefully also bolster reaching out to those other groups of kids.

Thank you.

Sorry, this might be a little out of order, but there's one other thing that I wanted to mention, and this was some of the things that came up on the campaign.

I can't think of a better vehicle than this to share with everyone in the room and in the audience.

Everyone here knows about STEM education, your science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

What I'm going to propose or suggest is that the mathematics is already infused in the science, technology, engineering, and I think we should reclaim the M, and I think it should be science, technology, engineering, and manufacturing because we have a manufacturing resurgence that's taking place.

So I just wanted to share that to all the educators in the room, senior staff, resurgence of manufacturing.

Go, go, go.

Thank you.

Any more comments or remarks?

Questions?

Go ahead.

Just a comment and appreciate the input.

I had a question too about actually the superintendent procedure on the advisory committees that maybe if we can include language that will state that we will reach out to minority owned businesses to help with closing the achievement gaps.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Remarks?

Director Harris.

I have a question.

Where do we go from here?

Where does a superintendent procedure, devils in the details, when does that come before us?

Does it come before us?

What's the timeline?

What's the return date?

As the superintendent said earlier, that's something that we discuss in the executive committee and then see whether, you know, we introduce it either our retreat or, you know, one of our work sessions.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any more questions?

Okay.

Well call.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Okay, our next one is annual approval of written plans for alternative learning experience programs or schools.

Can someone please actually, before I do that, I need to ask our CNI coordinator to actually, to the chairperson to actually give us a statement.

I believe that someone needs to read the motion into the record.

I move that the board approve the alternative learning experience programs or schools of the Cascade Parent Partnership Program and interagency academy in the form of the plans and annual reports for each school attached to the board action report With such minor additions, deletions and modifications as the superintendent deems necessary and directs the superintendent to implement such plans.

And pursuant to the school board review conducted, agree to make no changes at this time to policy number 2255, alternative learning experience schools or programs.

Now I'd like to go to the committee chair.

For his recommendation.

Again, I wasn't in attendance at the meeting, but the curriculum and instruction committee that I chair heard this item on the 9th of November and moved it forward to the board for approval.

Now I know that you guys did a presentation on this at the last board meeting, but I'm asking to please if you can give a short presentation because we have four new board directors who are not familiar with these.

Thank you.

No problem.

Shawna Heath, Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction.

This is an annual report to share with you the learning plans and the checklists that are required to approve the alternative learning experience schools, which are Interagency and Cascade.

The checklist that is required by the WAC is approximately 45 items, and the learning plan is per board policy, and it is inclusive of six questions that each school must respond to, which are also included in the action report.

Thank you.

Director Patu.

Director Harris.

Thank you.

Could you address why middle college high school is not an alternative learning experience and when that happened and why and what options are available to us in the future?

Thank you.

So, in the past, there were a number of schools, including middle college, that were identified as alternative learning experience schools.

I don't, at this moment, recall the exact year.

It was probably about three or four years ago that a decision was made to no longer have middle college serve as under that particular model.

Remember that this is involved in a funding model as well.

I do recall at that time there was a change in state law that reduced the amount of funds per student that was being given to district based for students within that model.

And for that reason, as well as my understanding, again, I wasn't in this current role at the time, My understanding was that there was a desire by the staff and administrator of Middle College at the time to move to a more traditional model.

So that happened.

To move it back to an alternative learning experience model would require, of course, board action.

In order to make the adjustment in the current board policy, the schools are actually named in policy, as you can see there.

Currently, Cascade Parent Partner Program and Interagency Academy are the two schools designated as Alternative Learning Experience.

May I get a follow-up on that?

Go ahead, Director Harris.

I don't want to create work for anyone, but I'm wondering whether or not our archivists can help us with that history so that we actually have the background in what happened, what were the reasons for it happening, so that we've done our due diligence in order to make choices and work collaboratively in the future.

Yes.

Superintendent Nyland.

I wasn't here, so I can't give you that.

I can talk a little bit about kind of what's happened in the state over the last 20 years.

So I think two thoughts are here.

One is we used to have alternative programs, which have really nothing to do with alternative learning experiences.

Alternative programs tended to be Alternative in programming, but not in attendance.

So students were expected to attend five days a week, six hours, six periods.

And how the teachers approached the curriculum, it might be more hands-on.

They probably had a smaller class size and probably looked for teachers that had a high empathy for the students and would encourage the students to graduate.

ALEs kind of come out of, I think it was Highline that started it, was a tradition that has now morphed into several of them being online learning, which have a different requirement in that the students have to show up one day a week, or the equivalent there to, and they can do their other work in a kind of a less supervised environment, but with outcomes expected.

And then over time, the state has said, hmm, districts, Steilacoom was one of those, are taking advantage of this, and we're not sure that they're really keeping track of students.

So they've added restriction after restriction after restriction, and then they've also put in, we'll fund you at 80 percent if the assumption is that the students aren't going to be in a brick and mortar building.

For all of that time, then you don't need all of that money.

So it's become more difficult to fund them.

And thirdly, during this time, No Child Left Behind has come to the fore, and I don't know how ESEA may change that.

But as recently as five years ago, the state would report out on a school.

One of the things that many of us did, we did it in Marysville, is we changed the names of programs so that they weren't maybe stigmatized by a quote-unquote alternative term in their title.

And so then the state would call us and say, School X is on the list, and they're going to be taken over, they're going to have sanctions, unless you tell us it's an alternative school.

And we'd say, oh yeah, it's an alternative school, and they'd say, okay, never mind.

That now has changed, and Cascade is on that list, even though there's absolutely positively no way that they can ever graduate one student.

They're on the list.

They're on the watch list for the state because everybody is now under those new requirements.

So I'm not quite sure where we go from here.

And ESEA may change all of that.

I don't know that it will change all of it.

But it may change it a little.

It does mean that we're in a new era and we can do alternative things.

We can do project-based learning.

We can do it creatively.

We can care a lot about kids.

And we have to meet either the full seat time requirements or if it is called an ALE program, we have to meet the reduced seat time requirements and we have to deliver results.

I don't know.

We'll take a stab at getting something written down for you, and we'll see if we have anything in the archives.

Appreciate that very much.

Thank you.

Does any board directors have any more questions or comments?

Director Pinkham.

Hopefully Leslie will kind of support me on this one with that.

On these reports, they do seem to be missing signatures and the dates as to when they were created.

I think it'd be nice to know where it says to be completed by principal or program manager that we know who it was completed by and dates and signatures.

Because I was kind of looking at this.

Is this the reports from that were supposed to be due the end of the school year or were these just recently submitted?

And is it just a timeline that we're finally getting into now?

So clarification on that would be helpful.

And I do have a question on one of the continued lack of progress area, just the language.

It might be clear to those that are completing it, but to a new person, it reads that if the student after more than, no more than, three subsequent evaluation periods and goes on, there's like some double language in there, and I don't know if that's from the online evaluation and you just print it out, but just have some clarification of what they're supposed to mean there.

Director Harris would support that.

Any more questions?

We'll call.

Director Burke?

Aye.

Director Geary?

Aye.

Director Harris?

Aye.

Director Peters?

Aye.

Director Pinkham?

Aye.

Director Brantford?

Aye.

Director Patu?

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Okay, our next one is Acceptance of Teacher Principal Evaluation Program, TPAP.

I grant 664.

Can I turn on my mic?

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to accept TPEP i-Grant funding in the amount of $261,322 to support teacher training initiatives described in further detail in the attachments.

I second the motion.

Now I would like to go to Committee Chair Director Blanford to give us the committee's recommendation.

The Curriculum and Instruction Committee heard this item on November the 9th and recommended it for approval by the board.

Does any of the board directors have any questions or comments on this item?

Director Harris.

I have a question.

We're talking about the Danielson framework.

And in preparing to take the seat up on this board, I believe that there may be some pushback from certain quarters in the educational community as to whether or not there's a belief that the Danielson framework is being A, properly used to evaluate teachers and principals.

And is it a requirement of the TPAP that we contract with Danielson Group?

Good evening, Clover Codd, Chief Partnership Officer, and welcome new directors to the board.

So it is a requirement that teachers are evaluated under TPEP.

Danielson is the chosen framework that we have adopted as a district.

It is not a requirement that we work with the Danielson, Charlotte Danielson group to do any contracting work.

There are no requirements around that.

She does work with the state quite frequently.

So we have contracted with her in the past to support our calibration and professional development efforts.

She's come to Seattle herself and had conversations with teachers and principals.

And in this specific iGrant where we've been approved to use $15,000 for that purpose.

Dr. Plotford?

Can you tell us when the decision was made?

I know that there was, what, two options for the framework that can be used and when we chose the Danielson framework?

Sure.

So actually back in 2010, we were already, it was before TPEP was adopted by the state and formally implemented, we were using the Danielson framework through what we called our professional growth and evaluation system.

When Senate Bill 5895 passed and all districts had to choose one of a few frameworks, we were already using Danielson and so we worked with SEA very closely and passed very closely to keep that.

We didn't want to change frameworks.

So it was, I think we formally adopted it under TPEP back in 2012. Director Harris.

So is that incorporated and embedded then in our collective bargaining agreements both with SEA and PASS?

Yes.

Thank you.

Director Peters.

Just to clarify what Director Harris just said.

What exactly is incorporated, specifically using the Charlotte Danielson framework or A framework?

So the state law mandates that Board of Directors choose one of the, I think it's three different frameworks, Marzano, Cell, which is out of the UW, or Danielson, and we chose to go with Danielson.

Okay, but I mean the language of the CBA's, does it say specifically this specific framework?

We do, actually, yes.

Okay.

And then, so there's three different ones.

Does the district have any evidence that the Charlotte Danielson framework is an efficient and accurate evaluation tool?

So we do have evidence where we began implementing the new teacher evaluation framework in our level one and two schools, which were mostly in our southeast region of the district when we first started rolling this out in 2010. And we do have data in a slide that we could provide to you that shows how we are closing the opportunity and achievement gap at a faster rate compared to other Like schools across the state and schools across our district, we do have some data that shows that.

We can't say specifically it was just the new teacher evaluation system, but that was our biggest reform effort at the time, and we did see a dramatic increase in student outcomes.

And what about in our other schools that are using it?

Did we see any change in those?

I mean, the only way that we can, we have teacher perception surveys and principal perception surveys, so there are other kinds of data that are showing us that our teachers and principals feel more comfortable with the framework, feel like there's a fair framework, that they're being evaluated fairly, so if you're looking at just purely student outcome data, I think it would be hard for us to say any one initiative would be contributing solely to the student outcomes, but, you know, we do have evidence that shows where we put all of our effort in in those first couple of years into those specific schools that we saw significant and accelerated gains in those schools.

My other question has to do with on the application form here for the grant.

I noticed that it says that 11 teachers want probation It says that in the grant and that application.

I don't remember writing that or seeing that.

Oh, okay.

I thought I saw that on there and that there was no principles listed as being offered.

So I don't know what you're referring to.

Okay, then I will go, I'll go try and find it from the Yes, I don't think that was part of our proposal.

The OSPI doesn't ask for that kind of information for this grant.

Okay, I'll look for this if someone else has another question.

Okay.

Hi there.

I was wondering if maybe we had a brief email dialogue regarding this.

You mentioned at the introduction that this grant was issued last year and based on scheduling and a variety of things, you weren't able to complete the work that was planned.

You had a really nice reply.

I was wondering if you could share that with the rest of the directors and the public and then I have a follow-up comment after that.

Sure, so I do believe it was emailed out to all of the directors today.

Would you like to ask, well, I guess I'll ask your question and then answer it.

Perfect, thanks.

Yes.

So you had questions about last year's grant award.

It was in the amount of $256,804.

Of that, we actually only used $71,708.

The majority of the project last year was going to be dedicated to this video module series that we were going to be developing and we had intentions of hiring a TPET program manager to help come in and manage that project.

At the sort of the beginning slash middle of the year, this work was actually under the direction of the former executive director of leadership development.

That position was then moved over to special education and I took on the responsibilities of that position along with the ones that I already had.

And so in trying to get a TPET program manager hired for this, it didn't happen until March and the funds had to be spent by June of 2015. And just with that short timeline, we weren't able to complete the project.

Director Peters.

Okay, I found what I was referring to.

It's actually on page three of the application for the grant under demographics.

I think it might be page seven of the total documents, but it's page three.

And it says answers are required for all questions on this page.

So I guess this information is required.

And question number three said, number of classroom teachers who are on probation for 2015-16, and the number listed is 11. And the number of principals and assistant principals who are on probation for 2015-16, zero.

So sorry, so I did not, I don't remember this page, but now thank you for pointing it out.

So these are numbers that are reported to us by Human Resources Department.

I don't, we can inquire with Director Tolley about specific principals who may have been on probation, but if we didn't have any formal probations, it would have been here, or so apparently we did not have any principals on formal probation, according to this data.

Okay, because I find it a little bit odd that we would have teachers and no principals.

So, is this data that Was accurate at the time when this was filled out?

Is that the best way to look at this?

I mean, this is the data that was reported to OSPI and it was reported to us.

So I can't speak to the accuracy of the data other than that this is what has been reported and this is what has been provided to us by HR.

Okay, thank you.

Dr. Burke?

I had one more quick one.

Going back to the Danielson framework, it is particularly important that you get evaluations right because it's sort of the high-stakes assessment of the professional world.

And I'm curious, there's a component of it that's a self-evaluation.

I was looking through a binder that was about that thick, and I thought to myself, I hope this Isn't the self-evaluation.

Is there a typical amount of time that a teacher or a principal spends doing the self-evaluation component?

I want to be really conscious of their in-class teaching time and that we're not taking away from that having them fill out a self-evaluation.

Yes, so the original self-evaluation was a self-assessment of practice and a teacher would look at the four domains of the Charlotte Danielson framework and there are 22 components within those four domains and would spend some time with their teacher, or excuse me, with their principal talking in their goal-setting conference around the areas where they feel like they're really strong and then the areas where they feel where they need more support and it was part of the goal-setting conversation.

That used to be required, but in the last CBA and in this current CBA, that is now optional for teachers.

That is not a required component of their goal-setting process, but it's a really nice component for teachers to be able to look at their practice overall and have conversations with their principal.

Yeah, I guess specifically is there a number of hours that's typical for that process to take place?

For the goal setting process?

Right.

Usually principals will spend at least a half an hour person to person having a conversation.

The amount of time that a teacher prepares for their own individual goal setting conference would be completely individualized and depends on the teacher and the principal in the school and so I can't answer that.

Is that something that we could inquire?

Because I think that's a really important part of feedback on the tool that we're not overburdening teachers with that self-evaluation.

It is something we could inquire about.

We do do teacher perception surveys around the whole process from goal setting all the way through the summit of evaluation, but we also have a collaborative working group with SEA and PASS in the district where we talk about implementation issues monthly in the PG&E work group.

And then we're also entering into a new phase with SEA.

We just recently bargained the peer assistance and review that we would be researching, developing, and implementing a program around that.

And all of these discussions, all of these things that you're bringing up are part of those conversations because our goal is to make sure that the evaluation process is fair and transparent for all teachers in every school and fair and transparent for all of our principals as well.

Perfect.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any more questions?

Comments?

McPhobie.

Roll call, please.

Director Geary?

Aye.

Director Harris?

Aye.

Director Peters?

Aye.

Director Pinkham?

Aye.

Director Brunford?

Aye.

Director Burke?

Aye.

Director Patu?

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Our last action item, amendment to science warehouse lease agreement at Seattle Distribution Center.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a first amendment to the lease for the science materials warehouse located at the Seattle Distribution Center Building B 6795 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, covering the period of December 1st, 2015 through December 31st, 2020 for a total of $820,000.

In the form of the draft agreement attached to the Board Action Report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the Superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

I second the motion.

The A&F person, that's actually the chairperson, is no longer here, so I'm going to ask Director Peters if she can give a report from the committee.

Yes, this came to the Audit and Finance Committee on November 12th and with the recommendation to move it to the full board for approval.

Is there any questions?

Comments?

Question?

Do we not have room here for that process and or space?

I thought the idea to bring food, et cetera, and to do the John Stanford Center was so that we could consolidate.

Excuse me.

I'm Lewis Carlson.

I'm with property management.

We did look at the current space that we have in the building.

Unfortunately, we don't actually have the ability to bring that within our space.

We also looked at other spaces, other warehouses to see if we could perhaps get a lesser term.

And with the hope that one day through Additional funding, we could actually have a warehouse of our own that we could be able to house this.

Unfortunately, the market as it is today, Seattle has almost reached 100 percent leased capacity right now.

So I was unable to find another location.

So we Renewed the lease, or we're putting that forward.

This is, the space apparently in the lease is 12,838 square feet.

Are we using that entire space?

That's about, I did some napkin calculations, it's about a quarter of a football field.

Do we have that much science materials?

Actually, I did take pictures.

It's three racks high and the operation's quite extensive.

There are several bay doors and when I visited the facility, it was quite active.

I don't foresee that they could actually fit any of that into a smaller location.

Some of the materials also require special handling and have to be segregated in a special area that's sprinkled, fire department requirements, stuff like that.

So no, unfortunately.

It is a large space, but when you view it, It's all used.

Okay.

Two other quick questions.

Do we have any staff that are based out of that or permanently based out of that location?

I noticed there's some office space in it.

Are there any staff that work there or is it primarily just storage?

I believe we have one staff.

Actually, I'm going to have Dan answer that.

Dan Gallagher, interim director of STEM and arts and former science program manager.

So currently we have four staff members there.

A science materials center supervisor and then three assistants who work full-time refurbishing all science instruction materials for students K through 8.

Thank you.

And then just to clarify, as I read through the lease, there is no termination clause.

I want to be absolutely sure, yes or no, and what are our options?

That was a concern.

I went back to the property management company and actually spoke with them about that.

Currently, the landlord actually has another warehouse across the street, and he is working with that tenant to end their lease prematurely.

They have no problem with us pursuing a sublease if we choose to do that.

And actually in this market I think that we could very simply put a sublease in place.

The landlord would want to take over that lease and we would not have to manage it at that point.

But I wasn't able to get the termination language that I...

Thank you.

The pricing on the space looks like it's reasonable market rate.

So I think this is a good choice.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

So the sublease and the termination clauses, this has all been through legal, is that correct?

And those representations are in writing?

Everything that I do as far as preparing a lease or putting things forward goes through a vetting process and that includes being reviewed by legal.

So in answer to part of that question, what you just said about subleasing and maybe moving across the street, is there some kind of a rider or option agreement attachment to that lease?

I was unable to negotiate a termination agreement or get anything in riding as far as, there is actually in the lease a clause that says that we can sublease.

So that's there.

But I wasn't able to get a termination clause in the lease.

And a favor for me, if in a board action report, you can highlight that in some fashion to say, unfortunately, we were unable to get a termination clause for that.

Heads up.

Much appreciated.

Future clarity.

Okay.

Thank you.

Dr. Bingham.

But you kind of answered with some of the others responses to questions here.

But the new lease will end in December 31st, 2020. And then you have a note in the research and data resources and benchmarks that if we do relocate, the relocation shelving costs and time estimate of downtime is six weeks.

As you look at this, as far as, you know, it seems like ending a lease in the middle of the school year doesn't Bode well if you do relocate.

So I'm just wondering, were they open to ending the lease when school ends?

You know, adding maybe another six months or taking six months and so that if we did have to not renew the lease, we don't have to worry about moving stuff out in the middle of the school year.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Ms. Fody?

Roll call.

Director Harris?

I didn't hear the answer to Director Pinkham's question.

Yeah, I'm not sure that I have an answer for your question, to be honest.

We renewed the lease in the same fashion and language that it was previously written.

So I believe several years ago, we were in a different space, so we have gone through a move.

We do know what it entails.

It does take quite a while, so we would need some overlapping time.

A little more detail on the logistics of how the materials flow into and out of the warehouse.

Roughly, we have trimesters in elementary through middle school.

Where in the summertime, all the materials are there getting refurbished and restocked.

Then they go out.

So there are some less busy times.

I wouldn't call them down times at the warehouse.

So we can stagger it around that in between the switch and rotations, we call it.

So I wouldn't read that as it's in the middle of the school year, so that's a bad time.

In fact, middle of the summer would probably be a pretty rough time as well.

Thank you.

Any more questions, comments?

Director Harris.

I'm sorry, and I don't want the dreaded micromanager label.

However, given what you just said, is there an opportunity to go back and move or extend the lease date until the summertime?

Could we table this until the next board meeting so that you had the opportunity to try for that?

I think that Director Pinkham brought up a good point.

I can do that.

The timeframe of this actually happened and it came up quite quickly.

The current lease is expired at the end of November, so we are in a holdover situation at this point.

I'm sure the landlord would love to extend the lease for a longer period.

I guess, not sure if that's What we need to do from my counsel, but...

It's a good question.

My recommendation is to stick with the date and move forward as my recommendation.

I think that our experience in moving these warehouses, I don't remember the exact time of year, the previous warehouse, we vacated that one.

But my opinion is I don't see that as a stumbling block over the term of a five-year lease is the specific end date.

Thank you.

So are we actually, is there any more questions?

Is that, do you have your answer to that questions?

Okay.

Everyone's, no more comments, no more questions?

Ms. Foddy, roll call.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Brentford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

We're now going to our introduction items.

Our first introduction items is annual approval of schools.

And before you do your presentation, I'd like to go to C&I Chair and ask for his recommendation.

The Curriculum and Instruction Committee heard this item on November the 9th, moved it forward to the Board for approval.

Good evening, Directors.

Michael Stone, Interim Director of Grants and Fiscal Compliance.

Tonight I bring forward to you the annual approval of schools, which would be the continuous improvement plans for our 98 buildings and programs.

Actually, 99 now.

Sorry, we added one more.

Is part of WAC 180-16-220 that schools will use previous spring data to update their continuous growth and for closing the achievement gap.

Directives have any questions?

Comment?

Director Bluffer?

This is a question that I asked, I believe, last year around in prior years when I worked for the district long, long, long time ago.

This was a pro forma exercise of creating the school improvement plans.

And so I'm wondering if there's a significant review of the process.

I'm not making the assumption that It was done in the way that it was done in the past, which was to replace all the dates and send the same report that had been sent in previous years.

Does it actually encapsulate the data that we have gathered and does the data change the direction of the plan?

Yes, these are reviewed at the building level through the building leadership team, and many of our buildings also use their entire staff to review the plan.

So at the building level, yes, and then it is reviewed centrally through the executive directors, and it is still under review.

They went live yesterday for public.

They will be up for review.

They're still working documents.

So on January 6th, when they come up for approval, we will be making sure that all principals have revised them.

With any errors we see, any things that still needs to be changed, if they do not have advanced learning goals in, we'll make sure that they have those components in by January 6th.

And based on your answer, did I hear that only the executive directors are reviewing, or is there a committee?

I personally reviewed all of them.

They're also part of, we're trying to put in place, we used to have Five, six years ago.

Annual reviews where schools will come together with like schools and review them.

That is switched now to the regional model, so they are reviewed there.

At the regional level.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

First of all, thank you for the transparent and collaborative conversation we had last week where we brought this issue up.

Yes.

You told us much the same thing last year, that these were iterative and that we're going to do better next year.

And because they only went live this morning, it sets us up as board members as being non, what's the word, diligent perhaps?

Because we're the ones that have to say, are we doing this right?

And ironically, A draft memo went out with, you know, the little balloons to the side that says, it's okay, we just have to do them.

We don't have to do them right.

I'm paraphrasing here.

And I find that attitude a little distressing, and I'm so hopeful that these are going to be Shining documents, comprehensive documents, because there's very few places that folks can go for information to compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, and we can do just a whole lot better.

And I've sat on BLT teams where folks have said, We don't like the format.

We'd rather redesign it.

And there's a certain amount of disdain for this process.

But it's one of the few statutory things that we have to do.

I understand.

So I look forward to seeing your work product as early as possible.

So they were up yesterday afternoon, and we actually have a longer review period this time for the board members.

So they aren't up for approval in two weeks as normal.

They're not up until January 6th.

So there will be time to review.

As I said, I reviewed all of them myself, have got notes out to principals to revise them, and working through the executive directors to make sure that is completed.

And the last piece, and we talked about this again when you all were onboarding us, and I appreciate that sort of collaboration.

Some of us would like to give principals more autonomy.

So it would seem to behoove them that It really would be a fabulous piece of work product and it would have things in there about grants and PTSA money and again, serve as an educational tool and maybe even a bragging tool.

Thank you.

Dr. Burke.

I want to also put a note of concern out regarding the CSIPS that I think historically they have been.

Something that just had to be done, but they didn't have a lot of intrinsic value.

When I think about improving the organization and I think about what are the habits that we need to create and improve, I see the CSIPS as a tool for transparency and a powerful driver for things at the building level.

People in the community have concerns that they come to the board But a lot of their concerns, a lot of the challenges that they face are at the school level.

And if we really truly want to embrace the community and help them shape our schools and help them drive excellence in our schools, the CSIP is the vehicle to do that.

And I think capturing the funding sources, the programs, the community engagement is really, really important to me.

So I don't believe that the time is as critical when we approve them But I think that it is critical how we communicate about them and how we continue to improve them as a tool.

And I just want to read two lines from WAC 180-16-220.

First of all, that the approval process for CSIPS is determined by the District Board of Directors.

So if there's something about it that doesn't fit our model, The state legislation gives us the power to change it.

So I think we should take a hard look at that and make sure that we've got a process in place that really serves the needs of our students and our buildings.

One of the points that is indicated here, Is that the annual building school approval includes recognizing non-academic student learning and growth related but not limited to public speaking, leadership, interpersonal relationship skills, teamwork, self-confidence and resiliency.

And I think we saw some of that this morning.

And then the other point is that one of the items included is parent, family, and community involvement as these factors relate to having a positive impact on student learning.

And I've seen some of the CSIPs that I've reviewed that have really robust community engagement and parent involvement.

And I've seen some that say, yeah, we created it.

It included our BLT.

It will be presented at our PTA meetings, done.

No specifics, no real truly engagement where the community can see that they've made a difference and they can feel like they're empowered.

Dr. Bingham.

Thank you for your work that you've been doing here.

One thing I'd like to see if we can do as far as CSIP moves forward, Definitely been through just probably jobs that we have, but we do have to do, goal-setting improvement plans with our own job, but oftentimes there's no really Accountability built into this.

It's just saying, this is what I plan to do.

I'd like to see if we can build in some accountability into these plans that when school says our plan is to do X, that we have some way to make sure they put reasonable and effort in to do X and not just put it down as, oh, this is our plan that we have to do.

Any more questions, comments?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Our next, it's annual SAP software maintenance.

This item came to ops and the committee reviewed it and made a recommendation to move forward for full board approval.

Yeah, Carmen Ram, Chief Information Officer.

And this is our annual maintenance for our SAP Enterprise Resource Planning System, which is the primary large application that we utilize in the district for all of our human resources, our accounting, our finance, our budgeting.

Purchasing, payroll, contracting, all those applications and services.

In FY16, the system will process over a billion dollars in purchasing and with over $660 million of that funding being personnel related expenses for payroll and reimbursements and things like that.

So this is the first year that the annual maintenance has surpassed $250,000, which is the requirement to come to the board for approval.

And the reason it has surpassed it this year is because, A, obviously there's between a 2% and a 3% inflation that goes on to it, but also we purchased additional licenses this year due to additional staff and different utilization of the product.

Any board questions, comments?

Director Burke?

This is definitely something that we need.

It's pretty imperative.

And so I just want to be sure that when I look through the documents, it looks like the renewal rate is 22% of the base price.

For the licenses and 42% of the base price for our service.

Is that correct?

Not exactly.

The annual maintenance is 22% of the price that we paid for it when we bought any of the licenses.

So there's a core license for the major product and then there's user licenses.

Those add up and every year it's 22% and that's pretty much an industry standard for For all major software vendors is 22% seems to be the number now.

The 42% is not support, even though on the list they call it support, the 42% and I got to make sure I get the right name of the company, is for a product from a company called Business Software Incorporated which is a partner of SAP and they provide our annual tax updates and all the new tax information.

So that 42% is not support As you and I may think about it, we're calling up and getting help over the phone or something like that.

It's the updates to the software that handled all of our tax accounting and everything.

So it would be similar to you and I going out and buying a new version of TurboTax for home.

We would have to pay the cost to get all the new tax laws and everything.

So that's why that one is higher.

It's a small amount of the overall product, but it is 42 percent instead of 22. And then support on top of that, we don't have an extended support service that we pay for for SAP at this time.

So within our maintenance and licensing costs, which gives us the option, the right to use the product, gets us all of the updates and any modernization of the product, and then it also gets us Support to call in and ask questions and get their assistance during any upgrades or issues, any problems that we may be having when we're doing an upgrade, as long as it's non-customized code.

Thank you.

One last question.

Are you happy with this tool for the district?

Yes, we are.

Yes, it's used by a lot of the major school districts around the nation, and we're looking forward to when BTA4 passes to be able to take this to an incredible level for the district.

I've been in airports, so I know a lot of people use SAP.

Yeah.

We don't call it SAP or we get in trouble.

Dr. Peters?

Well, I have a follow-up question from what Director Broke was asking.

It's the same sort of question, which is, if we've been renewing it every year for 15 years, I'm assuming we have a certain level of satisfaction with SAP.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Have we ever put it out for an RFP for this to see if there's anything else out there?

Are we just pretty satisfied with this and feel that the price is right?

We have not put it out for rebid, but to replace a system like this, we'd be talking in the area of $30 to $50 million would be a top off the top estimate.

These are large and the disruption to the district.

So when you get a product like this, which is a Fortune 50 company, which is nationally known, is used across the nation and across the world, you stick with it unless there absolutely is some reason why it's no longer working for you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any more questions, comments?

Thank you.

Thanks.

Our next one is Resolution 2015-16-11, certifying unavailability of suitable, unused, or unutilized school facilities in contingent districts.

And this came to ops and the committee review and they made a recommendation to move forward for full board approval.

Yes, Richard Best.

I'm director of capital projects and K-12 planning for Seattle Public Schools.

Welcome to our new school board members tonight.

This resolution is to certify that we've reached out to our neighboring school districts and that they do not have space available in their facilities to house our unhoused students.

We reached out to four school districts, Highline School District, Shoreline School District, Tukwila, and Renton.

In conversations with OSPI, we did discuss both Mercer Island and Bainbridge Island because they are contiguous districts as well.

There's just a body of water there.

OSPI indicated that they did not require letters from those two school districts.

We did have a conversation with OSPI.

We had originally had emails from these school districts.

OSPI requested that we provide them with letters.

We have since put those in your board package.

They were, I believe, uploaded last Friday from the four school districts that we did reach out to with representatives from those four school districts indicating that they have no space available.

This is required by OSPI as part of our study and survey.

Our study and survey approval is what allows us to receive state matching funds on our BECCS projects and so this is a significant requirement and one of the last requirements for approval of our study and survey.

So your resolution at the next board meeting is required and then we'll be submitting that to OSPI and that should complete the study and survey effort.

Any questions?

So questions.

Comment, Director Harris?

You didn't mention Vashon School District, and I see those kids at the ferry dock every morning.

And we didn't mention Vashon OSPI either, and you're correct.

And so do they have room or not?

Did not reach out to Vashon.

I would be assuming that because OSPI did not require that we reach out to Bainbridge Island or Mercer Island that we would not have to reach out to Vashon either.

We did not specifically discuss Vashon.

Any more comments, questions?

Thank you.

Move on to the next one.

Thank you, BEX IV Award Architecture and Engineering Services Contract P1409 to Magnum Architects Incorporated for the Queen Anne Elementary Classroom and Gymnasium Edition Project.

This came to ops and the committee reviewed it and they said to move it forward for board consideration.

So this is a BEX IV project.

Malum Architects was selected from a group of 16 architects who submitted written statements of qualifications.

We had a team of folks in the capital projects office review the written statements of qualifications.

We shortlisted to three To interview for this project, Malum was selected from the short list of three architectural firms.

They have done work previously at this site when we reopened both the old John Hay and then the wooden structure for Queen Anne Elementary School, so they are very familiar with the existing building systems.

The fee amount for their services is $1,674,761, plus reimbursable expenses of $25,121.

This is for a project that was contemplated in the BEX IV capital levy for eight classrooms and a gymnasium addition at this school.

We will be exploring with Malum Architects how to, you know, put this on the site because this is a relatively small site.

We're very aware of trying to maximize site for playground and recess issues, physical education space, and so I'll be working with Malum to explore how to maximize this site for that use.

The project is to be under construction in 2018, and we hope to open this building in the fall of 2019. We do need relief on Queen Anne, both Queen Anne and Magnolia for capacity, so this is a very significant project for our office.

So I'll open it up to questions.

Any questions, comments, Director Bradford?

This was recommended for consideration.

Did it not have complete financial information at that point?

Correct.

We were completing negotiations with Malum Architects at the time.

This came to the Operations Committee, Director Blanford.

Thank you.

And I will note for the new school board members, there's really two, we look at both the Office of Fiscal Management and then OSPI's guidelines for calculating architectural engineering fees.

The architectural engineering fees are generally within those guidelines.

We'll highlight those projects that are not within those guidelines.

Generally, they have something very significant that those general guidelines would not address.

But this is within the OFM OSPI guidelines.

Director Harris.

Question.

Forgive me if it's not very articulate, but when we're awarding construction contracts, the questions that come back are, what kind of apprenticeship programs do we have?

What kind of joint operating agreements do we have?

Are we hiring women in nontraditional roles?

Are we hiring folks of color and underrepresented folks?

Does that apply here to the architectural and engineering as well?

And, second question, can we negotiate some internships for our terrific kids on this?

We do not have apprenticeship requirements for the architectural and engineering firms.

That's usually through union, trade labor unions.

Most of these architectural firms do have summer interns, not with maybe Seattle Public Schools students because not all of them are located in Seattle, but most of them have summer interns because they recognize in the college programs that's what's feeding You know, their firms, and so they like to look for colleges to give them guidance on what students that they should utilize or offer internship programs to so that they have the ability to offer them potentially future employment.

I would say, as a professional standpoint, you know, as a profession, architects and engineers are very good at offering summer intern positions.

So I appreciate your question.

Can we throw that into the negotiating mix somehow in the future?

I'd want to talk with legal counsel to see.

I know that there are requirements concerning MWBE that we can put in.

And so summer intern would be something that I'd want to discuss with legal counsel to make sure that we could do that in a fair manner.

Thank you.

Director Burke?

So this may be a newbie question.

I'm curious, do we have a supplier rating system?

And if so, does Malum have a history of successful projects in the past that are on time on budget?

Malum has done a substantial amount of work for Seattle Public Schools.

They are implementing four of the BEX4 projects.

Two of them you're probably familiar with, Wilson Pacific, Thornton Creek, so that's, well actually that's three of four schools there, and then this would be the fourth school, Queen Anne Elementary, because there's two schools at the Wilson Pacific site.

So, Cascadia and Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.

So what made them attractive to this qualifications review committee was that they had extensive experience working at Queen Anne Elementary School.

They were very knowledgeable of these two buildings that are on this site.

Both of these buildings are historic in nature.

One of them is approaching 100 years in age.

So we do not have great record documents from the initial construction.

We have record documents of the work that they've done on this project.

So they're very knowledgeable at these schools.

And the team that will be working on it for Malum is the team that previously had worked on these projects.

So our task by statute is to select the most qualified team.

And that really raised them above their competition at this school.

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.

The system level question, this was the newbie part, do we have a more objective supplier ranking or supplier historical database?

We definitely look at change orders that are implemented over the course of a project and have conversations with architectural engineering firms about what expectations are going in.

Some projects, the historical renovation projects that are Buildings that are very old, Director Burke.

We don't have great record documents, and so we do run into unforeseen conditions.

We open a wall, we believe it's constructed in this manner, and we find out it's not constructed in the manner in which we believed it was constructed in.

That's not an architectural error, that's just lack of institutional knowledge.

Right, right.

Yeah, I understand that.

I guess this question doesn't relate as much to the architectural more to Right.

Overall, the construction, remodeling work.

Yep.

We do track that.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Questions from directors?

Director Pinkham.

Excuse me.

Before, if you may stand, I actually...

Wanted to step back to the previous one because I did have a question.

Sorry.

But as far as the usability of other schools, if there's any space, the letter just says yes or no.

You ask them to provide data if they say yes, but if they say no, they don't have the space.

They don't have to provide data.

Is that common practice?

That's common practice.

Yep.

And we did have conversations with all these school districts by telephone.

We received emails from them, and then OSPI advised us that they wanted a letter, not just an email.

Okay, thank you.

Any more questions?

Okay, let's move on to our last item.

BEX IV Olympic Hills Elementary School approval of GC slash CM negotiated total contract cost with Cornerstone.

This item also came to ops and the committee review and they made a recommendation to move it forward for full board approval.

Yes.

So,

Again, board policy 6220 requires your approval on projects greater than $250,000.

OSPI is requiring final approval on this amendment.

The school board in April of this year did approve a preliminary TCC, a total construction cost, is what that acronym stands for.

On a GCCM project.

That is a delivery model that is slightly different than the traditional design, bid, build, delivery model.

That allows contractors to be selected through a qualification process similar but not exactly the same as architects and then the contractors will bid the work on behalf of Seattle Public Schools.

They will also self-perform some of the work in which they also compete or at times they are the sole bidder because other firms will not compete against them.

When they have substantial knowledge of a project.

Cornerstone General Contracting has been working with Seattle Public Schools since schematic design at Olympic Hills.

They have provided our design team with lots of input.

On the guidance of our construction manager, SOJ, we opted to go with the GCCM approach because Initial preliminary geotechnical reports indicated that this site had a very high groundwater table.

Groundwater can pose a significant problem when trying to build foundations for school facilities, and so we concurred.

We submitted this project to an alternative public review board for consideration of the GCCM approach.

They approved And so we subsequently sought contractors.

Cornerstone was selected from the criteria that we utilized.

We entered into a contract with them in 2014 at a MAC of 29 million, or at a TCC of 29,191,966.

In April of this year, that was increased to a total construction cost of 31 million $891,966.

OSPI has asked that this board approve that amount again so that we are eligible for state funding revenue.

The state funding revenue that we'll receive is approximately $1.7 million for Olympic Hills Elementary School.

And so the narrative in the background information was really the rationale as to why the initial budget increase from 2014 to 2015. In April, the board did approve that increase and now OSPI just wants to finalize it because we've bid out all of the specification sections on this project and the contractor has assured us that he can build this project for the $31,891,966.

So with your approval in January, we'll be submitting that document to OSPI and to be able to give the contractor a full notice to proceed with the construction work for phase two.

I just have one quick question.

There's language in the bar about additional scope of work and one of the bullets is for GCCM early risk mitigation.

And so generally, in my experience, risk mitigation is something you pay up front to save later.

And so, are we paying upfront and it costs us more?

Is there a way that it sort of goes against the principles of risk mitigation in my mind?

Well, Rick, that's a great question.

And there's lots of controversy in answering that.

Legal counsel and our BECCS Oversight Committee would both tell you that this is a way to reduce risk for Seattle Public Schools.

Yes, we may pay a little bit more upfront.

But at the end of the day, when the project is complete, we believe we'll be paying less because we believe because the contractor has been on board all through the process, that as they enter into construction, they understand how the building is going to be built and will receive less Construction change orders during that process.

Less delay claims.

So you can look on the amendment and you'll see pre-construction services allowance.

This is on amendment number one to the agreement for $266,600.

That's an item that we would not be paying if we had implemented the traditional design bid build approach.

But again, it's where you look at those costs.

First cost, probably a little higher.

At the end of the day, we think we'll get a better quality product, so that has long-term operational implications.

We think we'll also pay less in construction change orders during the course of construction.

But an excellent question.

Thank you so much.

Dr. Harris.

Can you learn us up at some point between the traditional and general contractor construction manager pathways, if you will, and what the pluses and minuses are?

And does this particular pathway, again, use apprentices and minority?

All projects greater than one million dollars, we have an apprenticeship requirement of 15%.

We do track all of our BEX projects because they are all greater than a million dollars to make sure that the contractors are achieving that.

We do work with the Department of Labor and Industries because they have some You know, if you're an owner-operator, you are not going to have apprenticeships because you're the owner of the business and you're also performing the work.

So you're not gonna have apprentices.

We look for L&I to give us guidance as to whether the contractor has met the apprenticeship requirements on a project.

So you'll see, but most projects that are being built at this time for Seattle Public Schools are meeting the apprenticeship requirements.

But the, and perhaps I'm not tracking, and we can do this offline, the general contractor construction manager pathway, if it's over a million dollars, has the apprenticeship requirements?

Correct.

Correct.

It has the apprenticeship requirements.

And do we evaluate and look at Again, women in non-traditional careers and representation of folks.

MWBE requirements?

Yes.

Thank you.

We don't evaluate those at this time.

Is it something we should be exploring?

It would potentially have the impact of having costs go up on our projects.

And it's something that we could definitely have conversations with legal counsel to look at MWBE requirements on our projects.

We don't at this time have MWBE requirements.

That is not to say in the construction industry that we have lots of MWBE personnel working on our projects and owning the companies that are performing the work on our projects.

So I feel like we do have very good representation.

But specific requirements, no.

As related to a percentage, you know, 30%, 15%, no.

We don't have those requirements.

Thank you.

Any more comments, questions?

Oh, Director Pinkham.

You had mentioned in the initial review that high groundwater was part of it, so what was the increased cost due to now high groundwater?

I'm going to have to look to two folks who are more familiar with this project than I, Brad or Lucy.

Can you address that question?

Lucy Murillo, Senior Project Manager.

The budget transfer that we did on April 1st, we listed, if you go back to that board action, listed a number of impacts, but I believe for that 3.3 million Dollar increase, what we added was for street improvements, sidewalk improvements, the GCCM methodology, and also sustainability because we added some scope for geotechnical wells at the site for more energy efficiency in our mechanical systems.

So even though we had impacts Of up to eight million, we only came to the board for 3.3 million.

So let me follow up with your question when we come to approval and I'll get you an exact number for answering the question as to how much did the high groundwater table add to this project and costs.

I'll get you that information.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Any more comments?

It's 8-28.

That is the annual board meeting.

Move to adjourn.

Meeting adjourned.