School Board Meeting May 15, 2019 Part 3

Row items and for the executive committee's work plan at some point sooner rather than later if we could change our rules so that we don't have to read every word of these for introduction and we can do like the legislature does first and last sentence.

Here goes.

High school science instructional materials adoption came before C&I April 23rd and April 30th for.

Approval of this item would accept the recommendation of the high school instructional materials adoption committee for instructional materials for all students taking 9th grade chemistry A chem A 9th grade physics A phys A 10th grade biology A bio A 10th grade biology B bio B and 11th grade physics B phys B.

and authorize the superintendent to purchase carbon time as the core instructional materials for the Seattle Public Schools high school biology A bio A science classrooms to approve the district developed curriculum for bio B as the core instructional materials for Seattle Public Schools high school biology B bio B science classrooms to approve the district developed curriculum for chem A As the core instructional materials for Seattle Public Schools high school chemistry A chem A science classrooms and to purchase peer as the core instructional materials for Seattle Public Schools high school physics A and B viz A and B science classrooms for an amount not to exceed one million thirty four thousand one hundred thirty two dollars covering licensing through school years 2019 20 through 2027 28. Note a minor edit on 5 14 May 14th intro and date intro and action dates updated on the board action report to reflect correct meeting dates.

Let me just say as a point of privilege whatever happens with science adoption from the board votes this board Absolutely fundamentally respects all the work that has been done to date.

Some of the frustrations about how this was teed up certainly lessons learned in the past and certainly our current superintendent our current chief academic officer were not here when some of those missteps may have been made.

And there's a certain science teacher in the room I believe still who made an impactful and incredible difference in my child's life who will graduate in exactly a month to a science career that is phenomenal because of that mentorship.

because of pointing out opportunities and was one of the folks that helped develop this curriculum and I am beyond grateful.

Chief Academic Officer Diane DeBacker take it away please.

Thank you President Harris and you have teed up this BAR very nicely.

Thank you for doing that.

As you've seen in the BAR as you heard from the work session that we held about a month ago and the committee of a whole a few weeks ago You know that this high school bar is one that has a blended approach to the curriculum and that is approving or recommending carbon time district developed teacher developed Seattle public school teacher developed curriculum and then peer.

So you've already read over those and you've seen those.

But before I pause to give you time to ask questions I'd just like to to say a few introductory words that you'll only have to hear once tonight.

You will not have to hear it in the middle school bar or the elementary bar because we use the same process and all.

But I want to take you back in time just a little bit.

You heard it from some of the speakers who were here tonight is that it has been anywhere from 18 years to 24 years.

since Seattle Public Schools has had a science adoption.

And I think that's important to remember whenever we have that much of a lag of time between an adoption and what we're doing we find that materials are out of date.

We find that much has changed in our world and certainly much has changed around science.

So I will take you to 2013 and in 2013 is when the state of Washington adopted the next generation science standards.

And I'd have to say that based upon my experience doing curriculum adoptions at a district level and at a state level in other locations that if we made.

We and I mean it collectively as Seattle Public Schools had a misstep in this process at all is that we were not quicker to respond to new state standards with our curriculum adoption process.

Typically when you are looking at a new curriculum in any school district it is triggered or there's a lever that triggers that being new state standards being new standards maybe that are across the United States as we saw with the common core standards and typically a district will then come in behind that in probably less than a year's time and say we need to at least review what we're doing.

We didn't do that in Seattle Public Schools.

We're not pointing the blame at anybody for doing that or not doing it.

But as we move forward because there will be another adoption process at some point right.

There'll be an adoption process with social studies or another English language arts or another science round.

We just need to be quicker to respond.

to the lever that would do that for us.

And in this case it was 2013 and it was the next generation science standards being adopted by the state.

So let's acknowledge that and say that we'll we'll do better in the next time that we're faced with that.

As you know with the process we followed policy 2015 in order to do this.

You heard it the committee of a whole when Director Geary asked Kathleen Vasquez to talk about how this was done in the English language arts adoption and the different steps that we went through.

The same thing happened with science.

I'll take you through those stages very very quickly just to help you remember that.

So it began in April of last year with the board approving that we could then review science standards or review what we do in science.

Started there.

It was then a call to the community saying does anybody want to be on these adoption committees.

We had 90 people respond over 90 people respond.

We accepted everybody.

I believe I will.

I'm checking for clarification.

Everybody that said that they wanted to be a part of it from that the committee then set the review criteria into how they wanted to look at the different possibilities of vendors that may come in from that an RFP was developed and from that the RFP was sent out to vendors saying please respond to what we're looking for.

Proposals came in.

The committee met.

They reviewed those proposals against the criteria and then from that point on we then put those out and looked at which ones would go out into our schools in a field test.

And so that field test happened.

You have that in the science bar as to which different the three or the ones that went out to be reviewed.

Then it came back and we looked at those field test results.

We looked at pre and post test from students observations from teacher observations.

We had community inputs there were two opportunities for community members to review these materials on a Saturday.

in the beautiful city of Seattle and then they were online and available to review as well.

Then the committee came together and made a final decision as to which which ones to put forth.

That is the same process very abbreviated as I'm describing it that matches policy 2015. It is the same process that we have used with other curriculum adoptions.

That is why we are here today bringing this recommendation to you.

I'm very proud of the work that the committee has done with this.

As you all know I stepped into this process about three fourths of the way in.

So I had to catch up very quickly and I will admit that there were times that I weren't I was not as caught up as I should have been.

Director Burke and I have had a few discussions about that.

So thank you for your patience.

But as I look at the process and how it was applied against our two policy 2015 the process was followed.

It was thorough.

It was exhaustive.

As as you've heard and as you've seen and as you know we don't have to remind you that this this is one of your great opportunities and privileges that you have is approving a district curriculum.

I think what you have in front of you tonight with the high school proposal is is very innovative.

It is looking at what's out there.

Carbon time and our district developed our Seattle Public School developed curriculum.

Those are free.

Those are open resources.

They're online.

So you can see the cost of that as President President Harris mentioned with this particular cost of this is the lowest cost of any of the three adoptions that we're bringing forth to you tonight.

And so we're we're looking at looking at how we can do this in a different way than what we've done before.

So I think that is enough.

Comments from me I think probably through your questions we'll be able to answer those I will acknowledge that sitting here with me and standing beside me tonight we have people who know this much better than me.

We have Mary Margaret Welch our program manager for science and Dr. Kyle Kinoshita who has led this through it the entire process.

So with that President Harris.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues please.

Director Burke.

So I appreciate we're starting with high school and working our way down because I think.

This may come as a surprise given maybe I've it has had the appearance that I have been overly critical of the process K-12 but I really have very discreet feelings about each group the high school the middle school and the elementary and I'm actually really excited about where we're going in high school.

You know I I was maybe a little skeptical around technology in K-5.

By the time you get to high school it's not just you know the use of technology is pretty ubiquitous and the students that don't have access to it are we place them at a disadvantage.

And so I'm actually.

As I indicated excited about this we're working towards a one to one computer model in high school which could allow students to have their own laptops.

I believe that's coming through C&I I think even now.

And so I think that that implementation is going to have our implementation is going to have some some farther reaching ramifications.

High school science is going to be shifting as a result of that.

And I believe that that's appropriate.

So my ask is that within the high school work that we're really intentional about our feedback loops because of that because we're we're looking at teacher created materials.

We're looking at blended learning.

We're looking at you know the technology components that we take that very intentional look.

And continue to report back to the board because I think that is actually yeah I just think it's gonna be exciting.

Director Geary then Director Mack.

I still remain a little fuzzy in terms of what will actually what we are prepared to purchase and I'll ask it on each one so that we're clear.

Should this one be passed.

Are we prepared to purchase it and for which grades will it be purchased.

Which schools will get the benefit of this curriculum exactly.

All high schools will get the benefit of this curriculum.

So all 9 through 12.

And what about the highly capable that have 7th and 8th grade will get 9th and 10th grade curriculum so they will all have that as well.

Correct.

Correct.

Yes.

So OK.

And specific to the cost and I should have mentioned that in my introductory remarks.

The costs that you see in front of you are at least for the ones that are open resources.

So the carbon time and our teacher developed ones the cost apply to bring them to be ADA compliant.

And we had you you mentioned that before in in previous comments.

It is to maintain the website and then it is for our professional development.

because we will need to have professional development alongside this.

You heard one of the speakers tonight talk about the success of CCC has largely been due to that we've had professional development walking alongside these teachers all along.

There is a cost also for peer for that particular one but the bulk of the cost has to do with us just maintaining our system so that teachers can access this curriculum.

So next will it be available to teachers starting this coming fall.

Mary Margaret has said yes.

Mack.

I said in my comments earlier that my undergrad was environmental and social system studies and I also did early on a internship with the Center for Ecoliteracy which was an organization focused on learning about ecology and the importance of doing that in nature.

So.

I come from a perspective of being thoughtful around our use of technology.

I I believe that we need to be using technology effectively and it's important but I do have concerns about the possibility of overusing it.

And.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the part of the process where we didn't start the adoption process really when we we should have many years ago and that there's a lot of gaps that got filled in during that time because of that and everyone I mean we we do this with our funding situation as well.

So this is you know it's understandable we end up filling gaps and you know people are trying to do the best and.

bring along the curriculum because we need curriculum for our students and so that is that's something that's very clear to me.

And going forward what I also as a board director have realized that we don't have a policy that lays out what our perspective is of technology use in schools.

We don't have a statement of we don't want kids sitting in front of screens all day.

We don't have those guiding principles stated anywhere yet.

We had the online policy which we just repealed that had something related to that but we don't actually have a policy that lays out this you know our perspective as a board and a district how we want to move forward with technology and technology is just moving so quickly.

We're just kind of on a train and and this is something I think we need to be thoughtful about.

So I know that there's a digital learning policy that's coming forward I think that'll be helpful.

But I also would like to suggest that we we should focus a little bit more on actually developing a technology policy and what what do we what do we want to actually be doing as we go forward.

Because this this adoption process is going to if we select these curriculum we are We are investing in and committing to substantial computer outlays one to one at high school and potentially lower down in the grades and the clarification on to what extent in the lower grades we we want to use computers in our classrooms or what limitations we want to have on it.

We haven't defined that.

And so.

One of the other pieces of the 2015 that was followed but but wasn't adopted is there's a statement that the board can adopt guiding principles for each adoption process and that was something that we didn't do.

We didn't actually do guiding principles.

It's it's the last line in the policy and 2015 is really long.

It's the very last line in that policy.

that we can adopt guiding principles.

It doesn't say you have to.

So it didn't happen.

And so we didn't start the adoption process for all of these with guiding principles from the board to clarify additional things that we may have wanted to help clarify for guidance.

And for me particularly around technology I think some clarification might have been helpful at the onset of the process.

Because now we're having those thoughtful conversations about how much technology and there's differing opinions on whether or not the materials in front of us are too much technology or or not.

But we as a board didn't we didn't set guiding principles at the beginning of the process and so in a revision around 2015 I think that's something that I would prefer that we say we will just like we do in the facilities planning we and the levy planning we set guiding principles and I think going forward and other adoption processes that will help us hopefully reduce some of the challenging situations we've got going today with this adoption and how how divisive it's gotten.

So I just wanted to make those statements about those policy things and the acknowledgement of that.

As well as you know recognize that this we in particular with high school this is going to commit us to one to one computers going forward.

And we haven't had that comprehensive discussion and we have a technology plan that is then created.

But the board wasn't.

Other than with the BEX planning we didn't have We haven't had those conversations so I just feel like we should have some of those thoughtful conversations around those commitments going forward.

Other questions comments concerns Director Pinkham.

Can I just get some clarification.

You do list the costs of saying the ADA compliance website maintenance and professional development.

Will there any be a need for students or teachers to print out materials and how much cost may that.

Add to this.

There will be printing costs but.

We have not put a figure to that.

So if we can estimate if a class of size of 30 students are taking bio A and.

Again again how much printing cost is that going to be because I know it can get pretty expensive as.

And.

If it we don't have that ability to print out maybe a copy of the readings or whatever the open resource is.

Students would have to rely on the.

Material online.

But then again just the concerns about then going home.

I don't have that ability to download the stuff especially when you look at Internet speed for a lot of students.

Oh yeah.

Takes me three hours to download this textbook whereas someone else is another place that may take a few a little bit shorter time.

So that's other kind of costs I'm concerned about.

We have the ADA compliance website maintenance but printing costs I'd like to see some kind of estimate on that.

So noted.

And to follow up on that particular piece where are those costs budgeted from.

Are they coming out of the high school MSOCS budget which is already as we know as lean as lean gets or does that get billed back to the district.

with with one of these copy machines where you punch in the code like we have back in the boardroom so that our line item budgeting actually reflects what we are in fact spending.

The printing cost if I am correct are at the building level and yes those costs are at the building level.

Other comments questions concerns Director Patu then Director Burke.

Yes my question is how is this material actually going to affect the different learning styles of our students.

Well they have.

I'm going to go first with my answer around the ones that have been developed by our by our own Seattle Public School teachers.

And so they are the ones who have actually been using this curriculum and developing this curriculum as they've gone along with the diverse student body that we have in Seattle Public Schools.

And so there's a variety of activities from hands on to to working in groups.

So what you would expect to see in a classroom in Seattle Public Schools and adjusted for that particular audience.

Can I do a follow up.

So what is the comment from students.

Is there any respond from the students or in terms of when they were using this material.

Mary Margaret.

Yeah it's it's in.

We will find that for you and we'll get that to you.

It is in one of the attachments that we discussed at the committee of a whole and we had about a zillion attachments.

So we will find that for you and send that to you directly.

Thank you.

Burke.

The question on cost and professional development came up on this one versus some of the other ones.

The costs for professional development are fairly lean.

It looks like it relates to point four FTE curriculum specialist.

Are there any.

What is the what does that mean in terms of professional development development for.

The actual educators and.

Is there a cost component for that.

Where is that covered.

Mary Margaret.

I think this is definitely in your wheelhouse.

So with regard to the professional development you'll see that it's in the bar under each of the components.

So traditionally what we've done for professional development is there's a week long summer institute with three follow up days during the school year.

And so those are sub days for during the school year.

So what we did is we calculated them on two hundred and fifty dollars a day for the sub costs reminding you also that the number of teachers at the elementary school is far greater than the number of teachers at the high school.

And so that's why you see the huge divergence of cost.

May I follow up on that question.

Is this professional development required of our teachers.

So the question is an important one to me as well as to you.

And I have to tell you that when I was presenting at the high school LLD meeting the ed director specifically told the principals that when the curriculum is adopted it would be expected that all teachers would not only use it but would be developed proficiently in terms of that.

And as you know and I don't have this particular data in the BAR so I'll have to tell you this from memory.

85 percent of our biology teachers already participate in professional development and 78 percent of our physics and chemistry teachers participate in professional development.

Also to remind you that we're going to a three third year of science and so we need to bring on board some of those teachers that have not been to the table at this point because they haven't been teaching freshmen and sophomores.

So now our professional development will expend expand into those arenas.

So we did the calculations based on our best numbers that we have for all of our high schools and numbers of teachers in chemistry physics and biology.

OK.

I want to be really clear here expected to take professional development does not mean required to take professional development.

Is that correct.

So as I think Cashel Toner explained to you during the committee of the whole.

That is a negotiation component with SEA.

So that is bargaining.

And so yeah.

Go ahead.

Hi Kyle Kinoshita executive director curriculum assessment instruction.

I will point out that in our implementation of CCC all teachers were required whether it was a summer online training if they didn't get it then then they were required to do it when they came back to school using sub release days.

Dr. Clover Codd Chief of Human Resources.

Thank you.

Just because I know what's in the contract on this item.

Teachers can be required to take up to 24 hours of mandatory professional development that's district directed.

We do have to pay them obviously for their time or for as well we should but we can mandate up to 24 hours per year.

And that's under the current contract and we are currently starting to negotiate on the next contract.

Is that correct.

That's correct.

Thank you.

A couple of other answers to questions.

So Director Patu you will find that information that you'd ask for in attachment I specifically I point two and I point four.

So if you look at the bar specifically for high school and look at attachment I you will find the data and then the other questions that came in with regard to printing costs.

Currently our teachers do have a lot of printing that's done because they've been developing their own instructional materials.

So they're creating all of this so.

Actually I would tell you that in my best estimation and we will get you the figures but in my best estimation those printing costs will actually go down because we will be more we will be more conserving of those resources.

And because also the digital platform does give students access to reading materials and not all children would need to have printed materials.

Last last point that I think is important There seems to be some confusion about the technology that's required.

These are not tech based courses.

None of them.

Thank you.

I have another question.

When you teed this up you did not talk about the waivers that came forth a year before we started the adoption process and I can remember.

painfully well sitting in some of those meetings at C&I and in three by threes I think Dr. Kinoshita will remember those as well where some of us found the waiver and the lack of communication about how this came to be.

And and I think we need to acknowledge that and our lack of communication I.

I don't want to look backwards but but I do want to create an appropriate and authentic waiver excuse me record about the waivers.

There were no waivers for high school so if we can hold that to middle school maybe is that OK.

OK.

Also good I'm glad we made that deal.

So I know I still have to deal with that deal but I want to also go back to Director Mack's question about any policies around technology.

Chief Information Officer or technology officer Kroll has provided that policy 2022 does state that the board also believes that students need to be proficient users of information media and technology to succeed in a digital world.

It goes on but we can reference and look back at how 2022 crosswalks with that.

Yeah no I appreciate that bringing that up because actually it was brought up in public testimony.

However what we haven't pulled apart is what that means in practice.

And I I think part of that for me is because what I mean by the reliance on technology is a little tech based curriculum is maybe not the same thing as what other people are thinking.

The fact that this is. on the computer and it requires a computer to access it unless somebody prints it out means it's tech based to me because you have to be you have to have a computer to get there.

So that is maybe different than the than other perceptions around tech based.

But the requirement that in order to access the curriculum the materials you have to use technology to get there.

makes it tech based for me.

So I just want to clarify that that that that's part of where some of the conversations for me get a little disconnected because I fundamentally believe that we need to be using technology appropriately and teaching our students technology.

We need to be teaching students to type earlier on because they're they're using those computers early on in fourth grade.

We also need to teach how to.

use Excel appropriately.

I mean there's a lot of actually not being able to use Excel well is one of my pet peeves as a former consultant.

And so my point is not that we don't have some policies and we don't have some statements but I don't think we've actually been clear enough about how we want to move forward and what it means.

The current technology plan actually has a lot of that information in it but it's not a board policy.

So I would like to see us kind of tying the information that's in the technology plan into a board policy so we can get clarification moving forward on what we mean.

And we do need to keep in mind that the state of Washington does have the ed tech standards that we have to also pay attention to.

So.

So yes that will be part of our further discussion if.

So.

So there's ed tech standards that are relatively new in the last couple of years.

Given your comments just a bit ago about you know new standards start an adoption process.

Is there an adoption process that we'll be needing to start to that or it's it's not something that's going to be required.

We don't know.

It is not on our current curriculum and instruction plan.

Director Pinkham and then Director Burke.

I'm going to go back to the chart again it lists out the year 1 through year 9 costs and that's years 4 through 9 are clumped together.

Why is there no cost for everything but Bio A. What what are we paying for in that years 4 through 9.

You guys need to wiggle up there a little bit.

So I'm not sure if we're just making payments over nine years for by the way but only over three years for the other four nine years.

So I'm just curious what that extra cost in years four through nine for by the way is.

I don't have an answer for you right now.

But Mary Margaret does is that OK with you.

Yeah.

Diane has it here.

So.

The professional development is the bulk of the cost for Bio A and we are offering three years of professional development to implement the program.

So then the further the years.

Other than that we aren't we're not budgeting anything in there because we will already have the resources and the professional development will have been completed.

So the years 4 through 9 for Bio A would be mostly about web Updates and we're trying to put all of the assessment tools online as well.

So.

We have teacher turnover though in nine years.

So how could they be zero in years five through nine.

It's not that I understand that.

It's not that there won't be any professional development but it won't be within the context of this BAR.

So that will be our responsibility to take that on.

If you want me to.

Yeah.

Go ahead Diane.

It'd be as it is currently.

As we bring any new teacher on we have to provide professional development in whatever area they're teaching whatever grade they're teaching.

So it would be as we normally bring a new teacher on and get them up to speed.

Go ahead.

OK.

So then following up then with some of this other curriculum that says it'll also include upgrades and updates.

So.

After that year 3 there.

The.

Providers are still committed to provide us updates at no cost.

Yes.

And keep in mind that the bulk of those providers.

Success.

Seattle Public Schools.

So.

Our our team.

Were and.

Are.

Our teachers being paid an hourly wage.

For.

A being on the adoption committees and B developing this curriculum.

High school curriculum.

So there would then in fact be a cost for updating curriculum if we are paying teachers an hourly wage like we should be.

So.

So how can that be zero.

So some of those upgrades are specifically upon us that are curriculum and instruction folks so having curriculum people on high school curriculum specialists that would be their assignment.

To update that in terms of development development takes a lot of hours.

It takes a lot of teachers.

So while we're in development absolutely teachers are paid.

They're paid during the summer.

Clover can help me with the exact amounts.

And then the adoption committee it's very specific in the board policy that they're paid 1792 an hour.

So during the adoption committee process that was their fee.

And but during the development of instructional materials especially summer costs then those summer costs are commensurate to whatever the particular CBA calls for.

Director Burke and then Director Mack.

I just.

Wanted to share the.

Because I always have to bucketize things the conversation we've had around the ed tech.

Or technology based programs or you know that.

The language there.

Without clarity and without specificity.

Can create some misunderstandings and so I just also wanted to.

You know my interpretation is that there are there are kind of three key areas where one is that the technology is an information channel.

So this is like digital materials or online materials you accessing a PDF or accessing something that requires a computer or using a computer for web research.

So that is like an information channel.

The middle one.

Technology as a teacher is the one that I'm obviously the most concerned about because I feel that that's a place where adaptive technology.

could be trying to muscle in and you know bust up our relationships and the expertise of our teachers.

And the third one that I'm the most excited about is technology as a tool where we're using we're learning typing Excel SolidWorks programming.

You know we're using the computer as a thing to build our learning.

on top of.

So if that's a grouping that you know I think that some of that is actually captured in the ed tech standards.

But I think the more we can be clear about what our technology uses are in the programs the better we can prevent misunderstandings.

Director Mack.

I really appreciate that because the way you laid that out actually helps clarify I think part of the conversation that's so challenging around this because of the fear I would agree is using technology as the teacher.

And that that is the part that we want to avoid doing and that technology as a tool is actually really really powerful in our schools.

And so having structures in place to make sure that that's what we're doing instead of the other would be helpful.

So thank you Director Burke for clarifying that my question was actually going to ping off President Harris's questions around the PD and my my Curiosity is around how many high school curriculum specialists we fund across the district.

And is that an ongoing commitment that is in the budget and it's district wide.

And how many are there.

There was a public speaker earlier that mentioned at the adoption time many years ago there was you know five of them or something.

Eight.

So we have eight at this point.

No there were eight there were eight and how many are there now.

You weren't speaking on the mic.

I'll just say it.

2.6.

We also have teacher leaders who are also serving in curriculum specialist positions.

So we we have a teacher.

We have two teacher leaders who are building teachers full time not full time part time.

Kim Dinh as Director Harris pointed out actually serves as a curriculum specialist point two.

And so that's part of her assignment.

So she helps with that work.

And then I have two curriculum specialists one from Roosevelt and one from Hamilton Middle School who are serving as a point two as well.

So when we added added all of those components in it's bigger than 2.6 but people who are here in JSC in the building we have 2.6 actually 2.8 I'm mistaken.

Yes 2.8.

And this may seem.

Redundant but I don't know that it's ever been put on the record.

The legislature removed the science testing for 11th grade as a requirement for graduation.

Is that correct.

Correct.

And that was one of the drivers that and the NGSS standards for bringing this curriculum up.

Is that correct.

In all three.

Yes yes it it was.

And so because of what was signed into law last week that has changed no longer is passing the high school science assessment requirement for graduation.

Yeah.

The graduation.

Yes successful.

Yes.

Taking science classes required but not passing the test.

Director Burke.

And then if we can move on to middle school science adoption next.

Since since you went there.

Thank you for that.

And maybe this is a topic for a Friday memo because it's not immediately relevant to this but does that passage in the no longer needing to take the assessment at a particular time in the year.

Does that adjust our sequencing how we talked about this the courses and we were splitting some of them up that had some concern to do schools have more flexibility now in how they stage things for their master schedules.

We have not had those discussions yet.

If again I keep stating that that that bill was just signed into law last week.

We are still receiving guidance from OSPI.

We did send in last week's Friday memo a brief summary of what 1599 means but we have not had those discussions.

The assessment committee meets actually tomorrow night.

I have to.

split myself and be in two different places tomorrow night.

That may or may not be a discussion topic.

Again we we're kind of moving at the pace that we're seeing OSPI.

We're not trying to get out in front of something making decisions about something that later may.

We just we need to be patient as we move through this this new environment around assessment.

And did the legislature give us any money to implement any of this.

or is it yet another unfunded.

He is not here to answer that question.

If we could put that in a Friday memo feedback loop.

Much appreciated.

Director Mack please.

I appreciate the question around 1599 and the impact because that part of the challenge here and why.

We went down this road of splitting you know Chem A Chem B and realigning was because of the timing of the test as I understand it.

Now we don't have that timing of the test and that there's there are other districts that have chosen not to do that.

OK.

There appears to be disagreement from the science program manager that we'll have to take up at a different time perhaps in a Friday memo.

OK.

So the.

that the lead in to my actual question is relevant to all the rest of these BARs as well is.

There are there's some unknown in my mind about how effective this curriculum will be.

And so I just want clarification on.

The.

The timeline that we're committing to it.

And then do we have any.

Midpoint checkpoints at which we are.

Checking in on whether or not is actually being effective towards the standards and we're and to reevaluate that.

I heard two questions within the within what you said and one was how do we know if it's going to be effective.

The critical point here is that there must be alignment between what we're teaching and the standards that have been presented to us being the NGSS standards.

So if we have a tight alignment which we believe we do.

With all of the bars that we're bringing forth to you tonight we believe that that will get the results that that we're looking for.

So it looks like Kyle has stepped up here beside me and has feels that this is important that he add to this.

I wanted to point out that with our two adoptions, both CCC and Envision Math, we've been working with research and evaluation generally in a three-year study of the trajectory of these and included in that study is, you know, a look at how student achievement is affected.

And so, you know, we've developed pretty much a protocol to actually do that now that will apply to pretty much any adoption.

Excellent point.

OK I I'm sorry I am going to go there.

We've asked research and evaluation to take a look at honors for all and we still have yet to see any look back on a potential course correction.

But yet we've been promised that.

So if it's not part of the BAR how do we how do we embed that.

I am going I'm not sure if I'm going to answer it as to what you're expecting so you can.

We'll see where I go with it.

What we what we know is that any time that we start a new adoption whether it be English language arts social studies or science we have learned.

that we need to bring research right along with us.

So instead of waiting for nine years when we're done with this or when we go to a new adoption we know that we need to have that research walking alongside with us to help us gather that data so that we can tell the story along the way.

And so I that is that's what we're doing.

There's a couple of things that have happened just even operationally to make that a little bit easier for us at Seattle Public Schools research and evaluation was moved to teaching and learning to the teaching and learning division.

So there is a direct connection between what we're doing in this whole curriculum world and our research and evaluation team being right beside us.

And we we we're seeing that to be so valuable.

So I'm not sure if that answers the question.

In terms of the HC and here I'm I'm I will I don't know if if Wyeth is still in the room.

He has left but you do have a task force going on right now an advanced learning task force those results or those findings will be brought to you in in the in the fall.

And I believe that topic will be addressed there but I'm not sure.

So I am speaking as to I'm not quite sure if that answers your question or if I've just over committed us.

It helps.

And I wonder whether.

A check in after three years.

And a look back on growth rates.

Disaggregated data in terms of.

Socioeconomic.

Students of color.

Title 1 schools.

Would be an appropriate.

Add to all three.

Curriculum adoption bars.

Again I. We've spent a lot of time on this board looking backwards unintended consequences and I want to look forward.

I want to I want to develop that trust and systems to where it's part of our identity.

So I wonder whether thought could be had from.

The good folks in this building as to whether such an amendment would be brought forth say by staff.

Between now and.

Action.

We.

The reason that I am pausing and maybe even looking a bit puzzled.

Is that I would consider that to be part of what we normally do.

And I wish that I could agree with you but.

Unfortunately knowing the history here and the bandwidth issues curriculum and instruction curriculum adoptions used to be the first things cut straight off the top.

In years past in this district evaluation scientific research and evaluation such as we have such good people doing here in the district wasn't funded.

So if it's not in a bar.

What is Director DeWolf's phrase.

If you if it's mentionable it's manageable.

And one of the things.

When I eventually leave this dais that I want to leave is is a better system.

For.

Those folks that will be sitting up on the dais 6 8 10 12 years from now it will be clear.

And and and the.

The collaboration we don't we don't have to argue about what happened in the past.

It'll be set forth.

Yeah.

I. I as as your chief academic officer.

We will be doing that research and that evaluation and that continuous feedback loop to us and to you all along the way.

The adoption of this curriculum.

Is really.

The easy part will be the adoption.

The hard part is implementing.

That's where the real real work begins and that's where we'll start to gather data.

So for me I just.

That will be part of what we do.

Whether it needs to be in a bar or not.

I will.

I will.

I will.

Obviously something I'm sure that you and the superintendent and the small cabinet will discuss.

Director Burke.

Director Harris may I answer your question before we go to Director Burke.

Please.

I think it's really important for you to understand that without common instructional materials across the district we actually haven't had common assessments.

Without common assessments we can't really show you growth across the district because we're not expecting teachers to give assessments and we're not evaluating those and looking at those.

So indeed we have our high stakes assessment and our new Wildcats which is one piece of it.

This is our first year.

And so looking in three years at only the Wildcats I think would be short sighted.

I think what's really important is that it's our opportunity with new instructional materials that actually have embedded assessments which we have never had before common assessments across our district.

Then we can start having those kinds of discussions and answering those kinds of questions about the effectiveness of the instructional materials But also to help guide our instruction so that when we see different schools having different outcomes it gives us opportunity to just share successes and make modifications on behalf of our learners.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

Precisely to your question and whether something should be in the bar.

There is a bullet in the bar.

in the implementation section 12 that says June 2020 the science department will conduct an evaluation of the first year implementation of the adopted instructional materials including an analysis of student growth data and teacher student community input and feedback.

So I think while the three year isn't there the one year is there and it would provide an opportunity to extend or adapt.

OK seeing no further comments questions concerns let's move on to middle school science instructional materials adoption which came before C&I April 23rd and April 30th for consideration approval of this item would accept the recommendation in the middle school science instructional materials adoption committee for instructional materials for all middle school science classrooms and grades 6 through 8 and authorize the superintendent to purchase amplify science as the core instructional materials for all grades 6 8 Seattle Public Schools science classrooms for an amount not to exceed two million sixty nine thousand six hundred eighty six dollars covering licensing from school year 2019 20 to 2027 28 in an amount not to exceed five hundred sixty five thousand eight hundred fifty seven dollars for in-house professional development and collaboration and a one point zero FTE curriculum specialist.

Note minor edits were made May 14. Intro and action dates updated on the board action report to reflect correct meeting dates.

Take it away CAO DeBacker.

Thank you very much.

You again have set us up to have set us up but you have teed this up in order for us to have some great discussion.

So let's talk a little bit about the middle school proposal that you have in front of you.

As you've looked at the BAR you obviously know that amplify science came in came through the process ahead of the other two.

Other two.

options at every stage of our process this included our teachers our students who provided input and our community.

The most critical step was that final deliberation as we looked at stage 1 from where the criteria was set way back in the beginning to how we then sent out and looked at which vendors would actually get to be in our classrooms to be field tested.

to the field testing to the student surveys to the pre and the post and everything that I've described as we talked about high school in terms of the technology because that issue has been brought up many many times as to whether or not it's too reliant on the technology.

In this particular one technology is only present in about 15 percent.

of the lessons throughout the entire year.

So I think we need to keep that in mind.

The the schools where this was taught the engagement was high the interest was high.

You've heard that from some of the students who have visited with you today.

It was exciting to see some of those middle school students who were here in front of us today.

The.

The issue of the waivers I think I'll just address those right now because it was asked.

There were indeed waivers that that schools asked for in order to look at amplify.

And so I'm going to bring you back again to not having an updated.

We did have an approved science curriculum.

There's no doubt but it was 18 years old in this particular grade span.

And when you have an out of date curriculum such as that, when you have materials that you simply can't even get anymore from publishers, and when you have a new set of standards that don't match what we currently have, then you have teachers who are very bright, Teachers who know what other districts are doing.

Teachers who know that there is a new set of standards out there and they say we can do better.

We can do better than what we have been presented 18 years ago.

And we believe that if we take something for a test drive Think of it taking it for a test drive we want to take it out we want to kick the tires a little bit see how it works.

That's exactly what a waiver process is.

We allow that within our district it is allowed within what we do.

It not every middle school.

Wanted to do the waiver so we have some that did and some that did not.

It is.

We created this ourselves.

And we have to take all of us again collectively have to take ownership of this.

We we want to do right by our students.

Our teachers wanted to do right by their students be able to meet those next generation science standards and knew that there was something else available in order to get that done.

And that was amplify.

Those waivers were done.

And.

We knew that those waivers were happening.

Did the board know those waivers were happening in 2016 and 17.

I do believe the board did know that they were happening.

I'd like some follow up on that at a later time please.

That's a terribly important question.

And again I will appreciate that you were not here and that Superintendent Juneau was not here at the time.

Oh excuse me.

This was just about the time that I was beginning to come on board.

So what I will say is yes the board did need to have better communication around that.

I think everyone agrees that including both the board and staff.

We did report on these because we have an annual Waiver report around December in which reported on the number of waivers I am not going to say that that was adequate by any stretch because what should happen is that you know as Dr. DeBacker pointed out As we begin to respond to new standards and to try and meet those needs we should have much more upfront communication with the board you know all along.

That is something that we hope to write into a new draft of 2015 to require that that at least a year after the adoption of new standards by the state or district that our department actually do a report in terms of how it's going to respond.

And you know as we have now done we have more much more routine reports in terms of what's happening.

So I think that your statements about looking forward are appropriate.

We need to learn you know how we can actually work better as a board and district team.

Thank you for that.

My next question would be if for whatever reason amplify middle school science does not pass as the accepted curriculum Wouldn't the waivers as they currently stand continue forth for another year.

So.

The bottom will not.

Necessarily fall out from where we are now.

We are not starting over again necessarily.

In most of the schools with 18 20 year.

Curriculum is that is that a fair recap.

Waivers are good for three years.

And yes there's one year left on the waivers.

Okay, thank you for that.

Please go ahead.

Superintendent Juneau.

Thank you.

I would just I think when an adoption happens there's so much more that comes with it than just a waiver process.

You get the consistent common.

Stuff.

You get the common assessments that Mary Margaret talked about that you get to build upon.

So you get measurements and you get common professional development that we can then require science teachers and teachers to take.

A professional development and so an adoption comes with so much more.

Otherwise yes we're piecemealing it together.

Yes that piecemeal will continue.

Some will do it some won't.

But when we're aiming.

You know I think back to Eden is like are we creating scientists and engineers is like well we're not right now because we don't have common curriculum.

And until teachers know how to teach.

A common curriculum which will come with the adoption.

We're going to be in.

A woeful spot still piecemealing it together and so.

Yes.

The waivers would continue for one more year.

We'd probably be looking forward to what's going to be next.

But.

When the board adopts it.

It adds in.

So much more common.

Kinds of things and the most important thing it adds is the money to do the professional development.

Director Harris.

One of the things and I think Ronald Boy you spoke to this some time ago when I asked.

That.

In terms of the field testing what.

How would the district.

Know whether or not.

Those being asked to rate it.

Weren't being affected by their familiarity.

And as I recall Ronald Boy you provided some explanation around that in terms of what steps the district had done in the curriculum and instruction meeting.

But that is a concern that if you have people who have been working under a waiver and then they're asked to test run or field test versus people who haven't worked under a waiver.

There would be.

A bias.

Potentially.

So how is that scientifically.

Adjusted.

In the numbers that were provided.

Well I'm I'm looking at Ronald see if he wants to respond.

Because I don't.

Recall that specific exchange during C&I.

So.

You don't have to.

It was it was a long time ago.

I brought it up and I was given an explanation.

BD before Diane.

I think that Ronald Boy I think my recollection of that question was that that yes like it could create a bias.

However with.

Anything like this it could create a bias for or a bias against.

Once someone has had the opportunity to really delve into materials that on the surface look great once they get into them they can either find out that they are in fact great or they can find out that they're bad.

And in this situation because we've continued that our teachers have continued to like working with the materials it shows that.

Yeah there is a bias for because the evidence that they found from working with them like prove to them that they like the materials.

So that's my my opinion on it.

And I think that be the same case in any materials adoption.

You know we're not going to be expected to wouldn't be sensible to exclude the previously adopted you know publisher of materials just because we'd used them in the past because they potentially would have a favorable review of our of our teachers.

We just were looking for the best and the most favorable instruction materials for our teachers and that's what we should go with.

Yeah and I think there's a couple other things that the field test is just one of the criteria.

So there's other criteria that is also taken into consideration so that may partially answer that.

And then we did have a couple other vendors that we were looking at at the time that were currently being used in some of our schools so.

And I asked this question of Kathleen Vasquez as she looked at both English language arts and social studies and I said has it ever been when we have gone through previous adoption processes have we ever had.

A vendor.

Who was already in our schools that.

They were also a candidate.

And the answer is yes.

And so in kind of in this whole curriculum world and when you especially think about it in terms of next generation science standards there are not the field isn't real large because those standards were just developed you know six years ago.

So it's taken a while for publishers to get up to speed.

So it's not unusual for us to have something already being used within our classrooms that then also becomes.

A possible contender.

There's no prohibition of using previously waived.

In terms of curriculum adoption.

Correct.

Director Mack Director Burke.

I have two questions.

The first is.

Ms. Mary Margaret Welsh said that there's only 15 percent technology.

And when we're talking about amplify we're talking just middle school right now.

I want to actually disentangle the two.

Only 15 percent technology but all of the materials are online.

You need a computer to access it right.

We don't have books that we're giving students just just for clarification of what we're talking about because it's a digital curriculum that you go on to the site you log in you open up you click on things you read an article you see a picture you maybe do a simulation but it's all online and not something in hand unless someone prints it out.

There are no textbooks there.

There are the vendor kits that are used but there are no textbooks.

There are no textbooks in our 20 2002 adoption either.

We haven't been using textbooks so teachers have had online resources or file cabinet resources as I kind of explained a couple of years ago when I first started teaching.

We made ditto mimeographs and we had them in file cabinets and that's how we pulled our instructional materials together frequently.

And so truly.

I remember the old mimeograph.

I'm ancient.

So there you have it.

But the truth of the matter is is that we don't have books textbooks in in our instructional materials in our current adoption of 2002 either.

And so teachers have to access current relevant instructional materials.

And I think that's what we want them to do.

And so indeed will the teachers themselves need a computer to access the resources.

Yes.

The students do as well though to log into their account correct.

But what we're saying is that just like now sometimes kids will do a laboratory investigation and they don't need a computer for that at all.

The teachers give them a lab and they have them execute the lab.

Sometimes kids have readings and just like we've always done in the past we.

We copy the readings and we hand them to students and they use them and they don't need a computer for that.

The teacher used the computer to access the resources so the students have the materials.

This is actually the conversation that I feel is important to have about the disentangling of to what extent that's necessary and to have access to the materials how that happens whether or not the teacher is using it whether or not you're sitting in front of a screen.

So I think that clarification is really helpful.

The second part to my question though is around The materials that are provided by amplify you said they're kits.

Are we purchasing those.

And what exactly does that mean.

So currently we have a kit based system as well.

And if you've ever had to have an interest I'd be happy to take you to the science materials center which is a huge warehouse that has enormous kits and we house all of them and a kit is basically a big tote, plastic tote, and inside the plastic tote are all the stuff that teachers need.

So, for example, if I were to do an investigation on enzymes, then inside of this tote I'd find the enzymes, I'd find hot plates, I'd find places to make ice water baths.

All the things, the stuff that I need to carry into my laboratory To be able to do those execute those investigations with kits.

We have done that.

Since night.

Well.

Since the 80s.

We've had kits and we've had opportunities ever since we've started talking more about hands on science.

We've always had kits.

And that's what a kit is is basically a box with all the stuff inside of it that the teacher would need to execute the investigations.

So last clarification on the kits how many kits per week or lesson or.

How many kits per week or per lesson.

So how frequently do they get an actual hands on kit thing to do as part of the curriculum.

I think we're talking about two really different things.

So a kit has instructional materials and so it depends on the unit how many times but generally students have a hands on experience at least once a week where they use instructional materials to execute them.

Did I answer your question.

I think it's difficult because I think.

It's so much a part of who I am because this is how I've always done science.

So.

So I don't think I'm being very clear but essentially Diane's going to take it.

I think I can assist.

So.

A unit.

That covers a.

Particular topic.

Could last anywhere from.

Five classroom days to 10. To 15. So the the unit itself.

The kit.

Would contain everything to teach that unit.

And depending on what that unit is it could be a week long could be two weeks long could be three weeks long.

I know I go into the weeds a little bit but I'd actually like clarification on that because I look into my daughter's units and I think there's six of them for the entire year as I understand it.

But I but I don't know.

So I'd like clarification on.

At a later time.

Please clarify Director Burke.

Thank you.

There's been a lot that's gone by so I'll try to I'll try to focus here I think.

So in my mind it's you know it's an it's an undeniable fact that amplify science is currently in use in the majority of our middle schools.

I think we've talked about that enough to say yes it's there.

I also believe that that does provide a clear advantage in any adoption process and it's it's almost impossible to decouple that.

But we don't want to discourage innovation.

We don't want to tell people oh don't pilot that because we might want to adopt it someday.

That's backwards thinking.

Don't test that out because that would disqualify it from using in the future.

So it is a delicate dance.

And but fortunately we have some policy guidance around that in policy 2020. And so for for my friend the policy wonk and for anybody else who cares.

It states when the district begins a process to adopt new instructional materials pursuant to policy 2015 staff participating in the adoption process should evaluate the school level data for the subject up for adoption of all schools with the relevant grades.

The purpose of the school level data evaluation is to learn how our students are doing with the materials that are currently in use whether basic instructional materials or waiver materials.

This information will give the adoption team a grounding in what is currently in use and how it is working.

So the intent is we don't penalize programs for being piloted or being wavered or being happening to be in schools.

We give them the opportunity to demonstrate their efficacy.

So really that's what.

You know I talked about the three different mindsets that I have for the different curricula or the different adoption areas and for middle school there's really two core questions in my mind.

You know I've been speaking with with Diane DeBacker about this.

The first one is it closing gaps for our students.

We have because we have amplify in our schools we should have a way to say yes it's working.

We should be able to say this investment that has been made whether through waiver whether through donation whatever method put that one in the on the back burner or the parking lot whatever method got it here.

Is it delivering for our kids.

You know because we can't put budget towards things that are not improving things for our kids.

So some way of comparing the schools that are using amplify with the schools that aren't.

And I know that that data is has been requested and is being processed.

And then the second question is OK if this if it demonstrates improvement for students and we adopt it what message is that sending to publishers and our district culture.

And so I believe that second question that's for the adults.

That's for us to deal with.

That shouldn't impact whether we do or don't that should determine how we manage ourselves.

But the first question is about the kids.

Is it helping the kids.

And that really feels to me like it needs to be answered and so that's why you know I'm trying to understand well what is the measure because the assessments are varying and there's you know there's there's it's tough to put a growth measure when you have varying assessments.

But this is science and you know The work that's being done in conjunction with the experts at the University of Washington.

You know this is this is a premier research university.

We should have the brightest minds working on this and being able to tease out that data.

So and help us understand what it looks like.

Is it a standardized test.

Is it a component of things.

Is it a performance task.

But I think the information that we've seen so far has been heavily focused on using the amplify assessments to measure the amplify tool.

And so that that's a little bit of a point of concern for me.

I really want to end on a positive note on this sort of comment stream and that is to go back to my my learning walk at Denny because they did use kits.

They did use technology as a very small component and the materials that they used from amplify were almost all printed that were handed out by the teachers so the kids were taking notes on them and using them as you know a reference that they could look at and flip over and they could go to this other thing.

So that was a something that it felt very dynamic.

I saw three amazing educators that.

that you know kind of blew my mind with their craft but what they've done and this is this is what we inherit when we do waivers is amplify has been taken internalized.

They've built their own additional materials to fill the gaps to adapt to their populations and they've built their practices on top of that.

So the instructional material.

The supplements and kind of implementation things and instructional practices are now interrelated and it creates you know this really difficult thing to say oh should we or shouldn't we use this foundation.

That's.

I'm going to ping off of what you just said and you and I have had some of these conversations as we push assumptions back and forth and I have to tell you I value my colleagues for for that.

Back and forth and yes but what about what about Denny as we saw tonight the consent calendar has been the beneficiary of Nesholm dollars for quite some time and money talks.

We've talked a lot both in work sessions etc. about equity and common curriculum and how that matters.

Here's another piece and on.

The outside world when folks are writing to us they talk about the fact that Hamilton.

Middle school sent a lot of folks down for professional development.

California from a national science conference.

And in.

With.

Principal Garrett.

Kirshner.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Appreciate.

They also try and keep me out of trouble to the extent that they can.

Thank you.

OK.

So in talking with folks and that's how we learn.

What about that PTSA extra funding.

Folks that go out and buy the kits that other schools if we pass this bar won't be able to afford.

And.

When.

Schmitz Park.

Then Genesee Hill.

Applied for their waiver.

They asked their PTSA raise the paddle.

Anybody that's been to a school PTSA auction remembers raise the paddle.

This is what we're raising it for this year.

They spent.

30. 32 6. On those kits and.

That also talks about equity and PTSA funding and enhancement.

And if we don't buy the kits aren't we asking for.

Unlevel funding.

How how is that in fact common.

Curriculum.

If some schools again.

Are being backfilled with PTSA funds.

It's a very troubling.

Slippery slope.

Everybody wants to do right by their students and by their particular school.

But if we're not buying the kits then isn't that vacuum going to be filled.

By wealthy PTSA's.

I think there's a distinction that needs to be made.

When we.

We gave two pricing options.

Is that maybe what you're referring to when we say we would provide our own vendor kits we believe that we have enough within our science material center.

to build our own kits.

And learn PTSA's buying amplified kits.

So you're talking specifically about Genesee Hill.

And.

And Hamilton.

And if there's two.

I'll put real money I don't have.

On the fact that there's probably 15. So Hamilton did not purchase instructional materials for science.

The instructional materials to do their waiver came from our science instructional materials center.

And they so their their PTA did not purchase it.

They paid for their entire science department to go to PD in California at a national conference.

They know that's actually incorrect.

They paid because I actually was at the conference and I spoke at the conference.

So they the entire Hamilton science department went to the National Science Teacher Association conference.

That's not a PD conference.

That's a conference where teachers go and of course you're developed professionally but essentially at the conference you listen to speakers you learn about current.

Trends in terms of your field you learn about pedagogical shifts and you have an opportunity to hone your craft by listening.

To experts and learning about that.

And that's why they went.

They didn't go to get professional development.

On amplify science.

At all.

They went.

To learn about what was going on in science in fact it gave them an opportunity to see all of the things that were going on in science.

From a lot of different.

Potentially vendors but also research scientists as well.

So.

That's what happened there with Genesee Hill reminding us that we hadn't had an adoption since 1994. Five.

And because of that those parents were like we've got to do something for our kids.

And we want to update and do something different.

And I appreciate that.

And I also appreciate that parents want to support their schools.

That's inherent.

But it also is a very slippery slope in terms of enhancement.

Agree and I'm concerned about that.

I'm concerned as well and that's why we came forward with an adoption because we believe the adoption would offer us this common instructional.

Materials.

Across.

Our district.

And we have a way and we have a procedure on how to stock those kits and how to make sure that in our elementary as you see it's a three year rollout.

That there's an opportunity for us to learn from past practices and deliver instructional materials but this time the instructional materials are current.

and relevant and appropriate for our students and they're aligned most importantly to our new standards.

So the adoption takes away that inequity by giving everybody a common platform.

Will we be prohibiting PTSA's then from supplementing kits from amplify.

I sure would like so.

And I would just say I think that is a whole different policy conversation than the adoption of Paul.

I mean your PTSA is by all kinds of stuff science included and so.

That is a conversation for the board to pick up.

Different.

Than.

Whether you're going to.

Whether you're going to.

Adopt a science curriculum.

And so it's a whole side question.

But yes recognized.

I just think it's not.

Pertinent to this exact.

Adoption.

And the questions that are in order and.

There are extra money I mean we you guys just approved some additional funds flowing to other schools for certain.

Uses.

In your consent agenda today.

Nesholm really I don't think has much to do with science and that's in those schools.

And then you know we talk a lot about.

Things being in place and amplify was in place in some middle schools and.

So all those.

Questions.

I think are good ones to ask whether that is absolutely.

You know if that.

Sort of was just the linchpin that helped people decide.

You know.

Whether it is or not.

It was still decided through all kinds of different measures that this was the best one going forward.

I think when Dr. Mia Williams came forward at the work session she said this is the floor right.

This is we need a common floor upon which to stand.

On in this district.

And this kind of adoption helps us so.

That process yes but also a lot of other thoughts went into it and I sort of liken.

That whole.

Waiver issue to.

The incumbency of an elected official.

Right.

You're in the seat.

Voters get to decide.

They know you.

They.

They decide.

And so it's the same kind of situation with this as well.

Director Harris.

Thank you.

I have some questions about what happens.

Should this not be adopted.

I know.

I have some background understanding in terms of all the work that went into the alignment around the high school.

When.

Adoption was not really queued up.

Was there similar district wide.

Alignment.

Going on.

For middle school standards.

And where would we be.

In that process in terms of a district created product.

I'm not sure I understand the very last part of your question about the district created product but.

Well just as in high school we've discussed how there was internally made.

Online.

OK.

File.

Cabinets.

And we have now middle school with.

People using.

Different of our proposed.

Curriculums.

So.

Where would we be if.

In a year from now.

All the waivers expire.

We're left with.

What.

We'll rebuild our old FOS and STC kits with the manuals that we did we copied in our copy machines and put them in the kit boxes so that teachers could use them.

So I want to also remind us that part of why this all happened with middle school.

Is because we were the recipients of a math science partnership grant.

From OSPI.

That brought us together with our university partners which who have collected some of the data that you're asking for.

It's what I had referenced.

To Director Pinkham.

When we were in the committee of the whole.

And during that process what we actually did at the very beginning the first year.

Is we took the old instructional materials the FOSS and STC kits.

And we try to repurpose them.

We tried to give them a storyline.

We tried to give the phenomena we tried to use the instructional materials that we had.

We spent one.

Entire year of our MSP grant.

Trying to.

Repurpose.

What we had in place.

And we came to the reality.

That wasn't cost efficient.

And we couldn't finish.

We just didn't have the time.

We didn't have honestly the expertise to be able to do that kind of work.

So the next year.

We looked and we actually use something called insights.

Which was some online instructional materials that were being created by NGSS folks.

And we looked at it and we tried that and we tried really hard to see how it was different and what it looked like.

And it fell short too.

Because it was really really in the early stages of adoption but through science our mistakes help us to learn the most about what we can do.

The next time.

And so there was a group of teachers that were getting kind of frustrated.

So we pulled together an alignment team.

And we said to ourselves well what kinds of options do we have.

We've been told by the district.

Dan Gallagher specifically told me never to use the word adoption.

It would not happen in my tenure.

And he said that we would never have an adoption.

And then the teachers were like what are we going to do.

And this alignment team.

Came together for several meetings they represented.

Every one of our school comprehensive middle schools and most of our K-8's.

And we thought and we learned and we listened and we researched.

And that's when the teachers came up with this idea.

Could we get a waiver.

Because we tried to repurpose.

Didn't work.

We tried some online.

Piecemeal.

Components.

Didn't work.

And so that's why we went for the waiver.

So if we don't get this adoption.

What we will have to do.

Because it's all we can do.

Is re.

Constitute our old FOS and STC kits.

And go back to something that.

Is.

Not.

Aligned to standards.

We will not be preparing our children.

For the 21st century in 2020. Director Harris.

Quick question.

While you're still at the dais.

And again.

Hypothetical.

I honestly don't know what I'm going to vote on.

I'm still working this through and if I don't have an ulcer.

By the time we're done it'll be a miracle.

We can eat our tums together.

Yeah.

That's an all or nothing proposition.

And I'm never comfortable with all or nothing propositions because there always seems like there's room for creativity and collaboration on a continuum.

So if the waiver.

hypothetically is still in effect and that gives us an additional year potentially to revisit.

I don't know.

I'm asking.

So.

As opposed to.

My understanding is that we'd start a new adoption committee.

I think my colleague Jen Fox pointed out to you in 2010 when we failed an adoption for high school what happened.

And I have spent my entire time in Seattle Public Schools since I stepped in the door in 2011 trying to rebuild trust with teachers and bring them back to the table to do this work again.

And that's been really hard work and that came from.

Professional collaboration and trust building.

And I'm afraid.

Because of past experiences.

That if we deny our middle school teachers the opportunity.

Since they went through this entire adoption process.

I'm afraid that they may not come back to the table.

OK.

Hang on just a minute because I'm going to go there again because I want things.

On.

The table.

And transparent.

There is a great deal.

Of.

Pushback.

In emails etc.

That say.

That.

Teachers that don't agree with this pathway that we've chosen on adoptions.

Have been.

Sanctioned.

Or are threatened with retribution.

If they speak their truth.

Which is not part of this adoption process.

That that is out there.

I'm just going to put it right there on the table where it.

Stinks.

Leslie tonight I actually saw several teachers and.

Former teachers who stood at this dais and expressed that and I didn't see any retribution.

Nor will there be from me.

I really appreciate this being on the table and being transparent and I thank you for that.

OK.

I think.

Excuse me.

Director Pinkham.

And then if we could move on to elementary it's a time check at 9 8.

9 p.m.

Well I got to keep on the camera with my new sports jacket as long as I can here.

Everyone's commenting Scott's wearing a sports jacket.

What's going on tonight.

It's because pennies closed down on Northgate Mall.

Fantastic sale.

One of the.

People that came and commented.

Provided an exhibit of the costs right now which I assumed is a current cost for the waivers for schools.

Presented called exhibit A.

It's I don't know if anybody else.

It's this handout.

That's gone around to people out.

There as well.

Just trying to understand because it.

Just on this it totals over four hundred.

Thousand dollars.

Was that paid out of the school's budget or did that come out of.

What budget.

Did that come out of.

We're looking at this document.

Currently.

Can we can we answer that in the Friday memo because you guys are just skipping it.

So we'll be good.

Actually and could I ask.

Acting Chief Counsel.

Mellon Boyd to come to the podium.

To talk about the confusion.

Of.

Anonymous donors.

Amplify et cetera and what we're doing about.

That.

Where we stand on the process and whether somebody at amplify.

Whether someone at amplify.

Is going to.

Swear under penalty of perjury.

That a.

Chronology.

Of the communications between Seattle Public Schools.

And amplify.

And the costs thereof and the gifts thereof and that there is no quote unquote anonymous donor.

Because as has been pointed out there has been some significant.

Miscommunication.

Can you help me with that please.

Yes.

So to answer the last part of that question.

As we're working with the amplify science.

To obtain.

Confirmation.

Of the chronology.

And.

The.

Information relating to.

The discussion about anonymous donor.

In my investigation of the.

The matter it appears that.

It's.

That the staff.

Involved on both sides had a miscommunication and that.

On one side.

We thought that the anonymous donor was still on the table.

Amplify science did not.

Understand that the.

They concluded that anonymous donor was that a donor was no longer needed.

So the.

Discussion fell out.

Of the conversations and.

The assumption continued that.

That we received the licenses as a result of.

Of a donation.

So.

We are working with Amplify through our procurement department.

To.

Obtain a.

Statement.

Affirming.

That understanding my understanding is correct.

And we'll also have confirmation of the value of the product received and it's important to remember.

That in 2017 18. There was.

Product received that would be seen as a gift.

To the district.

And at this point.

All the evidence that I have shows that that's under two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

The next year.

Which would be the.

18 19. This year.

The product was purchased.

By the district.

And as a result.

That's.

Kind of a different lens to look through but still under two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

So we'll hopefully have.

All of the confirmation to you.

In the next couple of days working with the amplify.

Director Mack and then I'd like to move on to elementary.

Curriculum adoption please.

And then Director Geary please.

I just I just actually would like.

Full clarification.

When we're talking about these invoices and things that were purchased.

And whether or not they.

Fall under that.

Amount that you're researching and you're.

Going to be working on and then there's this additional exhibit that came to us tonight.

That.

That does not include the additional computers that were required.

To be.

Put into.

The middle school.

Science classrooms.

Correct.

So.

So when we're counting up all of the money that was spent.

To.

Access this curriculum.

We're not including the computers that were needed.

In order to.

Provide.

The curriculum.

In those classrooms.

I understand that computers were purchased in the.

Yes in John Krull chief information officer.

There was a bar that went before the board in.

Fall of 2017. It went to introduction in November November 15th.

2017 approved in.

December 2017. That included.

There was two parts to that bar.

There were computers for.

Blended learning.

So we had blended.

A blended learning cohort that we provided computers to.

And then we had.

The amplify.

Classrooms that we provided.

Computer carts to.

Director Mack.

Just to clarify at that time were we informed that.

Those computers were necessary to implement the curriculum and that these were being purchased for that purpose.

Yes.

Yes we had speakers come up and talk to the board.

The same speaker.

Emily Alasky spoke to the board about the amplify curriculum.

And how good it was and.

Oh and Chris Carter as well.

It would have been one of my first votes so.

There's clearly some concern that we are.

Moving into an amplify contract that will that we're obligated.

To move into and that we're going to be assuming.

Or maybe embedded within that contract we'll be paying.

Back some of this money.

I believe it would be very helpful to us to get a clear statement.

From amplify.

That is of this point we owe them nothing.

So that would be actionable.

And that.

It would be interesting to see.

For districts that have purchased.

Amplify.

What their cost is so that we know we're having an apples to apples competitive bid.

For.

What we're receiving.

I think that's going to be the only way to put to rest that we are not somehow.

Buying.

Paying them back.

Because this could be their tax accounting for the purposes.

Of developing.

An on you know the ongoing relationship apparently is something that they do to adjust what they're they're creating.

And so they would have ways of quantifying that and.

Valuing that for their purposes as well.

So it's impossible to know.

Why.

This has been created for what purpose.

And all I want to make sure is that we as a district.

Are not being told we've paid.

Not paid this.

But and that we're not going to be obligated at any point.

So those are the two things that I think a statement from amplify we owe them nothing and to comparisons so we know it's not being folded in.

Director Harris.

Assistant Chief Counsel you got that.

Sweet.

OK we are moving on folks and this is a time check.

It is 9 10. Elementary school science instructional materials adoption C&I April 23rd and 30th for.

Approval of this item would accept the recommendation of the elementary school science instructional materials adoption committee for instructional materials for all elementary school science classrooms and grades K through 5 authorize the superintendent.

To purchase amplify science as the core instructional material for all grade K through 5 Seattle Public School classrooms.

For an amount not to exceed two million three hundred sixty eight thousand eight hundred seventy dollars.

In a three year phased in purchase and implementation plan out of the F the fiscal year 2020. Meaning.

Twenty nineteen twenty budget.

Fiscal year twenty twenty one meaning.

Twenty.

Twenty twenty one.

And fiscal year twenty twenty two meaning.

2021-22 budgets covering licensing through school years 2019-20 through 2000. 27 28 and an amount not to exceed five million forty thousand six hundred seventy four dollars for in-house professional development and collaboration.

Attachment J has been updated in track changes.

On May 13th minor edits on May 14th intro and action dates were updated on the board action report to reflect current correct meeting dates.

Take it away CAO DeBacker.

Thank you President Harris.

The BAR details a rigorous rigorous process with the elementary committee.

We maintain that as with the middle school recommendation.

The most critical step was the final step and that was the deliberation of the committee and the committee found the amplify best represented the standards.

The committee after looking at the totality of the evidence found that both HMH.

And TCI had a much weaker connection.

To the next generation science standards.

This was so decisive.

That the committee did not recommend the next highest program which was HMH to move forward as a second choice.

With that I think it's enough to set the stage for discussion.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues who would like to go first.

Want to be out of here by 9 30 folks.

Max.

If not before.

Well I'm just kind of forecasting you where we're going here it's a time check.

I'm not subtle.

Why start now.

Director Pinkham please.

OK.

For.

This one because in elementary you're typically with just one teacher.

Throughout.

The day.

And then when you get middle school you start going to you go to your science class you go to these other classes so.

For here.

I think that online kind of.

Perception that's been going out there kind of really hit home.

For me a bit more.

So but is this still the same now for elementary that online is. 15 percent or of the.

What is it for.

For here.

For K1 in amplify science there's zero for students.

No online.

For.

2 through 5. If the student is online.

They would be online only with a partner and obviously under the direction of the teacher.

And Christine helped me with the percent.

10 percent.

And then most of this bar shows professional development which is actually almost.

Two and a half times the amount of the curriculum.

And how many.

Were there any waivers or any waivers for the elementary science right.

They were still using our current.

Or.

So the answer is yes there were some waivers for elementary science as well.

And the.

Most of those waivers that happened happened because we opened brand new schools.

And the outdated instructional materials that we were currently using.

Could not be purchased.

So the schools instead of.

Trying to make those kits at the SMC.

And copy materials and put them in the box.

The schools asked that they would try a waiver.

To also investigate instructional materials.

And I really want to say something important about professional development.

And I know Director Harris.

Is on exactly the same page that I am.

First of all.

It became incredibly apparent to me during the adoption process.

How little we have done with our elementary teachers.

That's not OK.

Even though we have fourteen hundred and fifty elementary teachers who teach science we still are obliged to helping them.

To learn science.

My staff was too small.

We tried to do a launch to learn a little bit to help a few teachers.

We only helped 400 teachers.

That's not OK.

And when we do this we have to do it well.

And that's the cost of professional development.

So the elementary schools that had waivers that were brand new schools.

I'm actually thinking back and Cascadia was one of them.

One of the questions that we asked before was the scope and sequence around highly capable and whether or not it's true grade levels ahead.

Can you clarify whether or not.

Cascadia.

First question.

Did we get.

Are we asking for the same data.

For elementary waiver schools.

As has been requested.

For middle school on outcome and how well this is working.

That's first question and second question is.

For.

The HC.

Schools that were opened.

Are.

They doing the sequence of two grade levels ahead or were they.

Were they not.

So you're the answer to your first question with regard to the data.

I agree.

With.

All of you about.

The fact that we need to be collecting data to understand the effectiveness of any program.

And once again I'd like to point out we have never had common assessments.

So we haven't been able to do that.

The WACAS is a grade 5. That's way too long to wait to see how kids are doing in science.

So we're going to have to rely on some.

Instructional materials that have embedded in them assessments which was one of our five review criteria.

So yes that's the answer.

And with regard to the HC pathway for elementary and science.

We're under discussion with those principles to make that determination.

Because they had brand new instructional materials We didn't do anything that was.

Two years ahead.

We didn't put them in the middle school kits.

Which is I think what you're asking is if grades 4 and 5 use middle school instructional materials.

They did not.

Director Burke.

First question super.

Kind of granular.

And.

Although we're already past it I'll just.

Mirror the question for the middle school because it's the same.

The same detail.

The budget amount that is listed in the bar.

You know in this case is two million three hundred sixty eight thousand eight hundred and seventy.

And for the middle school is two million.

Sixty nine thousand six hundred eighty six.

I am unable to trace that amount into.

The.

Vendor.

Materials.

I think there's a lot of confusion around.

What are we buying for that amount.

What is print what is license what is teacher what is student.

What is kit.

And I think the vendor materials you know are are 70 to 100 pages.

That includes a very comprehensive.

Itemized cost.

But the quantities are.

Are in some cases kind of crossed out and edited.

In some cases the dollar amounts are zero.

So.

Being able to understand.

What is the breakout of.

This estimated budget amount.

I think would be super helpful.

For us and for the public.

One of the things that came in the committee of the whole.

When we asked about the PD.

Looks like a really big number but when you break it out by nine years by however many teachers it comes out to four hundred dollars per teacher for nine years.

Frankly I find that.

Embarrassing.

Just.

Just saying.

My comment on the record.

Embarrassing.

And not doing right by our teachers.

And just like curriculum.

Came off the top for so very very many years previously.

Professional development and budgeting for that and living our values yada yada yada.

Hasn't happened.

And.

The last thing I'm going to complain about on any of this is the professional development piece.

Director Burke.

So then I guess it's up to me to complain about the professional development piece.

Have at it.

It's been said I heard it said by another.

Previous board director that we don't make decisions we make choices.

And so the five million dollars that is allocated to this professional development.

With that.

As a budget consideration.

Will we still have.

Professional development money to be able to do.

Since time immemorial.

Professional development at that same level of commitment.

And will we be able to do ethnic studies at that same level of commitment recognizing.

The number of educators that we have to reach.

I want I don't want to have this conversation in isolation as much as I love science and would love to.

Build it from the ground up.

We need to be thoughtful about the other things we've got coming.

With the budget negotiations around these adoptions once these choices were made we were able to pinpoint.

The actual costs of both.

The materials as well as we were able to calculate the amount of professional development.

So for elementary.

We were always even before our budget difficulty.

Going to have a three year rollout.

And that's because our science team.

Is.

So small.

That wouldn't be able to do fourteen hundred teachers at once.

So what we are doing we through sharpening the pencil.

We determine that.

Cost wise.

We would be able to do middle school.

We would be able to do high school and we would be able to do 12. Of the elementaries.

And come within our budget.

Continue to have a budget.

Increased budget for since time immemorial.

As well as continue the development of ethnic studies as well.

So we have worked that into.

The five million dollars that.

Go over both this year and the next year.

Let me reflect back what I think.

Make sure I understand correctly.

So 12 schools in elementary science.

Full implementation of STI including professional development.

No no.

We're talking this.

12 schools for elementary science.

But I'm pointing out that even with.

Middle school high school and the 12 elementaries.

We still have.

The same budget.

We've actually increased the budget for STI over this year.

And we still maintain the ethnic studies budget as it was.

Right.

That's the next part of my question 12 schools for elementary which leaves sufficient budget.

To be able to do implementation of STI.

In an effective way.

Per staff planning.

And.

Development.

Of ethnic studies but not full professional.

The development of the ethnic studies curriculum.

Materials but not professional development of staff.

I would say that for ethnic studies we would be able to do a considerable amount of professional development.

Similar to science in that this is district created.

So therefore.

Not as expensive.

Which will lead more funding.

To do professional development.

Both planning for STI as well as ethnic studies is underway for next year.

Thank you and my last point of concern around it is that.

For the.

Elementary.

And.

I believe the middle.

We're funding P.D.

for the first three years.

We that we as a board are not committing.

Future boards to nine years of P.D.

Not knowing fully what those budget landscapes are.

I'm nervous about that.

And would be interested in.

Doing the three year and making sure that.

That's a.

Ongoing conversation.

What I thought I heard at the committee of the whole was that those funds would be set aside in escrow.

So that we wouldn't have to deal with years.

4 through 9. Which which frankly seems the most responsible to me when we make these commitments.

The reason for my concern.

Is that I have.

I have gotten a lot of feedback from educators.

About mixed quality of our professional development.

And I'm reluctant.

To commit that much money without an intentional feedback loop that includes a budget reallocation.

So the board originally had committed before budget difficulties $7 million for this year and $5 million for the next four.

The board will probably have to undergo conversations in terms of state funding and what that will allow us to do in future years.

I have heard the board say very Clearly and very definitely that curriculum is not going to be something that falls off the table.

Director Mack.

I just I'm sorry for clarification because I was having a hard time hearing it and understanding it.

The PD for elementary schools is only for 12 elementaries out of all of our elementaries.

We have I think a total of 60 elementary and K-8's.

So we are suggesting to implement what is that percentage.

I mean that that is that is a tiny fraction of our schools if we're only doing 12. And that's that's concerning to me that that expectation of the PD is so critical and so important.

That.

We're only doing.

Well the original rollout plan.

Went before our budget difficulty was going to be twenty five schools.

You know phased in over three years.

Mary Margaret has apparently our revised number.

So a couple of things Director Burke you asked about the three year commitment to also remind us that for elementary school because we have a three year rollout it really will be a five year commitment.

Because the first.

The first rollout team goes year 1 2 3 the second rollout team goes 2 3 4 and then the third rollout team goes 3 4 5. So it would be a five year commitment.

And so.

Director Mack to answer your question.

The number of schools may be up to 20 schools but we had originally anticipated.

25 schools and that would be a third a third a third.

So what we have asked for is to have a chance to go forward with a certain.

Cohort.

Of.

Schools because we need to learn.

We need to see if her profession how our professional rolls out.

To Director Burke's.

Specific.

Concerns.

We need to know that the professional development that we are executing is adequate.

And it is doing the work that we need to do on behalf of our teachers.

So what we've asked for is a very small cohort of teachers at schools.

To participate with us so that we can partner with them and learn about the effectiveness of professional development.

We have university partners who would who have offered to help with that evaluation process specifically about the effectiveness of professional development.

OK.

Moving on.

Amendment 1. Were you wishing to speak to this issue in particular sir.

Yes.

So just one clarification that I need as far as when we're looking at the comparison of the scoring of the.

Different curriculum.

And where amplify would be higher and maybe HMH or the others.

Either significantly lower or maybe a little bit higher.

How many of the schools that use amplify also had amplify where it was previous that were.

Being questioned or getting being surveyed.

In elementary.

Elementary or middle school I think that kind of relates to both.

What I'm trying to get at is that maybe the reason Amplify might have scored higher if it was a school that was already using it so those teachers had experience with it versus HMH and the other curriculum being new to teachers and.

So I'm trying to see if we did try to compare.

New curriculum to new curriculum versus.

So I'm looking at my team because the answer is I don't think it impacted at all at elementary school we have 74 elementary schools and we only had four.

Schools that had amplified science in their in their rooms.

And Christine and Mike.

Yes.

So the answer is that was not.

That was not a variable that was involved in this particular zero of our waiver schools participated in the field test.

Thank you.

We are moving on to Amendment 1 to elementary school science instructional materials adoption.

Directors Burke and Pinkham.

Approval of this item would amend the proposed elementary school science instructional materials adoption to adopt HMH science dimensions.

From.

Houghton.

Mifflin Harcourt.

For all elementary school science classrooms.

The makers of the motion like to speak and then let's hear some staff response please.

I will tee it up.

So I want to start by.

Putting it.

Reading into the record the second paragraph in section 2 purpose.

It says this draft amendment is requested for inclusion in the board agenda on May 15th to provide additional visibility to staff and community and gather additional feedback prior to vote consideration on May 29th.

I think it's driven by.

The.

Some of the concerns that have that have been you've heard here around technology some of it is trying to get more understanding around.

How.

The two how the scoring process worked between the two.

Programs and part of it is also to put that out into the public.

Public space so that folks understand what's going on and and honestly with.

The Open Public Meetings Act it's actually really challenging for directors to communicate about things.

In some ways this is a way to say hey colleagues is this a thing that brings us together as a district.

Because right now there's a polarity around amplify.

And so the the relevant question was it looks from all of the data that we were provided and again I'll back up just a little bit.

One of the key.

component one of the key tools of engineering is a weighted selection matrix which is a tool that allows you to take a complex process whether it's a physical process or a social process or whatever it is a complex set of things and multiple people and objectively apply a set of criteria to reach an outcome.

So I was really excited to see oh this is a full comprehensive scored and weighted process.

There is you know there's there's no subjectivity in it.

It is very thoughtfully laid out.

But then going through the the scoring the one that was the highest scoring was not the recommendation.

The other area that sort of created some.

Gave me pause a little bit was when I attended the.

The report out from the field test field trials field tests and the educators that were piloting.

Field trialing HMH were.

It felt to me like unanimously ecstatic.

They were overwhelmingly positive about the program more so than the amplify program.

And then I saw in the scoring that it scored about 12 points higher.

So when we think about.

Something that has a higher.

Higher ranking.

By the committee.

Based on the field trials and the community engagement.

It feels like something that actually would be less polarizing potentially cost less to implement and have still that solid foundation that floor that we're looking for.

So that was the basis behind it.

And then the conversations that I had with Director Pinkham around.

You know is is there too much technology in this.

Does it.

We.

We want our kids to be developing their relationships and developing their social emotional.

Skills.

Interacting with their peers their teachers.

That's the genesis behind it.

You know that when Director Burke and I were talking about this I was minding that technology was really that one of the things that was for me is how much is this is technology and you've been answering those questions for me now but it still seems we got feedback from others that no this is.

Too much technology for them as teachers.

For those that weren't.

In favor of it and that was just my concern because I drive to see elementary will be more hands on.

As you said 0 percent.

Great.

If it's.

That and.

Then access to the curriculum I'm not sure again at elementary level how much.

How many kids go home and log on.

Let me log on and pull up the science curriculum that we just covered today.

I don't think that happens too much but as the grades get old that's where.

I guess yeah maybe there's some concern there.

But.

Mine was.

Yeah let's.

Minimize or even zero out the.

In front of the screen time for science at the elementary level so students are more interacting with others or.

One of the teachers and it sounds like.

That's a possibility.

Mack.

Had to get clarification on the.

HMH.

Is it.

A digital.

Curriculum is that how it's accessed.

Yes.

You have to log into it.

Yes.

But it's logged into by the teacher and they print things out.

So.

This is.

This is a point of clarification that I think is really really critical that we get.

Right.

And staff has.

We've done a bit of research since we knew that this amendment was coming forward and staff response is that.

HMH actually has a heavier technology component for students than amplify.

It.

The.

It requires every student to have a unique log in.

Whereas an amplify it's a teacher that has a log in.

And it is priced.

Per student license fee.

Whereas amplify is.

Priced per teacher.

So.

The technology component appears to us.

To be.

More heavy.

Or heavier.

In HMH than amplify.

And it also puts more of that technology use on the student.

Rather than the teacher.

Thank you for that question for you.

And I appreciate that the amendment came in.

What day was it.

Anyway it was posted.

We requested it be posted.

And I think that we came to an agreement collaboratively that putting things out there heads up.

Made a lot of sense because that clarifies communication.

When did we discover that.

HMH is more A expensive and B is more heavily reliant on computers.

We.

Their bid was always higher.

Their initial bid was higher bid.

So so that was was not a mystery.

But as we looked at knowing specifically that technology was going to be the focus of.

Of concerns from all from most of the board.

We delved into that a little bit.

Deeper.

As we compared it.

Against amplify.

And truly against adults.

Versus kids.

I just hope that we get to a point sooner rather than later.

Even understanding OPMA.

That we have more nimble.

And.

More clear communication so we don't wait until nine thirty five to find that out.

John Krull CIO.

Thank you.

One thing I want to bring up is my team did the ADA qualifications for the three finalists and the paperwork turned in by HMH said that they were not ADA compliant.

As required by the district.

And again.

I would have liked to have known that the moment you found it out not at nine thirty five in a ledge meeting.

Director Burke please.

I'm.

I'm surprised to hear the heavy digital component because the report out that I heard from the teachers many of them were like oh we didn't get to computer based stuff I had thought that was maybe this is something I didn't interpret correctly.

So when we received the notice that this amendment was made at five o'clock on Friday night.

And I happen to be in Michigan because I have a mother who's passing.

My team spent the entire day Monday and Tuesday.

Trying to go back through into the review.

It was not their responsibility to do that depth of review.

That was already done by the committee but they wanted to be able to come forward tonight and answer the questions that you had.

So the work that they had accomplished in these last couple of days to find out all of this information they poured through the RFPs.

They looked at all of the budget analysis.

They looked at.

Page after page of the instructional materials and have very specific.

Kyle can talk to them more.

Very very specific.

Concerns.

About the HMH.

Number one and this did come up in this room when we did our final deliberations.

In our estimations HMH does not align to the NGSS standards.

It's a retrofitted curricula its materials.

It was does not.

Amplify was designed for NGSS.

And HMH was.

Retrofitted and it does not have a phenomena base with the storyline and that was the deliberation.

So Director Burke I want to very strictly point out to you the way we did not do a complex matrix process.

What we did is I had a lot of.

Professionals and a lot of community members were trying to figure this out together.

So what we really did is there was another one that you said.

You went back and forth and challenged each other.

That's exactly what Director Harris said that you do together.

And that's what we did.

We went back and forth and challenged each other.

We said oh you see this.

But I see this.

Can you open up the resources and show us what you see.

Can you talk to us more deliberately about that.

One of our practices in NGSS is argumentation from evidence.

And we practice that practice very very well because we never had that data set that you pulled together to put into your amendment to the BAR.

We never looked at that data set.

In fact the community input you actually pull that data together in a way we had never done before.

Our team never saw that matrix that you created.

So perhaps we didn't do it as analytically numerically but I'm going to tell you we followed the practices of back and forth deliberations and argumentation from evidence.

And I'd also like to say that attending to children's social emotional gives them a chance to talk with each one another and figure it out.

And one of our practices is specifically to ask kids to talk collaboratively and learn together and uncover the evidence that they need to learn science.

And that is social emotional learning.

So just to complete the story around technology and the two curricula.

You know I joined in today to review what our science team had looked at and actually looked at the curriculum myself comparing two different units in fourth grade.

What I found was that the HMH lessons engaged students with digital devices on the average every day.

It asked students to actually do things like explore things on the web.

There is, you know, a big concern on our part to ask students to actually do that with no apparent limitations other than the guidance of the teacher could subject us to some risks and problems.

In comparison, Mary Margaret said that there is no technology interaction in K1.

There is, by the way, in HMH.

And the only involvement in elementary with digital devices that occurs in the upper grades would occur on the average one to two times a week.

In the unit that I examined, I examined both fourth grade energy units.

I actually couldn't find any technology interaction in the Amplify.

But furthermore, I'm told that if there was, all the Amplify digital activities are housed within Amplify's closed environment.

So there is no just simply going out on the web and, you know, doing some research, which is a feature that HMH actually has.

We looked at it and figured out if we were constructed to strip out all the technology in HMH, pretty much all that would be left would be reduced to reading text, filling in workbook blanks, and some hands-on activities.

Of which we found that the hands on activities were a stronger component of Amplify than HMH.

So that's what we've actually looked at before.

Policy 2015 says that the curriculum should still be available for examination by the board and the public between intro and action.

And we could actually show you some of these things ourselves.

I certainly would like that.

Director Burke.

Director Pinkham and then Director Mack.

And please recall folks it is 940 and we have a labor closed session after this meeting.

Time.

Check.

I will close with thank you.

I learned more in this conversation than I did from the 800 pages of content that was provided.

So I appreciate.

The work that went behind that.

That came to this conversation.

And then also just for.

I recognize that this is.

Has the.

The feel of an emotionally charged conversation.

The information that you have that you've experienced.

The deliberations of the committee.

That was a closed process.

So I. Got to hear the inputs.

I got to read some of the materials.

None of us got to hear any of the deliberations.

And so.

You know we looked at the same inputs and came up with different outputs.

Yeah and I too want to thank you for this process and just be aware that I'm bringing forward.

Concerns that I've heard and to have.

Addressed because it wasn't addressed in our handouts or anything so.

That I'm not attacking the process or anything that was going on.

I know we need a new.

Science curriculum for for the district definitely.

But.

Some of my constituents had questions and concerns and.

Glad that you were able to address them and answer them and hopefully now.

I'll get more feedback from them before we come to looking at.

Having a vote on this.

So.

Thank you for.

Providing the answers for us today.

Qeˀciyéẁyéẁ.

I just have one thing.

Please.

I would just like as we're talking about our communication and all this stuff is like.

I hope in the future it doesn't take a BAR amendment.

To have this conversation.

I mean I think questions can get asked an intro.

That's what intro is for.

If you're not satisfied at that time.

Then.

Talk of an amendment.

But I just think that this was sort of really jumping.

Ahead of where it needed to go.

So I just want to make that statement.

We were days ahead of doing it on the fly from the dais and we have paid hell.

For those unintended consequences in the past.

So.

However it happened I think we got lots of lessons to learn here and I'm really grateful for them.

Director Burke.

Because we're talking about timing and I.

You know full transparency disclosure.

This was discussed with staff at least a week before the amendment was submitted.

With the intent of trying to understand.

Was it a viable thing.

The.

The fact that we didn't get.

That sort of rich feedback that we're getting now.

The amendment turned into a vehicle for that.

So.

My apologies if it created extra work.

I think it was a fruitful conversation though.

Director Geary please.

I don't I don't.

I'm glad that it came out.

I'm glad that we did it this way.

As opposed to not.

It really does highlight I'm just going to underscore it once again how difficult it is.

For the board.

To communicate outside of the public eye.

It's really.

I think you just the public would have to assume that we have rich conversations and that we all get to benefit from them.

And that is not at all our reality.

Our conversations.

Around anything big and important.

Have to happen.

In a group.

We're unpaid.

We're here in varying schedules.

There's some for audit and finance some for curriculum instruction some for operations some for exec.

We don't get in the room.

And so.

We even lose track of what concerns we've raised with who maybe in what conversation what the answer was.

It's very very hard.

So it does end up being a very duplicative.

Heavy.

Repetitive process.

To make sure that we understand not only.

The page that we are on.

The page that you're on and the page that our fellow board members are on.

I just I really want to underline.

How difficult.

And.

Unsatisfying and stilting it is.

And yet.

We still manage to work as a group.

For very little and a huge time commitment.

So thank you again.

I started with thank you to the board.

I will end with thank you to the board.

Director Harris.

Indeed it's an honor.

It's a privilege.

This meeting is adjourned.