OK good evening I'll call the meeting back to order.
We're going to jump into the business action items here and we have a fairly short list of action items.
We have a rip roaring four of them.
And Director Harris has joined us President Harris has joined us again.
So starting with action item 1 approval of attendance area boundary changes to create an attendance area for the new Magnolia Elementary School which came before operations committee on December 6th for.
Looking for a motion.
I move that the school board approve scenario D for the new Magnolia elementary elementary attendance area as outlined in attachment A and grandfathered assignments for students currently enrolled in grade 4 at Lawton Elementary and Catherine Blaine K-8 parentheses rising fifth graders end parentheses.
Additionally I move that the board grandfather assignments for the siblings of currently enrolled students in grade 4 at Lawton and in grades 4 through 7 at Catherine Blaine K-8.
I move that the board direct the superintendent to take any appropriate action to implement this decision.
I second the motion.
Director Mack would you like to open this up or.
Certainly.
So since introduction when we had the conversation around the grandfathering staff did the analysis and looked at the numbers and determined that it was feasible to also grandfather the younger siblings of the students that are staying at Blaine in the 6 through 8 portion.
And so that has been added here and also that the younger siblings at Lawton which I think there are only four of them but they were also a grandfather too to create parity there.
So that's the one major change.
There's also there was another constituent question that was raised in the community meetings previously multiple times as well as recently around The assignment to the 6 8 portion of Blaine once the boundaries are changed and there are more middle school seats made available and how do students in all of Magnolia access those.
And.
Talked with Ashley a little bit today about that and the maybe you can kind of explain should I try to explain or do you want to try to explain actually the the challenge here with or the staff's recommendations around how to resolve that request.
I can I can try to explain.
So as director Mack Ashley Davies Happy New Year director of enrollment planning.
So as director Mack had mentioned in our engagements there were questions from the community at large.
And so I just want to highlight that the opening of Magnolia influences and impacts the Catherine Blaine K-8 community as well as the Lawton community.
And so when based off the boundaries that we have here in front of you Magnolia would take a portion of the Catherine Blaine attendance area a large portion and a very small portion of the law and attendance area would create the new Magnolia.
And so we have had interest.
from both the Lawton community as well as the Catherine Blaine community that will now be assigned to Magnolia to have the opportunity to access seats at Catherine Blaine.
So not just those formerly who were in the Catherine Blaine attendance area but those who are also in the Lawton attendance area have interest in middle school seats at Catherine Blaine.
And so there were some questions.
around well how can we ensure that those available seats will be able to be accessed by the families who live in Magnolia.
And currently we have and looking at this past year we were able to accommodate those who wanted seats at the middle school level.
We also have seen historically that families outside of the area are not wanting to access those seats just because of distance and other things like that considerations at play as we think about the travel time.
So we are not recommending any specific language that would change our our policies in terms of how students access those seats.
That would have to be a change specifically to the student assignment plan if we were going to make that change.
But we will continue to have that language that we talked about.
on the 19th that just proactively reminds families that they have the ability to access those available seats at grades 6 through 8.
And and for clarification for the public and for everyone here the student assignment transition plan which was originally slated to be here tonight for approval has been delayed till our next board meeting.
And that's where language is already proposed to help clarify that students can during open enrollment select the 6 8 portion as an option as space is available and also that the transportation services document has also been delayed for another two weeks because those two things are tied very closely together.
The question that came to my mind today and thinking of All of Magnolia is a neighborhood and if we are not going to set a attendance area or geo zone for the 6 8 portion which I agree is not the appropriate thing to do to guarantee assignment because I don't think we can.
I think that would be over over enrolled a 6 8 portion if we guaranteed assignment.
However there.
Outside of the Blaine walk zone there may be students if they're opting in from say the Lawton area or Magnolia new attendance area may be outside of the one and a half or two whatever the the mile range is for for busing.
So I'm wondering if it will be appropriate for us to.
Add into the transportation services standard a clause that guarantees that within the Magnolia neighborhood for students that opt into the 6 8 portion that they would have access to that bus that kind of circles around the outside edge of Magnolia.
There is already a bus that goes and it actually isn't full because of and it won't be because of Blaine and where it is because the walk zone if you look at it and I think we might need to get more specific numbers exactly on that.
But I think the numbers you came up with today is there's only.
So currently there are two buses that Catherine Blaine has a.
is in its entirety has for the school across all K through 8. There are about 10 to 12 students in the middle school grades who are taking a bus to school.
So.
We are working with transportation just to get a little bit more information around the specific standards that apply to the 6 8 portion and the distance guidelines and then what that could look like if there is already a bus that exists to be able to accommodate students.
I think that it wouldn't actually add a bus.
It would just allow those students at Magnolia because if you look at the geographically it's a three mile by two mile neighborhood.
And then the transportation service standards is two miles.
So you it's it's not likely to add it but there are around the edges of Magnolia potentially a few students that it would be fair if we're allowing them to opt in to provide that.
But I think that that doesn't live here in this current BAR.
It lives in it lives in the transportation services standards which we're voting on.
in two weeks so we can continue to have further conversation about how that language or if that language does get in there.
I personally think it would be a fair way to help support the families in Magnolia that want to access the 6 8 portion to feel clear that that option will exist and they will have access to it.
It's something that they really want more access to.
So.
Any other questions or comments.
There was one other thing.
You have one other thing.
Will it affect your vote.
It will not affect my vote.
But I don't think so.
Proceed to the roll call please.
Director DeWolf aye Director Geary aye Director Mack aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye Director Harris aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
Next up item 2 approval of attendance area boundary changes for Robert Eagle Staff Middle School and Jane Addams Middle School for 2019 dash 20. This also came before Ops December 6th for.
Consideration.
Motion please.
I move that the school board approve the middle school attendance area boundary changes as outlined in attachment A and grandfather assignments for currently enrolled students impacted by these changes.
Additionally I move that the board direct the superintendent to take any appropriate action to implement this decision.
I second the motion.
Questions or comments from my colleagues.
There have been no changes since introduction No one has any questions.
One I think brief.
I just want to express gratitude as as somebody who in a previous year sort of tried to call an audible to change this area.
I appreciate the thought that's gone into the areas 91 and 92 and reaching out to the community there.
And you know I hope that's a benefit for both the area 91 92 community and the Robert Eagle Staff community.
And I'll just I know you already have your eyes on the.
The Jane Addams and making sure that we have a strategy in place that we're not going to get caught next year the year after as as their enrollment grows.
But thank you.
Director Mack.
I think I'm just curious to know about or just clarify that we are planning to soon start the engagement around.
the school for future for next year.
Right.
We're looking at having those meetings and there have been some meetings already with Licton Springs and we've been getting questions from the community about what when are the next steps because we know that we're not resolving the overcrowding in that building with this.
So I'm curious to know if we actually have any sense of what timeline the community engagement around this will be.
I'll defer to.
So we will have a meeting in February again with the Licton Springs community and then typically with this work given for the next school year we'd start engagement in early spring after we've already had open enrollment open and had a little bit of time to kind of us on the back end assess some of that data.
So we will probably begin engagement I'm at the earliest in March but we'll be looking at that for this as well as our Maple then Assault Wing Luke and Mercer conversations.
Any other comments or questions.
Ms Shek the roll call.
Director Geary aye Director Mack aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye Director DeWolf aye Director Harris aye.
This motion has passed unanimously.
Bring us to item 3 BEX IV approval of budget transfer from BEX IV program contingency to the Ingram High School classroom addition project budget and approval of construction change order number two for the project.
I tried to do this one earlier.
Thank you for the correction.
This came before Ops also on December 6th and was moved forward.
For approval.
The motion please.
I move that the board authorize allocation of up to two million dollars two million sixty nine thousand dollars from BEX IV and BTA IV capital funds to implement implement annual capacity management actions in spring semester 2018 2019 and summer 2019 to support projected district homeroom capacity needs for the 2019 2020 school year and authorize the superintendent to take the necessary steps to implement the actions as detailed in the attached capacity management recommendations.
I second the motion.
I notice there are no changes to this since introduction.
I'm looking at Director Pink — Burke.
It should be approval of budget transfer from BEX IV program contingency to Ingram high school classroom addition project.
That is correct.
That's my bad.
Sorry it's my first day on this job.
Oh sorry.
Right.
Right title wrong motion.
Hello it's Grace 2019. We'll work it out.
OK.
Sorry I should have let me retry this here.
I really want to get through this agenda clearly.
I move that the school board one approve the transfer of one million five hundred thousand dollars from the BEX IV program contingency account to the Ingram high school classroom addition project budget and two checking in midway.
Is this the right one Richard.
OK.
And to authorize the superintendent to execute construction change order number two as attached to the board action report in an amount of one million four hundred forty seven thousand two hundred eighty eight dollars plus Washington state sales tax with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the change order.
OK so let's try this again.
There have been no changes since introduction.
Do directors or staff have any comments or questions.
Seeing none.
Ms. Shek the roll call.
Oh yeah.
On this one.
Sorry.
There was a public question around.
around this project.
No that was that was the what was there.
No there is is that that is a I think there's a misunderstanding about these dollars and whether or not they were previously approved.
They were actually they were actually part of the previous.
Can you explain exactly how this plays out.
In the BEX IV capital levy we made a commitment to implement priority one seismic improvements at numerous schools.
These are.
Additive alternate I got to just make sure.
Yeah.
Additive bid alternate number two is now being included in change order two for Ingraham High School.
These are priority one seismic improvements in building 100. And so this is a levy commitment that we made to the voters and we're asking for your approval on this tonight.
I did watch the public comment period and this will not be cheaper to do at a later date.
We have a contractor on site.
He's given us a bid amount in which to implement the seismic improvements.
If we were to implement this at a later date we'd have additional design costs additional permit costs and additional then also the construction costs.
So and this was publicly bid so it's reflective of the current competitive you know construction market.
Thank you for that clarification.
Now I'm going to check the roll call please.
Director Mack aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye Director DeWolf aye Director Geary aye Director Harris aye this motion has passed unanimously.
OK moving to number four let's see if we can get this one all synced up.
Number four approval of capacity management actions for the 2019-20 school year.
This also came before Ops on December 6th and was moved forward.
approval for approval.
Thank you.
Motion please.
I'm taking an extra second to confirm that I know what I'm doing.
I've actually already moved it but.
I move that the board authorize allocation of up to two million sixty nine thousand dollars from BEX IV and BEX and BEX and BTA IV capital funds to implement annual capacity management actions in spring semester 2018 2019 and summer 2019 to support projected district homeroom capacity needs for the 2019 2020 school year and authorize the superintendent to take necessary steps to implement the actions as detailed in the attached capacity management recommendations.
I second the motion.
This has also not had anything since introduction.
Questions comments from staff or directors.
Director Mack.
Yes I think I just want to make the point that these capacity management actions that we're approving we're approving the dollar amount plus there's you know some flexibility in how it plays out because we have to wait for open enrollment to happen to actually know what really needs to happen.
Some things we think we really know and then there's things we don't.
And that updates on that what will be happening will be coming to the board in future work sessions so that we're all informed of how these are actually playing out.
And I just add one more comment.
Director Mack with your action today on the Robert Eagle Stock Middle School Jane Adams Middle School boundary.
Becky Asencio our K-12 planning coordinator will be working with Ashley Davies to see what the student implications are there for an enrollment projection.
These are based upon the September five year enrollment projections and so this will shift those two areas that you referred to Director Burke into Jane Addams and we'll look to see if the implications are still placement of two portables at Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.
I am very aware that Director Pinkham would like to add no additional portables to Robert Eagle Staff Middle School and so we are.
looking at strategies to implement to you know hopefully meet that objective.
Director DeWolf.
I have a quick question around the equity analysis so.
It says it was not put through the full racial equity analysis but I'm curious particularly when we prioritize or kind of outline which schools are receiving that support.
What is the decision making process and will that utilize any racial equity toolkit or something to something to inform how we're kind of prioritizing that list of.
projects.
Generally we're using data Director DeWolf that Ashley Davies has generated in the five year enrollment projections.
Then the open enrollment when open enrollment period closes in February we utilize that data as well.
In the past I'm not aware that we've put an equity lens upon our recommendations but we'll definitely work with Ashley and Becky to see if we should be applying an equity lens.
And I imagine those will come through operations as well.
Cool.
So we can just have another conversation there.
Thank you.
No other questions.
I just comment and want to thank them.
Richard for mentioning Licton Springs and that we are.
I want to keep them in mind as to as we're looking at expanding the capacity or trying to control the capacity of Robert Eagle Staff that it doesn't hurt Licton Springs.
So thank you.
Ms Shek the roll call please.
Director Pinkham.
Director Burke aye Director DeWolf aye Director Geary aye Director Mack aye Director Harris aye this motion has passed unanimously.
OK everyone we're doing great.
We've moved to introduction items.
We have two introduction items on the agenda for this evening.
Just two and first introduction item is amendment to board policy number 2 0 2 4 online learning.
repeal of board policy number C 16 dot 0 0 acceptance of correspondence or correspondence or college courses for high school credit.
This came before curriculum instruction committee on December 11th and was moved forward with a recommendation for approval.
OK.
Good evening Kyle Kenosha I'm executive director of curriculum assessment instruction and so on behalf of our Department of College and Career Readiness presenting this board action report.
Actually first of two that are related.
The changes in the board action report that we're asking the board to approve are actually relatively small and that in policy 2024 expanding the scope of it from.
just online courses to all out of district courses that we would be approving and accepting and as well repealing C16.00 because it's very outdated in terms of specifying you know where some of the these credits out of district credits can go to.
But however, it's connected to us much larger changes which are actually featured in the accompanying procedure.
And what it does is it rectifies some things that were identified by an internal auditor in terms of huge inconsistencies and some inequity in terms of how our district credits were being awarded.
Although these are not part of the policy I just wanted to inform the board that You know this allows us to do four major changes that help achieve consistency and equity.
First of all you know it helped to divide out of district credits into two categories one in which were awarded for courses that were not necessarily offered in high school.
The other category being credit recovery.
That allowed allowed us to really specify you know some procedures that would make both fair and equitable.
The other thing that we did is that we changed the grades for any out of district course to pass no pass because of the fact that what we're finding is that folks that could afford to get out of district credits would then get a grade and it would be used to inflate the GPA which meant that this created unfair advantage in terms of competition for things like scholarships and class rank.
It also created a decision tree such that the acceptance of out of district credits would be consistent at every high school because we had situations where some schools were not accepting credits but other schools would be accepting the same same course to be added to their transcript.
And finally it limits out of district credits to high school students only in terms of ones that you know are you know taken for credit.
It rectifies a problematic situation in which middle school students would take courses.
The middle school would have very little capacity to assess whether those courses actually did prepare students for things like advanced courses.
And also the other thing related to this is that it specifies the number of credits that are accepted for for out of district credits for first time credit.
down from eight and then specifying that we would accept eight credits for credit recovery.
And I'll wrap up the comments on this to again reiterate that in addition to allowing us to you know have consistency and fairness.
This was an equity measure because it does take away unfair advantage that you know some families had in terms of you know getting out of district credits in order to do things like inflate GPA.
So I'll just stop here for any questions.
Director Geary would you like to tee this off.
I want to thank you so much for this work because you know it's something that we've been talking about for a while working over the language and you were very patient with me and all of my input in terms of doing that.
I also wanted to take the opportunity to thank principals Howard Breland and Wynkoop who took some time to meet with me to explain the importance of these changes and how it would create consistency through our district the issues that they were facing and implementing it.
the different ways and discrepancies that the different how the different high schools were implementing the different policies with regard to those credits.
So I just wanted to be sure to share my thanks and all the time that was given and the responsiveness of the district in taking the time to think out a plan and provide Provide a procedure that that really allows the principals to do a good job do a consistent job and relieves them of having to fill in the blanks and create inconsistencies which then create hardships between the different schools because parents talk and one parent finding out from another.
So all that appreciated.
I do want to mention that.
It is of course I think everybody's desire to be able to vet all of the online courses and make sure that they're providing the quality of education that we know our students need to be successful.
And it is unfortunate that we don't have the resources to do that nor can we really provide assurance.
that the courses on this list have been appropriately vetted by the office of the superintendent of public instruction because I think all the feedback that we've gotten is that that is not the case that these are basically corporate education products that are being sold have been approved.
and people take advantage of for a number of different reasons and I'm not going to get into that but I do want to also commend you and our staff because I think I know that when we have the opportunity to provide the content we're providing a content that is more robust and is better preparing our student.
So thank you for all the work around this and if I had my wish we would be able to vet all of these and put a star next to the ones we know were best.
And in my dream world if we had those kind of resources that's what we would do.
But I acknowledge that at this point in time that would be very difficult for us.
I will point out that we are continuing to discuss this issue and we're looking at the idea that we might be able to possibly look at a very limited number of courses especially those that are or programs that are granted through credit retrieval.
So at the very least we could take a look at those.
I know when I sat down with the principals They express their desire for such an endorsement around the credits that they're encouraging people to take advantage of.
Director DeWolf and then Director Mack.
Yeah I just want to share gratitude.
I really appreciate.
I know particularly in the BAR.
Talk about community engagement.
We focus this on tier 3 which is collaborate.
So really just grateful for all the work that that takes which sometimes takes more time but is also very critical work and really grateful for the really thorough rationale.
So folks in the community or that are watching at home really really helpful to see what the changes are and why we made those changes so really appreciate the work on this.
I think I sat in one of the meetings where we talked about this but I I haven't been deep in the weeds on this and I have a couple of questions based on the things you just said just to kind of understand exactly what we're doing here.
The courses are still we have to still approve courses in our course catalog correct.
So these these courses are the same course names but they're being taken elsewhere correct.
Actually.
They might not actually jive with our course catalog you know because we have you know pretty specific names for those.
They would have some equivalency which is why we make parents actually fill out a form so that we can actually assess whether the course that is going to be taken does have equivalency with what we offer in our course catalog.
You know it's important to note that in the procedure Parents have to actually get approval in advance in order to take a course.
So this procedure allows us to assess that.
But we don't we there there isn't the same process of approval of the course name that we have for all of our courses.
So this is outside of that.
We would look at the name as well as the content of the course in order to see whether it matches the rigor of the course that we actually offer.
And so it's district staff that will be making that decision on a instead of principals now.
Well actually principals would be involved in this quite a bit.
You know procedure specifies that at certain times our department is actually called in to you know actually assist this process.
But who.
Where does the decision lie.
Like who is the actual authorizer the principal or the.
The principal.
So we're still having principals having different decision making at different schools.
We're not actually unifying that into one standard of who gets to it's still going to be it still could be somewhat arbitrary.
Well you know I think this reduces considerably the arbitrariness because the fact that if you look at the procedure there is a very clear decision tree in terms of it narrows down considerably the types of credits that you would accept or you know and it basically essentially says once those provisions are fulfilled that principals should then go ahead and accept them.
So that so that leads me to the second question which is that so we're limiting students to a certain number of credits that they can access so they can't go.
They only can do eight credits total.
Actually for out of district credits for which you know it's the first time that a student takes them they're limited to four.
for credit retrieval and that's a student who may have attempted a course but failed and then attempting to regain credit.
That number is 8 and that's specified in the procedure.
Just out of curiosity why are we limiting the number of times someone could actually correct or retrieve a credit from a failed course.
I mean that actually just in my mind is disadvantaging students that have have failed and maybe they failed more than eight times and for them to actually be able to graduate from high school don't they need the opportunity to retrieve all of those credits.
I don't understand why we're capping credit retrieval.
We do actually have a provision in there to really examine.
You know there might be some specific cases such as hardship.
But you know we did want to actually set a number that you know was a ceiling.
But there is language in there that does allow us to look at hardship cases.
I guess I'm fundamentally not sure why we would cap the number of credits that a student could could retrieve if necessary.
I don't I don't understand why that is even helpful to have a cap on it.
Because I think we want to give students as many opportunities to graduate and be successful in high school and not allowing them the opportunity to retrieve credits by capping it.
To me I don't I don't understand the logic there.
Director Geary did a lot of work on this.
Did you want to comment on that.
Well around that issue this isn't it's my understanding these aren't the only credit retrieval opportunities correct.
Yeah that would be correct.
And so we have other credit retrieval opportunities that we provide in district that we would actually I think in many cases prefer people.
to utilize because we can actually we understand the quality of the education that is being given that when because we cannot guarantee the quality of the education that they are retrieving the more that they get that is potentially not at the standard we want isn't preparing them We're not assured our principals are not assured that those kids are going to leave their high school with a diploma from Seattle Public Schools that will allow them to participate in the coursework that's going to be presented potentially at a college level.
That is the concern of our principals that what they're seeing in terms of the quality of education.
isn't what they would hope these kids would leave with.
So that by capping it there is some assurance that there is a greater incentive to work within the school system to retrieve credits in the classes that we offer.
So then are the running start credits excluded from this policy.
Yes.
Yes.
These are online credit retrieval opportunities.
But out of district is defined to me would be.
We spent a lot of time and so we could probably and it took a lot of time because we had to run through a lot of different scenarios and we would spend a lot of time tonight doing that.
But we've been working a long time.
I appreciate — it sounds like there might be an opportunity to come and have a one on one meeting.
Yeah I think you know it's important this is the time to ask.
And keep in mind that this is what we're talking about is the language not of the policy which we're voting on but the procedure which accompanies it.
So we're not voting to approve the procedure and if we have ongoing conversations around that we can continue to have those conversations because those that is a procedure.
Yeah my questions are on the policy language of out of district and what that includes and doesn't include and that's not clear to me and whether or not running start for example would actually accidentally fall into this and that that would be.
We're saying no.
Yeah it specifies what that is.
I'm looking to staff to address these concerns specifically.
Yeah I can do that.
It does.
The language is clear there are four categories in which we label out of district credit.
You know one category being college and universities others from some online course the other from private school that a student might access as well as a public school in another district.
Those are the four that we specify.
So a student transferring in would still be able to claim all of their credits from their out of district.
Yeah in fact you know that's kind of the one exception to approval.
If a student already has credits on their transcript coming in it specifies that you know basically you know we approve those if you know they're valid for graduation.
So we don't simply say OK we you know for an incoming student from another district wouldn't look at their transcript and say no you can't have that credit.
My last question was around that.
Why are we disallowing middle school credits.
You know it's noted in the BAR that turned out to be very problematic and that.
Oftentimes parents would access courses.
We had no ability to assess the quality in many cases and motivation for those were enabled students to get right into advanced courses in the high school and then we would find that in many cases they weren't necessarily prepared because of the fact that we couldn't assess quality.
Jumping ahead a little bit you know the next bar the next policy actually talks about ways in which middle school students actually can earn high school credit.
But it you know essentially is under our supervision that that happens.
I just just want to say that I just kind of have continuing concerns around making sure that our policy language doesn't accidentally unintentionally capture like running start that kind of thing.
So I do want to follow up and make sure that the policy is written in a way that it's not going to derail what we are expecting.
It is not related to running start.
Thank you for the input.
What I'm hearing is is a very real concern about some of the policy level work.
A lot of the conversations that that I was part of and heard and I'm grateful for were at the procedure level.
So I guess I'm just going to ask my colleagues and staff to take a look at at that policy language in light of this discussion.
And if you have recommendations if there are things that seem vague to consider those.
Our next item number two amending board policy number 2 4 2 0 high school grade and credit marking policy.
This also came before C&I also on December 11th for approval and.
calculation is still at the dais or the podium.
Sure.
So one of the things that this revision does is that it you know aligns it with policy 2024 in terms of clarifying the conditions under which we actually could award high school credit to middle school students.
And again as I point out it would be under our supervision.
and you know our assurance that you know it does have the quality to actually prepare students for high school.
But the other thing is that it basically brings it up to date because the old policy had state tests such as end of course exams which are no longer in existence.
So we changed the language to you know make that generic as well as the fact that we needed to bring the grade level promotion criteria in alignment with the fact that we're increasing the number of credits for graduation from 21 to 24. So those you know promotion levels have to be adjusted.
And you know the last thing is kind of a minor change in terms of running start designating.
We pretty much just say that it's whatever the community college entrance exam is.
We actually named an exam the compass exam which might or might not have necessarily applied.
So we simply said that we would look at the community colleges entrance exam.
We made the language generic so it wouldn't be out of date.
Are there any questions or concerns around this item.
Director DeWolf.
Yeah sorry I have one.
So in the conversation we just had from introduction item number one the high school policy work group had said around the middle school is not allowing middle school that whole conversation.
In here it also then talks about in part B of of the policy it says it says that course is taken at a district middle school that meets or exceeds the requirements for the same high school course and which are on the Seattle Public Schools approved course list.
But that I just I just want to make sure and maybe I can do this offline too but it sounds like that is antithetical to each other.
It doesn't work.
So is there am I am I misreading it.
OK I think I'm not sure the question.
Let me let me be more specific.
Sorry.
In 2 0 2 4 we're recommending that make man allow out of district credits for high school students only not middle school students.
Correct.
And that can only be determined that can only try to respect the high school principals.
But then in this one we're saying middle schoolers can take High school credits which is kind of goes against what the rationale for the former one just was what I'm trying to say.
I want to make a very clear distinction.
2024 talks about credits that a middle school you know student might get outside of our system.
You know in such a way that we'd have really no control over the quality of that.
What policy 24 20 talks about is how middle school students could get credit but they would be working within our system under our supervision.
So.
I have a maybe a related question around the.
Are students in middle school.
Is there any sort of eligibility for competency based credits for any of those high school courses or is that only at the high school level or post high school or credit recovery.
I don't believe it's limited to just high school.
So for example if you look at for example you know the stamp test in other words getting competency for world language.
I don't believe that's limited to just high school credits.
I did take a look at that policy and it doesn't appear to make that distinction.
Director Mack.
Can you clarify which policy governs that competency based credit.
Do we do we have a policy that actually covers that part because we have we have that we have this really big challenge of students are going to be required 24 credits.
We do have a competency based credit policy and so they're in and students can.
So I know we do it in the languages and I've seen that right.
Do we have an entire system around this is the test that would provide competency for.
X science class.
We.
We have we have the structure for it but we don't have the assessment bank that is aligned to that structure and fill in for me if I do this wrong.
But to be able to say competency for every class it's not like we have an end of course assessment for every class that demonstrates competency.
It's only select ones.
It does specify both the policy and procedures specify how we might actually look at that how we might you know sort of create the conditions to actually specify proficiency.
But the procedure itself would not actually specify exactly what you know that would be in the case of world language though there are it is very specific because the association of foreign languages actually does have some very clearly spelled out ways in which you know students can get credit.
But we don't actually have specific Guidelines laid out now for how you might obtain credit for a specific course in science or math or reading or one of those any of them that says if you do X score on the SBAC if you do X score we don't we don't have that.
Well done yet that work done yet so that we could actually provide competency based credits.
It kind of depends.
You know one of the things that's specified I believe in 24 20 is that you know it updates that if you do actually pass one of the assessments that are required for graduation you might be able to get a half credit in that particular subject.
But in terms of other credits and maybe this might be an offline conversation I could indicate you know that policy and procedure that talks about you know proficiency awarding credit.
Just to be able to put that would would you be kind enough to just shoot an email to the directors that highlights what that policy is.
Absolutely.
And then we could have that available if people are interested.
Sure.
Any other questions or comments on this item.
So this concludes our business this evening.
The board is now immediately recessing the regular board meeting into executive session for an employee meeting pursuant to R C W 28 A dot 4 0 5 dot 2 3 0 which is scheduled for 45 minutes with an anticipated end time of 7 50 p.m.
The meeting will adjourn at the conclusion of the executive session.
you