School Board Meeting Date Nov. 18th, 2015 Pt2

And we are at the business action items section of the agenda and bear with me I've got an emergence of a new set of paper up here that I don't know about.

And so we have so just about at 730 we have Seven action items one with a number of amendments and we have five introduction items and I would beg the indulgence of the Directors whose last night it is if we could stay till the end I know in the past sometimes directors have left before the end of the intro items but since there's four of us that probably would look like a little bit of an exodus.

Alright so with that let's go to item 1 which is the collective bargaining agreement with Automotive Machinists Local 289 coming from exec.

Good evening I'm Jeff Miller the director of labor.

Hold on we need to read it.

I'm a little overeager.

That's alright we like that.

I will do it as fast as I can.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to execute the 2015-2018 collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO District Lodge number 160 local number 289 In the form attached to the board action report with any such minor additions deletions and modifications as deemed necessary or appropriate and to implement the terms of the agreement immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

I second the motion.

All right and before you give us an overview I want to say that this item did come through the executive committee on November 5 and the executive committee recommends it to the full board for approval.

I failed to mention this is for intro and action both.

And with that why don't you go ahead and speak to it.

Thank you I'm Jeff Miller I'm the Director of Labor and Employee Relations for the Seattle School District.

Eager to talk to you about this agreement.

Let me first explain that for people that aren't familiar with and I'm asked this I think often.

We're asking for intro and action because this is a collective bargaining agreement and it means that the terms and conditions of the agreement, the pay for the employees if we don't do intro and action tonight will be delayed their raises.

So, I'm here to recommend board approval of the collective bargaining agreement between the auto machinists, local 289. This is a five person bargaining unit.

The agreement is for three years.

The contract expired on August 31st but the new contract was ratified by the union on 9-2.

The agreed upon raises in the agreement are 2% per annum, 2% each year.

There is also going to be an increase in the tool allowance from $200 to $500 each year which is something they standardly get subject to the employees undergoing an audit of their tools each year.

The total cost over the life of the agreement is $29,030.

Of course we introduced religious leave provisions into the contract in adherence with state law and other changes as were identified I think in the board action report.

Thank you.

All right are there questions from directors on this item?

Questions or comments?

Director McLaren.

What's the duration of the contract?

I'm sorry it's a three-year agreement so it will expire in 2018.

Sorry I have cookie.

Any other questions?

Director Patu.

Exactly how many automotive machinists are we talking about?

Five people.

Okay.

Total.

Thank you.

All right I'm not seeing any other questions or anybody indicating they would like to make any comments so with that why don't we please go ahead and call the roll Ms. Fodey.

Director Peters.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

All right item 2 approval of transportation service standards and revised bell times for school year 2016-17 and this is coming out of operation so let's go to the motion please.

I move that the school board approve the recommended transportation service standards as attached to the board action report for the 2016-2017 school year that include the changes to bell times and authorize the superintendent to implement the standards with minor modifications as necessary for implementation.

I second the motion.

All right and if we could hear from our operations committee chair Director Patu please.

This actually came to our committee and it was recommended by the full committee to move it forward for full board approval.

Thank you.

And I see Ms. McEvoy at the podium and I notice that there are indications that there have been edits so if you would like to speak to those items.

And thank you very much Director Karr.

I have a short PowerPoint for you so that I can give you a status update on some of the information that we have received since we introduced this work.

I wanted to make sure that we highlighted that this is part of our transportation standards annual update and in this update we added some particular pieces of documents.

We added the appeals process, the sunsetting of Hazelwood transportation because we moved them from their interim site back to their home site.

We made some formatting changes.

One of the things that we wanted to clarify is that we had done some formatting changes that we thought would provide clarity particularly to some of our special education families about when we can and can't provide transportation.

What we found in working with the special education PTSA that it actually increased some confusion so we work with them to come up with some collaborative language that meant the intent of the board and the district as well as provided more clarity.

So that's part of the update that you are seeing tonight.

To highlight some of this work as you know we've gone through three phases and first phase was should we change the bell times.

The second is what should that look like and how do we refine those.

And each time we took community comment we would reflect back on these changes and our heroic work of our staff would bring forward a new option for everyone to look at.

In phase one we had outreach for 29,000 family members and this included looking at our three different options.

The options that the community recommended was the modified flip and so that's what we moved forward.

In phase two we started to talk with the community about what that specifically might look like for each individual school and got feedback related to that.

When we did that what we found was the community wanted us to make sure we were focusing our equity lens and that we were moving our Title I schools earlier because that was the preference of the Title I schools.

So we did that.

We are now into the phase 3 and we did extend it slightly longer so that we could continue to capture feedback that we were getting because we knew that the board wanted to see that.

So we tabulated all of the feedback as of November 16. And you will see that in our arrival times box we received over 1100 unique emails.

And you can see how that details out and most of the comments were from those schools that remained in the tier 3 schools.

Most of them wanted, most of the feedback was that they wanted to move to tier 1 and you heard that I think in public testimony again tonight.

I think the other thing that we want to talk about is that we recently have also heard from PTAs and we wanted to highlight that to you that some of the View Ridge and the Lowell PTAs have been doing a lot of outreach recently and have provided some information for us to consider.

So we had showed you earlier the principal feedback and we wanted to ask should we actually be moving the bell times five minutes earlier, would that make a difference and we heard the responses from our principals and in fact we got about 40 responses and you can see the breakout there although the majority of our principals thought that the five minutes earlier would be helpful you'll notice that we also provided that by region for you.

You'll also notice the responses from the Title I schools.

It was 50-50.

They are mostly in the tier 1 and so they were split on whether that five minutes earlier would be helpful or detrimental to the earlier start schools because we had proposed that elementaries would start at 8 o'clock.

in the first year and we were recommending now that we start at 755 and we wanted to get the feedback from the principals related to that so we provided that for you also.

And as you know that there's an independent process that is going on regarding our SEPA process and that's the state environmental policy act that we are implementing.

We have now got findings from them and we wanted to make sure that we were looking at the recommendations if in fact we made the five-minute change and if in fact we were able to slide a few more schools into that earlier tier would that violate any of our SEPA process or would the description and the analysis that was done would that be included there.

So that was one of the reasons why we delayed actually posting that.

When we posted it late we then had to wait to allow a seven day wait period before the board could actually act on it.

So that's why we are here tonight.

The final recommendation does meet AAP standards.

It prioritizes our Title I schools to meet our equity concerns.

It maximizes the number of schools in Tiers 1 and Tier 2. As you know preschool and Head Start was very appreciative of the move.

because that allows those earlier schools to actually be open before the Head Start programs start.

There had always been a little bit of a security issue when they would open up for our Head Start schools or programs before the schools actually opened up.

But it isn't always all positive because we still have some schools left in the third tier who want to move to an earlier tier.

It will create challenges related to our team read program, how we're going to continue to build that and implement that.

We know that because we have routed and tiered so tightly that we're not going to have as much flexibility in the future to add stops per parent's request like in the fall if they say could you add another stop for my family.

We will not be able to do that.

But we are recommending that we do move all three tiers five minutes earlier and we are also recommending that we add the flexibility so that in the spring when we get to actual routing if we can slide some more schools into that tier one and continue to keep it cost neutral that the board will allow us that flexibility.

So as you look at the bell times what you'll see is the new times that we are recommending and so our first tier is starting at 7.55am, our second tier at 8.45 and our third tier at 9.35.

And this just summarizes the updated information and recommendations that we are providing for And this is finally what the tiering looks like and you will see that in the 16-17 recommendation we are moving from 33 schools in tier 3 down to 13 schools into tier 3. And this as you all have said is a heroic body of work and at the last board meeting some of the board members asked if we would actually bring some of the staff to the meeting who have been doing this work.

So I just want to take a minute and say thank you and highlight some of their work before we take comments.

Obviously transportation has done a lot of the leadership and the heavy lift here so I want to particularly thank Kathy Katterhagen.

and her team who are not here any longer, they stayed as long as they could, but they start at like 5 a.m.

in the morning, so they went home to get some of their sleep, Ellen Reyes and Steve Richards.

Related to the Neighbor to Neighbor program, Judy Simon out of our Media Operations Center created the video that we used for that.

Bernardo Uruiz, Jesse Johnson, and Narcita Eugenio and her team of translators who did again translated an enormous amount of work.

For budget Denise McElhaney who helped kind to make sure that we were still crafting a budget neutral option and we're looking at that with us and certainly Eric Anderson and his team from REA who helped us look at all the data and analyze that and then finally Sam Markard who was our project manager here and I want to make sure we highlight that also Sam because he certainly helped make sure that we stayed on track, that we didn't lose any of the dates, that we were engaging and making promises and keeping our promises as we continue to do that.

And Joan Dean Bill who is my executive assistant who was here but had to leave for her area who we could not have done it without.

And then legal John Cerque and Ronald Boy and communications Jackie Ko and Stacy Howard.

All of our principals, all of our nurses, all of our teachers.

And then our city partners and then you will also see the sleep experts in the community who continue to be here to watch your historic boat tonight.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So let's with that open it up to questions for starters.

Do directors have any questions?

So Director Peters and I know I have one.

So Pegi as you know one of the final issues has been around the tier 3 schools that are going to continue to have a late start and late finish and you've been able to work some flexibility into the plan.

Could you explain what sort of options we could potentially offer any tier 3 schools that would like to change to a different tier and also any other schools that might want to swap.

I think there's perhaps a couple who want to go to a later start.

So just recently we've had a couple of schools who've said yeah in tier 1 I'd like to move to tier 3, is that an option?

So what we are trying to do in the standards is to create a process where we can have that conversation and we can continue to route.

As you know the routing estimates that we have done were based on this year's routes and our students this year.

Next year we'll have slightly different routes because we'll have slightly different students.

So, once we get our enrollment figures and we know where our students are we'll begin the routing in the spring.

If in fact there becomes the opportunity to streamline some of those routes and provide some ways for us to do some budget neutral routing we want to provide that to schools so we might be able to move some additional schools into that tier.

So, what we want, we know that will be disruptive for some schools so the process that we are putting forward is that if a school wants to be considered they will volunteer to be on the list, the school will get coordinated through the principal.

What we want to do is provide to the schools and the principals a briefing paper essentially.

Here are the pros of being considered for this, here are the cons, here's what we might be able to do.

and then have the community conversation to decide to opt into this and we think we'll need to have decisions from schools by February so that we can move this process forward and we think that will give the community time to have that good conversation.

Then when we move into our routing in the spring we will do actual routing and if we can slide schools in still being budget neutral, still being in compliance with all of the SEPA requirements that we have in place then we will let the schools know.

Just a follow-up question, so if there is a critical mass at a school of parents and staff who would like to do that what would be the first step they would have to take if they wanted to switch to a different tier?

So we will send out guidelines to the principals so I want the community to stay in contact with the principal.

They will be the lead for giving us information related to that and that we know that we've got the holidays coming up and so we want to make sure that there's plenty of time for the school community to have that conversation.

So we know we don't need a decision until February But what I would urge all the PTAs and the communities to do is to stay in close contact with their principals.

I have a question and it's not about the bell time part of the transportation standards.

I had a community meeting on Saturday and there were a couple of folks that were there that expressed some concerns about the language changes around out-of-district transportation and so what they teed up for me was that special needs students they are getting services out-of-district because we are not in a position to accommodate them for whatever reason.

And they had to fight to get their out-of-district transportation and the language change in that arena was very startling to them and they didn't know what that meant.

So I know that they fed their concerns to the Seattle special ed PTSA and I know you had a conversation.

Are those matters resolved?

Was there an intent to change the service that's being provided to these students?

Is there some embedded policy change there that is not readily evident?

No, so when we transport a student outside of the district that's based on their IEP and there was no change, there was no intent to change the fact that IEP driven transportation would not be provided.

So that's part of the conversation that we were having with the special education PTA.

We just wanted to make sure that it was abundantly clear that IEP transportation still drives our transportation but as we were thinking about do they get additional transportation rights outside of that, for instance if they wanted to go someplace else that wasn't IEP driven and was outside of their service area we wanted to let them know that there are some constraints around that.

So that's how the language was reworked to make sure that we had better clarity around that.

Thank you.

Other questions on this item and then maybe we can go to comments if there are no other questions.

All right why don't we go ahead and if there are directors that would like to make comments I know this has been one that has been a long time in the making.

Director Peasley.

Well first of all I just want to once again thank Peggy McEvoy and her staff for this incredible work which has taken two years and has gone deeper into community engagement than almost any other initiative certainly than I am aware of.

So I think we have also set new standards for community engagement.

which has a ripple effect so hopefully we will be able to apply some of the approaches that you have used in the bell times analysis to other initiatives that we take on.

I'd also like to say that this is such a great, if it passes, a great win for our students.

I just cannot imagine having to be anywhere at 735 in the morning.

and I am not a teenager.

But I do have two.

So this is a great win.

We will be the largest urban district in the US to make this switch.

We are leading a trend.

There are districts all throughout the region that are going through this exact same process and I'm not quite sure exactly where they are but I know Mercer Island Bellevue, Edmonds or Everett, Lake Washington, maybe Highline, anyway quite a few districts are looking at this and I think that if Seattle moves in this direction it will set, we will unleash a torrent of public schools shifting to bell times that make sense for students.

So this is a historic moment and thumbs up.

Other comments from directors?

Director Peters.

Well I am also very excited to have this opportunity right in front of us.

You know the final proposal that we are looking at tonight may not be 100% perfect but it is absolutely solid.

Solid work has been done and I am particularly pleased that Pegi and staff worked to mitigate some of the issues that the tier 3 schools are facing.

As I mentioned before I've been a tier 3 parent.

I do want to point out as parents have pointed out that even though this plan is cost neutral for the district it is not exactly cost neutral for parents.

There is some childcare costs that gets passed on to them especially these tier 3 families so we do need to acknowledge that and do what we can to mitigate against those costs.

Let's see.

You know this is an evolving plan and it is something that I think is evolving in the right direction.

And it's supported by science and we've had such wonderful people testify before us over the last few years actually about all the science and the research that supports doing this and how it's better for our children emotionally, academically and all the ramifications of that.

So I'm confident it's the right thing to do.

I also want to give a shout out as well to staff but also to all the public and parents who have been so tirelessly coming to us and keeping this on our radar.

It's been a slog.

I mean I think it's been as many as eight years for some parents.

I think it's been quite a long time.

And I especially want to call out Cindy Jatul and Diane Casper.

They have been very eloquent and gracious and tenacious in their pursuit of this in the best possible way.

I also want to thank Superintendent Nyland for his support because when he joined us this was already happening but we hadn't quite pushed it over the finish line and I really appreciate him working with staff and working with the board and understanding that this was a priority that we really wanted to pursue.

So thank you all.

Others that might want to make comments?

Director Patu.

I would also like to say thank you to the committee and also to Pegi.

This is something that we had actually started working on four years ago and there was a lot of pullback but you know we finally came into the to the thought that we actually can't believe we are actually voting on it tonight.

I think it's a great idea and that it's actually going to our high school secondary students are going to be very happy.

I know my grandkids always tell me when are we going to start late in the afternoon or later time and I said don't worry it will be next year.

But I think it's great that we are actually moving forward with this and it's going to be very effective for a lot of our students who actually come late in the morning or don't even make it in the morning.

So thank you committee for moving this forward.

Director McLaren.

So I won't repeat what's been said but I do want to highlight the fact that the energy for this came from the community.

And that represents a really dramatic new way of doing the work of our school district and there was incredible, amazing, energy in the way that Peggy with her leadership embraced this community challenge and request but insisted on doing it in the right way.

Taking the time to survey as many affected people as possible in order to get the best possible information and to design a plan that really is, has a very very high likelihood of being successful for the vast majority.

And that's a fantastic precedent to have set.

So thanks to those of you in the community and thanks to those of us on staff, those of you on staff.

Others that might want to make a comment?

Director Blanford.

I join my colleagues in appreciating the staff for their hard work and particularly around the community engagement on this project.

It indeed sets us up for more robust community engagement going forward.

I've listened to a lot of conversation about this and particularly focused on the academic research that shared the benefits of moving the bell times to a later start and had a little bit of concern in my community meetings and other meetings that I had where it seemed like a bit of it was a bit more hype than was necessary.

So I went and did my own fair amount of research to get a greater understanding of what the experience of other school districts has been as they've tried to implement a change in their bell times.

And I have been interested to see the comments as we have gotten closer to actually launching this.

The comments that have come from our community members.

Many of them very much in support of the changes that are proposed and over the course of the last couple or three months an increasing number of parents who are very upset by the fact that they will be in tier 3. Other parents that have shared their concerns about lack of schedule flexibility in their own work schedules that will have impacts if we go to this decision.

And finally in my mind I was concerned about just the notion that one of the people at the in public testimony shared which was that if we convey these benefits on some of our students and not on others what that says about us.

And in my mind in good conscience I don't believe that we can talk about the fabulous benefits that come as a result of this proposal and know that there are huge numbers of our students some of which are our most challenged students and we decide to let them fend for themselves.

I know that there is as part of this proposal there is work to potentially engage them in one of the other tiers at some point in the future but I have real concerns that if I were a parent of a student that was in tier 3 I think I would have pretty serious concerns.

So I am intending to vote in opposition to this.

Thank you.

Others?

I'm not seeing anyone else.

I will just make a couple of brief comments and echo the thanks of my colleagues to the staff that led this work.

What a heavy load this was for you and to Dr. Nyland for seeing it through for the two years that we have been pursuing it.

I thank you all for that and I do want to acknowledge that I said earlier I'll say it again as directors we don't make decisions we make choices and I just want to acknowledge that I know that not everyone will get what they are looking for at this first, the first implementation of this if it should pass here in a few moments.

But I would challenge the staff to continue to work toward that end of getting everybody at a suitable bell time.

The keys to the kingdom in my opinion have got to be the dollars we have in transportation.

When we look at our transportation costs in Seattle Public Schools they are three times on a dollar per student basis what other districts are in the state.

We stand alone with that kind of a number and so the opportunity for us is to work that down so that we can accommodate everyone and make it an opportunity for everyone.

All right so with that I think we are ready to call the roll on this item.

Ms. Bode.

Director Blanford.

No.

Director Martin-Morris.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion has passed by a vote of 6-1.

Thank you.

So that takes us to item three of seven on the action item list followed by five intro items.

And this item is the approval of student assignment transition plan for 2016-17.

This is coming out of ops.

I move that the board approve the student assignment plan dated November 18, 2015 as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

All right and I will note, oh and why don't we go to our ops committee chair to hear from the committee please.

This also came to the ops committee and the committee said actually to move it forward for full board approval.

All right thank you.

So I'm going to turn it over to you folks at the podium.

There's edits that have been made and changes that you want to discuss and so with that I'll go ahead and have it turn over to you.

Flip Herndon Associate Superintendent of Facilities and Operations and I'll just make a few opening statements and then have our Director of Enrollment Planning Ashley Davies speak.

We do appreciate all of the feedback that we've received and as you know this was an attempt to really address some of the challenges that I know I've heard at least from individual family members about knowing where exactly they're able to go to school in the fall.

Could I interrupt you and ask you to get just a little closer?

It's a little noisy back there.

So this is an attempt for us to be able to notify families about their school location for the following year.

And as we have gone through this process we have received a tremendous amount of feedback and we do take that very seriously when we hear from families in a variety of ways.

It comes through in community meetings or emails that we receive or phone calls that we take or just conversations that we have.

when we are out and about being a parent in the community myself I hear comments from people often.

As a result there are a few things that we want to highlight.

One is that we realize there is more work to do so what you have in front of you and the feedback we received from the community the whole meeting last week is that this is a one-year transition plan.

Similar to the other transition plans this is about making sure that we can get those notifications to parents and families earlier and continue to work towards one document that is clear, concise, and reliable for parents for information.

The other is we do have a few other modifications that I will let Ashley Davies speak to but our plan is in about a year from now working with the community and the new board to really highlight any additional changes and have significantly more community engagement as we move forward because we know this plan does have an impact on several families.

Ashley Davies Director of Enrollment Planning.

So just to follow up on that I do want to speak to the additional community meetings that we had after the committee of the whole meeting with the board last Monday where we talked about the fact that the changes that we are proposing are to the last transition plan.

So I just want to be clear that The 2009 new student assignment plan is being untouched by this proposal.

We are working only from the last annual transition plan from 2013-14 with the two policy changes.

One was moving up the waitlist disillusion date and then the second was elimination of the distance tiebreaker for attendance area schools.

And we had three additional community meetings in addition to the four meetings that we had earlier in October.

And in those meetings we received additional feedback around these changes as we clarified what exactly the changes were, specified the policy changes and spoke to the changes that were available with the board agenda.

on Friday.

So at this point in time based on the feedback that we've received from the community meetings, via email, via conversations with families and parents, outside of the meetings we do receive feedback in a variety of other ways and we appreciate all the forums in which we are able to receive feedback from the community.

But with the waitlist dissolution date the original proposal was to dissolve the waitlist on May 31st and based on the feedback that we received we still anticipate making waitlist moves by May 31st but we will not dissolve the waitlist until August 15th in the event that program placement decisions or student eligibility for program for programs is not available by that time or if there is an unanticipated change that happens such that we would need to move the waitlist after that period of time.

So the updated documents that are now available for this board meeting do reference the fact that We anticipate making all waitlist moves by May 31 but the waitlist will remain until August 15. And as Flip had mentioned we are still looking to work with the community over the next several months bringing us to this point next year.

where we are creating one document that streamlines the information that exists on student assignment and it will give us the year to see how this process works with the updated waitlist moves and we'll be able to receive feedback and make any adjustments if needed.

Thank you.

So with that I'm going to turn to directors and ask what questions they have.

Director Peasley.

So by keeping the waitlist in place until August 15 that will also take into account possible in option schools for example students moving out and seats opening up it will be possible to fill those seats with students who are on the waitlist.

Is that correct?

So it will be possible if there is some major unanticipated shift that happens.

We are still looking again to make waitlist moves by May 31st and hold to those such that We are providing greater predictability for the school so they can begin planning, work on their classroom configurations, they can be ready for the start of school and be able to set up those classrooms and learning environments for the best for students.

So it does provide flexibility if there are changes so that we can make waitlist moves if necessary.

But we still do anticipate working to make the majority of those moves by May 31.

Just another quick comment around option schools.

We did hear some concern from community members about kind of where option schools are and that they felt the dissolution by May 31 was maybe a threat against the survival of option schools.

We tremendously value the option schools and the choices that parents have within the school district so this is in no way trying to undermine the ability for us to serve students through the option school process.

A couple of other areas where we are trying to improve upon is in program eligibility and in our own waitlist movement processes.

So what we're trying to do is be more efficient, follow up with families earlier and sooner so that we have reliable data so that if families aren't sure of their, so I'll give an example, highly capable placement.

We want to make sure that all families know their eligibility of highly capable as soon as possible have gone through any of the appeals processes because currently we know if they are in the testing process when open enrollment happens and they want an option school They're kind of waiting so they're in that spot but they could be on a wait list and then if they later find out that they have become eligible for highly capable they may move that so it creates a lot of shifts.

We're trying to ensure that all these processes get determined much earlier for families so they can make informed choices.

Director Paterson.

So with the option schools the greatest concern that I've heard from communities, option school communities is they don't want to lose FTE.

And also some of those schools people want, really want their kids in the schools and there will always be wait lists.

So, if there are seats available even after August 15, will there be the option to fill those seats rather than to lose FTE in an option school?

I think that varies a little bit depending on the number of seats that are in a particular spot.

Ideally we are hoping not to see much movement that happens after that time.

Again by informing families earlier and following up on families much more diligently if we're hearing they're moving away or they know that that's happening but they haven't informed anybody that's where we want to make sure that we can follow up.

There are other things that we can take a look at too such as trends for particular schools to see what's happening.

We know that sometimes waitlist availability or seat availability varies at the particular grade level too.

So we can take a look at trends there and then use mechanisms that will ensure that as much as possible.

There is a fiscal reality to making sure that we have enough resources to be able to meet the educational needs across the entire district obviously but we want to be as accurate as possible so that we don't have any of that disruption.

I don't think I can stand here and tell you 100% that if there was something to happen you know we wouldn't have to make some staff adjustments but our whole goal is to reduce that.

So the more information we know the more reliable it is the better likelihood is that we won't have those disruptions.

There are other areas that we need to take a look at as far as resourcing our schools and programs in a way you've alluded to much of that already.

Through full funding that certainly would help us.

And we also have to balance the amount of space needs as well.

So that's another challenge of certain schools are totally maxed out.

There is no available space.

So even if we have a waitlist there's no physical space to add another teacher even if we wanted to.

So we balance all of those capacities, staffing needs, resource allocation, budget, all of those are challenges that we take a look at.

Okay but with the option schools if there are seats available and the neighborhood assignment school is over enrolled which is usually the case then I just want to be absolutely certain that there will still be the flexibility to move students to fill seats in option schools.

That is what I am getting at.

So we would follow the same process that we do now.

So if there are schools that are over enrolled in attendance area school, if they were on a list and were able to make all those moves then we would certainly make those moves to make a balance.

We don't currently take students out of an attendance area school to a school that they may not have selected.

No I am saying if the student is on the waitlist for an option school and a seat opens up after August 15.

Well and in some cases it's not that even currently with the current September 30th date there are times when there will still be a few seats open because by the time we make those moves other people have made decisions.

We end up calling people on the waitlist and they say nope we've made a different decision.

So there are times currently where a seat or two are open.

We're not predicting vast amounts of seats within a classroom.

But there certainly may be times when there are a few seats open.

But that happens now.

So I'm going to ask a follow-up question on this because it seems to me as we're having this conversation there's sort of two kinds of times you move the waitlist.

It seems to me that between now and the open enrollment and May 15th that's when you're going to do you know that due diligence to try to accommodate the requests of families and really kind of go above and beyond the call to try to get everybody where they wanted to be.

And then after that point I think that the that the enrollment planning team should have the opportunity to be able to make the moves that work for families that also balance the enrollment across the school.

So if you have a situation like what Sharon described where you've got a school that's over enrolled and five students want to be in this option school and the staffing levels will support it, in my mind that waitlist should be a tool then for you guys to manage that enrollment and at that point you are doing it for administrative purposes after sort of that guarantee date if you will of May 15. And I get that part of this, this first year I mean you are kind of testing the system, this building's ability to make all of the APP testing decisions and the ELL testing decisions so forth that may or may not be able to get done by May 15. I mean there's sort of some things that have to be done here to be able to be effective at that at accomplishing that date but I think we have to think about it in terms of what's the guarantee date for families and then yes you guys should in my opinion have the latitude to make some of those moves to balance the enrollment And it might mean skipping somebody on the list after May 15. It might mean skipping somebody on the list in order to rebalance to meet the staffing level so schools aren't losing a teacher in September.

Director Blanford.

The only caveat to that as I hear it is that you need to ensure some measure of transparency to ensure that those parents who if there is a Venn diagram that that the intersection of the interest of the family and the interest of the district where they come together where there is a union between the two interests that needs to be daylighted because if you end up not choosing a teacher or a student off of a list then the parent on that list is probably going to be pretty upset.

And I don't know, I don't know how you do your magic.

I would just make the argument that as much transparency as possible is going to be necessary because I do know some parents who have been on waitlists before and we've had conversations about building trust of our community in how we manage the limited resources that we have.

In this case I define resources as a child being in a seat in a school that is oversubscribed and they want to be there.

That is in my mind that is in many ways the ultimate resource that we have to share with our community.

So as much as we can do to make sure that that is clear to our families is going to be absolutely crucial.

Other questions or comments?

Director Peters.

It's a slightly different angle but still on the topic of transparency.

Just for the record can you clarify that the version that we are voting on tonight does not remove any of the pathways or any of that sort of language that everybody thought was removed from the last one?

Yes, so all that language is in the plan that's being voted on tonight.

So there are in fact only the two changes.

So we did make updates to any language that is outdated so for example APP is now ACC and then there are some school names that have changed, additional schools that have come online that are now reflected in the current plan.

Okay great and I also want to thank you for being responsive to the community over the waitlist issue because that was something that we did get a lot of feedback on and I really appreciate you putting an element of flexibility into this plan.

Especially since it's a bit of a pilot for us or a test run as I think the superintendent said and so we can see how it works next year.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Director McLaren.

Just confirmation for anybody who wonders the language that describes the May 31 and the August 15 final date are embedded in the in the transportation or the assignment plan.

So I just wanted to say that for the record.

Page 6. All right any other questions or comments?

All right I'm not seeing any so with that let's go ahead and take this to a vote.

May we have the roll call please?

Director Martin Morris.

Aye.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Kerr.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

All right.

Thank you.

That's right.

All right.

That takes us to action item number four of seven.

It's 820. And this is BTA IV levy and authorizing resolution 2015 16-10 coming out of A&F and Ops.

So if we could have it read into the record please.

I move that the board adopt resolution 2015 slash 16-10 which places a six-year capital levy totaling $475.3 million on the February 9, 2016 special election ballot for voter approval to fund the buildings technology and academics slash athletics BTA IV capital levy and provide funding for construction, replacement, renovation and modernization of educational facilities throughout the district.

Addressing the backlog of maintenance and repair, BMAR and further investment in the technological needs of students and staff and improving athletic fields that provide an accessible and safe surface for student participation as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

All right and if we could hear from our ops committee chair please.

This came to the committee and the committee has asked to move forward for full board approval.

And from our audit and finance chair please this went through both committees.

Yes this did come before the audit and finance committee on October 6 with a recommendation for full approval by the board.

Thank you.

All right so if Mr. Gottsch if you could address the changes that were made since intro I know we had a question around the debt service line I think it was what it was called I'll let you speak to it.

Ken Gotch, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance.

Two changes were made to this item.

One we modified the bar to reflect the October 28th public comments section and then we amended the bar, the resolution and the table of projects to reflect the inclusion of the John Stanford Center as part of the debt service line.

Okay all right and so we had some fairly extensive discussion at intro.

Are there other questions directors have on this item?

It looks like no questions.

Are there any comments that directors would want to make on this item?

Director Blanford.

Only that seeing the line around BMAR, the building maintenance, I was really pleased to see the fact that that is included and the fact that it is pretty significant.

We frequently hear, we heard today about maintenance backlog and things in our schools that need to be resolved and so I am glad to see that this has as high a priority as it does and I look forward to supporting

I actually do have one question.

So in introduction I talked a bit about, we all talked a bit about the bonds for the John Stanford Center and I had shared that the audit and finance committee spent the better part of a year sending staff digging into the storage and looking for facts and data about how the building was financed etc.

And I think someone had said that that presentation would be made available.

Is it attached on the website where someone could get to it pretty quickly?

We took it to the Audit and Finance Committee on February 12, the original presentation from December of 2011. Walked through the presentation at Audit and Finance and now the document is available on the website through Audit and Finance.

I was also envisioning on posting it to the controller's webpage just so it's in another place.

Great I think it's important that that document stay fairly readily available because we had to reconstruct a history there that again took us the better part of a year and you know we worked very hard to find ways to pay for the debt service on this building.

Again the short story being that when we built this building there was never a capital levy to back the building to pay for it and so the idea was that we were going to pay for it I guess out of the general fund which I'm not really sure why that was thought to be the right approach.

We do need to find a way to pay for the remainder of it.

We've worked hard since 2001 to find a way through the audit and finance committee we found a way to get it covered through 2017 or 16 but we're coming right up on running out of that plan and so we need to find a way forward because we do need to make good on the bonds that we took on this building.

So thank you for that.

The only thing I would share by way of information is an invitation to board directors and new directors as well, directors elect.

There will be a campaign event that is on Friday morning at 730 and you are welcome to attend at the McKinstry Innovation Center.

I know Sharon loves to come to 730 a.m.

meetings but I wanted to make sure everybody knew that that opportunity was available and you are welcome to attend.

All right any other questions or comments?

All right why don't we have a roll call on this item please.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Great.

All right this brings us to item five of seven.

Followed by five inter-items.

Approval of the 2015-16 board governance priorities and superintendent evaluation instruments, SMART goals and accompanying rubrics.

And this is coming out of the executive committee.

So if we could have, we have a number of amendments proposed here so let's go get it read into the record and then we'll step through this.

I move that the board one, approve the 2015-16 board governance priorities, A, close the opportunity gap, B, improve systems and supports, C, create culturally inclusive school, family and community engagement And two, approve the 2015-16 superintendent evaluation instrument as attached to the board action report.

And three, approve the superintendent SMART goals and accompanying rubrics for 2015-16 as attached to the board action report.

And four, conduct the superintendent's annual evaluation in November 2016. I second the motion.

Alright and this item came through the executive committee.

It was discussed on August 26 at a work session, full board.

It was talked about again on September 26 at the board retreat and again on October 14 at a work session.

And it was reviewed at the Executive Committee on October 28. The committee reviewed the motion and are moving it forward for consideration by the full board because we knew that there were still some amendments that were being considered.

All right so there have been, as there have been no edits to this item since introduction we will now address the amendments being offered for this item.

And Teresa you're going to have to hold me accountable here if I don't do this right.

Because amendments 1 and 2 both amend the same language in goals number 1 and 2 we will have motions on both amendments.

discuss each of the amendments and then proceed to a vote on the amendments.

After concluding the discussions and votes on amendments one and two then we'll move to amendment three.

So what I will do is now call on Director McLaren for her motion for the amendment.

I move that the board amend the 2015-16 superintendent smart goals numbers 1 and 2 to replace the for all historically underserved populations language with African-American males and other students of color as noted in the attachment to the board action report.

I second.

All right thank you for that.

Now I will call on Director Peasley for her motion for her amendment.

I move that the board amend the 2015-16 superintendent's SMART goals 1 and 2 as attached to the board action report.

Should I read the attachments?

Read the motion, whatever the motion is.

That's the motion.

All right are there any concerns from Teresa Hale or John Cerqui on how we did?

Okay I'm getting the green light there to keep going.

All right so that amendment, amendment number two has been motioned and entered into the record and seconded.

So we will turn back to Director McLaren and ask her to speak to her amendment number one.

Thank you.

So I'm going between two things here.

So some background is the board has considered this language over several work sessions and has carefully weighed the value of language that is inclusive of all historically underserved populations.

In contrast to our staff's original recommendation to focus on African-American males and other students of color.

The board has fluctuated regarding this emphasis.

At the most recent work session the board opted for more inclusive language.

This amendment proposes to reverse the recent change by the board and to emphasize African-American males as originally proposed.

Recent history and evidence shows conclusively that the targeted universalism strategy demands that all of us, classroom teachers, principals, support staff, and leadership specifically identify and remedy the unconscious biases that have caused the achievement gap for African-American males.

Data is available from urban schools and districts nationwide in which teachers have focused on African-American males, have worked collaboratively, identified learning deficits and provided appropriate interventions.

This evidence shows dramatic progress in closing the achievement gap not only for the targeted group but for all underserved groups.

Available data also indicate however that the inclusive language strategy is less effective and undermines improvement in teaching.

Replacing the specific focus on African-American males with imprecise language invites unconscious bias to influence important choices in teaching practice.

I've created a chart that is drawn from some preliminary data about last year's students of color.

And in that chart it shows the relative, the achievement gap among Pacific Islanders, black students, American Indians, and Hispanics.

At the bottom of that chart I've also shown the numbers of affected students and in our district white students represent 46.27% at 12,619.

Black students represent, or no I think this is male students.

Black students represent 4535 or 16.66%.

American Indian students represent 201 or 0.73%.

Pacific Islander students represent 141 or 0.48%.

So African-American males including US and African-born far outnumber all other groups affected by the achievement gap in Seattle schools.

And in terms of disproportionate discipline African-American males are disciplined at a far higher rate than other students of color.

So they represent the largest single group of students who are affected by institutional racism in Seattle public schools.

And the Black Lives Matter movement has recently helped educate our society about the extreme brutality and exploitation aimed at African American males through hundreds of years of American history.

So, now I'm switching to another document here.

Using, sorry, just a minute here.

Using specific language as I am proposing that we return to, focusing on African-American males, the largest group of Americans who have been exploited and relentlessly brutalized by racism.

This tactic has been shown to be dramatically effective in closing the opportunity gap.

And history shows that in terms of the numbers and outcomes, wait a minute I've gotten lost here.

So, evidence from urban school districts across the country shows that using specific language, naming African-American males pushes us to be constantly aware of our unconscious bias.

Inclusive language is vague.

When we are teaching if the goal is vague we make unconscious bias choices.

Targeted language on the other hand is a constant reminder to be aware of our decisions.

Evidence shows that targeted language can bring real change for all students of color.

Our Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Latinos will benefit from us acknowledging and grappling with our biases about African-American males.

I'm going to make one more addition here.

I wanted to I will quote the last line of Ms. Hampson's testimony earlier in the evening.

She is the Vice President of the Seattle Public Schools Title VII Native American Education Parent Advisory Committee.

She said, please resist the temptation to yet again sweep all underserved into one big category.

It is erasure by inclusion and it serves no one in a misguided attempt to serve everyone.

Thank you.

All right so the next step then on this one is to ask for questions on this amendment.

So what questions do we have on this amendment?

And I have one just to be sure that I'm crystal clear.

If I've interpreted this correctly as we went through the work sessions and the board retreat the language had read African-American males and other students of color.

You're recommending your amendment moves it back to that original language?

Correct.

Okay that's all I needed to just be sure I was crystal clear on.

All right so I'm not seeing any other questions so let's go to comments for Director McLaren's amendment.

So, let's go to Director Blanford, then Director Peters, then Director Martin-Morris.

I'm excited to both second and support Director McLaren's amendment which returns us to the smart gold language originally recommended by the staff.

Director McLaren and I have had numerous conversations on this subject and I'm pleased to see her commitment and passion reflected in this amendment.

Although the language of the amendment seems new our educators have been working on it for months now.

The initiative really caught fire however in the summer of 2014 at Garfield high school when John Powell an internationally known education researcher and theorist captivated our principals as he discussed the concept of targeted universalism.

This concept which advises school systems to identify and focus on their lowest performing demographic group has been shown to drastically improve outcomes for that group as well as for their classmates.

This concept resists the tendency to lump all underperforming students in an overly blunt and ineffective approach.

Teachers must confront any bias that they have towards their African-American male students.

Principals must help teachers to change their instructional methods.

The central office must assure that powerful professional development opportunities are available.

And all community stakeholders must assist where they can as well as holding us accountable for changing the sad outcomes our district has experienced.

And this concept actually works.

Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland which implemented a similar initiative a few years ago has the highest graduation rate for its African-American males of any large school district in the nation.

I verified this this morning.

Equally important the graduation rate for its white males is also the highest in Maryland and significant improvements have been seen in all racial and ethnic subgroups.

Its former superintendent Dr. Jerry Wiest noted similarities between Seattle and Montgomery County and told me that if school systems act boldly pay attention to implementation and make all parties accountable he is sure that we will see similar results.

Black lives do matter.

I am hoping that we can demonstrate through the actions that we take tonight that our values align with this notion.

So I look forward to support, I look forward to vote, to a vote to support Director McLaren's amendment and to better outcomes for African-American males and all other student groups.

Thank you.

Director Peters.

Well I have first a comment and then a question.

Both of the amendments before us today about this particular SMART goal move in the same direction.

They both put back into our goal very specifically African-American males.

So in that regard I don't see those two in conflict and I have to admit I'm a little bit confused.

I feel that it's unfortunate that this is taking the form of amendments.

I wish we had discussed this at length in a work session and come to some consensus at that point.

I don't believe we did.

I think we had something, then we changed something and I think it was dissatisfaction and we didn't quite handle it at that time.

So now we've got these two amendments and so I have a question perhaps, I don't know whether it goes to legal or to, I'm not sure who, to Erin Bennett perhaps.

If we pass the first amendment do we still consider the second one?

I mean what is actually the procedure here?

So Sue I have the instruction from the staff and what will happen is we will vote on the first one if it passes that's the end of the vote.

So they will go in order, Director McClaren's will come first.

It's just like when we elect board officers if two people are nominated and the first one gets the majority votes then that's the end of it.

Now did I get that right Teresa?

Okay but we will do all of that before we ever vote.

Okay so we will discuss them both before we vote.

Okay well as we discuss them I will ask my colleagues to address the issue whether these two amendments are actually in conflict because I see them almost complementing each other but perhaps I am missing something.

Alright so she's asked a question so maybe Director McLaren can speak to it or Director Blanford but maybe you can think about it because I said we would go to Director Martin-Morris next so if you guys want to think about a response let's go to Director Martin-Morris.

So I will say that we did have a fairly robust and thorough discussion about this language and there was a division.

on the board when this discussion was made and the majority of the folks that were present that evening decided on the change of that language and if I remember correctly Director Blanford and myself were the two that said we did not want to change it but it was obvious that everyone else was in the mode to change it.

I am very pleased that Director McLaren has put forth this language which is the language that I wanted to be there in the first place.

You know as Director Blanford was saying You know the research is very clear on this, we have concrete examples in Oakland, we have concrete examples in Montgomery County of when we do this work it has an improvement not just for the targeted group but for the entire district.

Very powerful stuff.

This isn't some new age crystal thing.

This is concrete data that shows that it does work.

The other thing that I'm concerned about is we don't put ourselves where we have groups of people fighting over, for lack of a better term, fighting over the crumbs instead of doing the work.

Let's be blunt.

So let's focus on the thing that we know will work.

get it done and then we move on to our next challenge because there is a target rich environment out there.

There are lots of things to do but let's get this one done.

So I am also, the reason I am also supportive of this language as opposed to amendment 2 I want to make sure the language that we use in these documents are accessible to people.

And we start slipping too much into Ed speak we may lose our community along the way and we can't afford to do that either.

So that's why I'm in support of amendment one.

So are there other questions or comments on amendment one?

And then what we will do is go to the same You will speak to the amendment two, we will ask questions, make comments about amendment two and then we will go back and vote.

So let's at least, any other questions on amendment one?

I believe Director Peters question.

I understand she did but we haven't had the opportunity to hear about amendment 2 so let's hear about amendment 2 and then I think we can address that question.

That would be what I would propose.

Because I recognize that she had a question out there that hadn't been addressed.

So let's move then to amendment 2. And if Directors Peasley and Patu could speak to amendment two.

Well first of all since I didn't put the language into the motion I would like to read SMART goal number one and then read SMART goal number two with the amended language.

So smart goal number one MTSSA by October 31, 2016 all schools will have established a coherent comprehensive MTSS plan with clearly identified methods for providing core targeted and intensive academic services and supports to every student including progress in and this is where the language is amended.

focusing on African-American males and using teaming and collaboration to implement evidence-based strategies to help all historically underserved students.

Two, using common formative assessment to identify and help address opportunity gaps for historically underserved students including African-American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Latino students.

Three, identifying and progress monitoring specific interventions for students below or above grade level.

And four, collecting data that will inform and validate decision-making reforms which will allow us to successfully achieve our goals.

SMART goal number two MTSSB attitudes beliefs and belongings.

By October 31, 2016 finalize and begin initial implementation of a comprehensive theory of action and strategies applying targeted universalism focused on African-American males improve the system to positively impact outcomes for historically underserved students including African-American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Latino students.

Successful strategies learned from this process will be applied to support the learning of each and every student as needed.

So what I will say and then I will turn it over to Director Patu.

Our objective here is to make it very clear to all of our underserved students that all students will be beneficiaries of this work that although the focus is on African-American males and African-American males are clearly clearly beneficiaries of this work.

It also benefits Native American Pacific Islander and Latino students and the reason that we and Betty and I have revised this a few times but the reason we moved in this direction in our discussions in our work sessions is because I asked staff what is the goal here?

Is the goal to help African-American students only?

And they said no.

The goal is to help all underserved students.

The goal is to use the strategy of targeted universalism to focus on African-American males to develop strategies that will help all students.

And I said then that is what should be written into the goal.

And that was why we started moving in this direction.

Because it is, it conveys an inaccurate message to focus the goal exclusively on African-American males and then to lump all other students of color into the bucket of students of color which is exactly what we have heard tonight.

is unacceptable.

It's unacceptable.

So what this language does is it does not in any way change targeted universalism focused on African-American males, nor does it change the fact that African-American males are intended to be the beneficiaries of this work.

What it does is it clarifies that additional beneficiaries are our other most historically underserved students.

And this is consistent with our race and equity policy, it is consistent with our strategic plan, it is consistent with our mandate which is to meet the needs and provide the supports that each and every one of our students need and deserve.

All right I think Director Patu wanted to speak to this as well but before she does I had a note passed to me and it says that there is a document available on the table at the back of the room that shows the language of the amendment.

If anyone was having trouble following along verbally you can actually see the document in the back of the room so go ahead and help yourself.

And thank you to Teresa Hale for pointing that out.

All right Director Patu.

I actually when I first seen the amendment I guess what I was thinking about was actually looking at the focusing on African-American males and not realizing that as you know I guess I didn't see the fact that we were grouping all everybody together.

The message that I was trying to say is that we focus on African American males and what we learn from the positive outcome that we get from the work that we do with them will actually be utilized to serve the rest of the groups that are underserved.

in terms of in various ways.

So, you know, so that's what's the main reason why when we looked at this, we kept I kept thinking, you know, maybe it needs to say focusing on African American males, but and and not realizing that it's actually separating and grouping everybody together, which that was not the reason why we put this together.

So hopefully you know that when we look at this our goal is to focus on African-American and making sure that there is a success that comes out of targeting that particular group so we can see progress with the rest of our groups.

Thank you.

So questions on this amendment.

Okay I have one and maybe it's how I'm reading it but when I read this amendment it reads to me like an increase in scope of the intent of the work.

And so I'm wondering if you can speak to that.

And I recognize that I read an earlier version and this has been edited since the earlier version but as I was reading it I mean it's longer number one.

But I keep reading into it now that there might be more approaches than just a single approach.

And so can you speak to that?

We did not add any scope to this.

What we did was we articulated the goal so that it clearly stated what staff told us the goal really is.

The goal is to focus on African-American males using targeted universalism to develop strategies that help all historically underserved students.

And then we call out the underserved students that we measure in our and of course on my bar is that same graph that Marty created.

which shows the demographic groups that we measure.

African-American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Latino students.

So there is no change to the scope of work.

And maybe this is an opportunity for someone that feels so inclined or feels like they are able, can someone address the question that Director Peters asked a bit ago now that we've heard, you know we've heard an explanation, had a little bit of clarification on amendment 2. If someone could speak to that I see Director Blanford raising his hand.

I don't know if I am an expert on this subject but first off I would say being cognizant of Director Martin Morris' admonition to avoid education speak, MTSS stands for multi-tiered systems of support.

It is our plan to adequately serve all of our students.

And to Director Peters question about the difference between the two, I believe, I believe that Dr. Weist and Dr. Powell's admonition to us amendment one is aligned with what they would say is targeted universalism.

I believe that amendment two is not for the very reason that Dr. Weist articulated that a focus on all populations gives teachers the opportunity to not be focused on any populations.

And so in my mind it is abundantly clear that if you value the research that is out there, the increasing literature base that suggests that a targeted focus on a specific underperforming population will result in increases for that population as well as other populations as we have seen demonstrated in Montgomery County and in Oakland then amendment one is the direction that you would want to go.

Okay I don't know if Director McLaren had anything in response to Director Peters questions.

That's fine thank you that covered it well.

So why don't we go back to Director Peters because you had asked the question so if you want to follow up.

Okay again I'd like to point out that both of these amendments put language back into the SMART goal that does call out African-American males.

So I think that one way or the other we are going to have that language back in which seems like the direction everybody wants to go in.

So that seems positive.

But what I don't understand to Director Blanford the SMART amendment 2 does say focusing on African-American males.

It does say that straight up.

How does that dilute the the scope.

I'm not interested in getting into a debate.

I stand by the comments that I made in the past.

The language that I heard Director Peasley read into the record included other groups under the banner of serving all populations.

That again is the admonition that Dr. Wiest put forward to us that we need to avoid.

That is a tendency that many school districts fall into and he is saying that if you hope to achieve results similar to those of Montgomery County you need to avoid that tendency.

Okay well I am not asking for debate I am honestly looking for clarity.

So I am going to read the sentence to you and I honestly want to know what is objectionable about this sentence.

I want to do the right thing tonight okay I just want to be clear on it and again I feel we should have discussed this at length in the work session.

I have spoken to a member of the African-American male think tank and I said I really wished we had a presentation from them on this issue.

and I have told them that I would like them to come and make a presentation on this issue to the new board.

Because I feel that there is a lot we need to discuss here so we understand it.

It sounds like we are all on board with this for the most part we just need more explanation.

So I am going to read this sentence one more time.

Focusing on African-American males and using teaming and collaboration to implement evidence-based strategies to help all historically underserved students.

Is that not what the goal is supposed to be doing?

Director McLaren.

So after that statement it says, I'm going to skip over the using common formative assessments part to students to where it talks about historically underserved students including African-American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Latino students.

So at that point we are diluting the specificity of the language.

Alright so we are going to go to Director Peasley next.

The original language as you called out is using common formative assessment to identify and help address opportunity gaps for all historically underserved populations.

So wait a second.

What I did was instead of historically underserved populations I wrote in or changed it to students including African-American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Latino students.

So we are simply defining the underserved populations.

We are not in any manner diluting the focus.

recognizing who these underserved populations are which I think we have an obligation to do.

All right other questions or comments?

Director Peters.

I will just make one last comment.

You know I want to have more explicit language in the SMART goal.

The way it stands right now is very vague so I appreciate both efforts here and so I like having more explicit description of what we are trying to do, how it is going to work and who it will benefit.

But unfortunately I think we will only be able to vote on one or the other tonight.

Other questions or other comments?

Director Blanford.

I will until the end of my school board service and probably to the end of my life remember the conversation that we had, the several conversations that we have had on this issue.

I believe that they were very robust.

They went in one direction and then they went in another.

I believe in my heart of hearts and I believe that the research will bear this out that a focus on a specific population results in better outcomes for all populations than any change in language.

The staff of this organization made a recommendation to us based on the research and based on their prior experience.

This is, like I said, this is work that has been going on for more than a year now.

I've talked to several principals who are very comfortable with the original language, do not want it to change in any manner.

And so therefore I feel comfortable with the language the way it was originally proposed.

Other comments from directors?

Director Peters.

Okay following up from that, yes I understand this work has been going on for a year but it has not been presented to the board and that is a regret of mine because the whole idea behind the targeted universalism was presented to us in the context of these SMART goals not separately as an initiative.

And so what I've learned about this initiative is it's very valuable work and I very much support it.

And so I feel that some members of the board had more background information than the rest of us did and so when the rest of us saw this language appearing in a SMART goal we didn't understand it.

And so I'm glad we're having this robust discussion now and I think we're going to lead to some kind of good change to our goal but I just want to say that this is an important issue that I feel we should have delved into with greater resources before coming to this point.

Alright, are there other comments that anyone wants to make before we take this to a vote because this is where it will be, we'll do them in order.

Right Teresa?

All right.

I'm not seeing anyone else raise their hand.

So with that I'm going to call for a vote and this is a vote on amendment one.

Which is the amendment that Director McLaren put forth.

And so with that let's go ahead and do the roll call please.

Director Patu.

No.

Director Peasley.

No.

Director Peters.

No.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion is passed 4 to 3.

All right so that amendment has passed so I am going to turn to Director Peasley and ask given the outcome of the vote on amendment one would you like to withdraw your previous motion or proceed to a vote?

It is with enormous regret that I withdraw it because I feel that we are doing a disservice our other underserved students by not recognizing them by not identifying them in this SMART goal and I hope that the next board will do a better job with this.

All right so you have withdrawn your amendment.

That is correct.

All right so now we will move on to amendment three and I will I will make the motion for amendment 3 and hope that someone will second it.

So the language reads as follows.

I move that the board amend the rubric language for the 2015-16 superintendent SMART goal number 7 as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

All right thank you.

All right and so just to give a quick little bit of background this came from staff because it had already been through the executive committee and we had recommended the document I did not allow staff to change it without going through an amendment process.

So I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Nyland and ask him to speak to this item please.

Last year goal 5 was one that related to customer service with regard to principals and how well we serve principals and what their customer satisfaction response rate was with regard to district support.

Goal 5 is no longer one of the SMART goals but the indicators that we have from principals as to how well we serve schools.

continues to be a very important indicator for us.

We use it, we take it seriously and we actually did move the needle a bit on that indicator this year.

So it moves, it maintains that indicator and moves it into goal 7.

Alright and for anyone wishing to follow along, Teresa is there a document somewhere in the room that people can see what has been proposed in the rubric?

Alright so you have to look online with it and you will find it on page.

I saw it earlier, the second to the last page which is way up in the 20s, second to the last page.

It's short if I could just read it.

Sure go ahead that would be great.

So the rubric has three levels basic proficient and distinguished.

Basic says that will identify the main concerns that need action plans for areas rating below 70% on the school leader customer satisfaction survey.

Proficient says that will ensure a significant reduction in the number of areas of concern identified by school leader customer satisfaction survey.

will develop and implement action plans with customer input to resolve main concerns in areas rating below 70% on the customer leader, on the school leader customer satisfaction survey.

And then the distinguished area says that we will essentially eliminate all of those areas that are rated below 70% by raising the bar and achieving more than a 70% satisfaction rating for all of those indicators.

Alright thank you for that.

Alright so at this point are there questions on amendment 3?

I'm not seeing any questions.

Are there any comments on amendment 3?

I'm not seeing questions or comments.

So if we could please have the roll call for the vote for amendment three.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

All right thank you.

So now we have passed two of the amendments so if I could ask Director Peasley to read the original motion into the record with the inclusion of as amended by amendments one and three.

The original motion that was on the BAR.

I move that the board one, approve the 2015-16 board governance priorities.

A, close the opportunity gap.

B, improve systems and supports.

C, create culturally inclusive school, family, and community engagement.

And two, Approve the 2015-16 superintendent evaluation instrument as attached to the board action report.

And three, approve the superintendent SMART goals and accompanying rubrics for 2015-16 as attached to the board action report and as amended by amendments one and three.

Four, conduct the superintendent's annual evaluation in November 2016 school board briefing proposed action report.

What was that?

Oh so strike that last.

Strike school board briefing slash proposed action report.

And I second the motion.

Alright so the amended motion has been read into the record and seconded.

Are there any questions or comments at this point?

Kind of last call on the comments.

I'm not seeing any so with that could we please have the roll call Ms. Fodey.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Dr. Nyland would like to make a comment.

Thank you for your patience and perseverance in working through this.

Although it took a lot of time tonight it's taken a lot of time at many of our sessions to talk about the goals that matter most for all of our students.

I applaud the board for keeping the focus on the board governance priorities.

Those are now aligned 100% with the strategic plan.

The SMART goals that you just approved are also aligned with those board governance priorities and the strategic plan.

And there will be one more level below that that I will be working with staff to align other SMART goals that cabinet members have that align with these priorities.

So again the research on overall district improvement is that board superintendents that keep a focus on roughly four goals, four years student achievement start to move the needle.

So we've I think made progress from 12 goals to nine goals to I guess six or seven goals for this coming year.

So again I applaud the board's work and the focus number one on student achievement.

Thank you.

All right so we are now to action item number six and that is the superintendent's employment agreement, employment agreement duration and salary coming from the executive committee.

I move that the board one approve an amendment to the superintendent's employment agreement to extend the terms of his contract by one year to June 2018 as set forth in the attachment to the board action report and two approve an amendment to the superintendent's employment agreement to increase the superintendent's base salary by 5%.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

All right.

Let me find my file here.

All right so I will make some kind of high-level comments and then we will open it up for discussion.

So as part of the 2014-15 superintendent evaluation cycle an action was approved to conduct the annual performance evaluation which we submitted earlier in the evening during the board comments.

I read it into the record.

as well as to address the terms of the superintendent's contract with Seattle Public Schools.

In October I was authorized by the full board to address these items with the assistance of Director Peters.

The process followed was as follows, the process that we followed is as follows.

That evening in executive session we got a consult with the full board about terms of the contract and that was primarily focused on salary and contract length.

Based on that discussion Director Peters and I met with Dr. Nyland came to an agreement regarding the changes to the contract of course pending approval of the full board.

I reported back in executive session at the beginning of our session to discuss the performance of a public employee and I followed the consensus instruction from the board and there are no further changes that were added in terms of the contract.

There were some changes in the bar but the contract proposal is unchanged from that time.

Since this did not go through a committee it's submitted to the full board for consideration.

Compensation level as I think was discussed at some point if not I'll cover it again.

Set at 5% that's comprised of two components 3% was the COLA that every employee received from the state and the second was the 2% raised value.

And the contract length extends an additional year but unchanged is the obligation around the 12-month commitment should the board decide to end the contract without cause.

That piece of it is unchanged.

And I just had another thought and it wasn't written down.

I'm going to stop with that it will come back to me and I will open it up to what questions directors have.

I think Director Peasley had some items that she was going to share by way of accomplishments over the past year.

Well in addition to what was called out in the narrative that Director Karr read earlier These are more detailed accomplishments of 2015. Seattle Public Schools overall results on the smarter balanced assessment outperformed the state and we believe they outperformed the state more than they outperformed the state in past years although I'm not sure that analysis has been completed.

The work, our work as a, okay.

Not quite sure which ones to read.

We have 11 here.

There has been focused work on closing opportunity gaps.

There has been focused work on greater social emotional support for students.

The district is no longer on the federal watch list for special education.

We met 40 out of 40 elements that basically took us off that list.

There have been course corrections and alignment of the board and staff around the strategic plan.

Our legislators found $25 million for us to put towards capital in order to meet some of our capacity needs.

HR was able to do early hiring for special ed and elementary schools.

We had a clean audit and a good bond rating.

We created a civil rights office to address Title IX and harassment, intimidation and bullying issues to ensure the safety of all of our students.

at school and on school field trips.

And the trend is towards, we are moving in the right direction and we are emerging from a period of extreme underfunding so there is still room for improvement.

But Dr. Nyland has moved us significantly in the right direction in one year, 15 months

Alright with that let's open it up to questions or comments from directors.

Director Patu.

I actually did all the things that Director Peasley had said concerning our superintendent.

I appreciate all the work and accomplishment that you have successfully accomplished.

And I also really feel comfortable in terms of what direction we are going.

But I would be remiss if I voted for this due to the fact that there are so many of our schools out there that are inadequately funded so I will not vote yes on this.

Other directors?

Comments?

Director Peters.

Okay fair warning this is a statement so it's a couple pages long so settle in with your wine and popcorn.

Okay well this is an important issue you know evaluating the superintendent deciding you know whether we want to offer a raise and an extension and I have given it a great deal of thought.

The timing for this decision is unfortunate because we are going through a time of austerity in our district.

So here we are in a time when we have cut teachers in some classrooms and corralled kids into portables and we spent all summer negotiating a fair salary for our educators only to fail to reach an agreement before school began.

A raise and an extension is a difficult sell in these current times of funding scarcity and the consequent austerity measures that the district has imposed on or passed along to our students, families and schools.

The superintendent's new offer to donate all of the proposed raise is a welcome gesture.

But we do need to remember that at no time has the public or teachers or principals had a chance to weigh in on the current board's leadership choice.

As some may recall last year at this time Director Patu and I asked for community engagement and an interim contract to allow for greater community involvement and a chance for us all to better acquaint ourselves with the work and mettle of Dr. Nyland.

But that was not supported by the majority.

Yet arguably the public has weighed in and the response to the direction and leadership of the district at this time is not what it could be and not what it should be.

I cannot ignore the unhappiness in the community.

Some do pass along from the state's failure to fully fund public education but some is due to the district's own decisions.

we all need to do better.

If I were to do a year in review I see a mixed record for the district.

Some accomplishments and improvements for sure.

Tonight we, I wrote this before the vote, we were on the verge of a historic vote or action to better serve the needs of our adolescent students and we indeed passed the bell times resolution that does just that.

Our special education compliance is being improved to the point where we will be able to receive some funding for that that had been withheld.

There has been an honest attempt to address hiring at the school level in a timely manner.

We are moving away from school suspensions for our elementary school students.

We are openly discussing the importance of meeting the needs of our most disadvantaged students.

We did finally make a statement about the excesses of standardized testing and the inequities and problems with the Smarter Balanced tests.

But this is also a year where we experienced the first teacher strike in nearly three decades.

Disruptive October staffing adjustments due to unexpected enrollment trends as well as the closure of what some have testified to be a life-saving school which is Middle College at High Point.

And the loss of esteemed principals, one to the city and one in resignation.

And the related system failures that contributed to this outcome have all weighed heavily on our communities just to name a few issues.

It was a year in which the district's data dashboard shows positive family responses to satisfaction with the district dipping from an already low 39.2% to 36.6%.

And teachers did not feel heated when they expressed concerns about the new Smarter Balanced test and the board majority's vote to pursue, to empower the superintendent to pursue an injunction against them at a time when good faith negotiation was supposed to still be pursued.

This was even before the strike began.

It was a year in which the board approved and proven K-5 math materials are apparently being shelved in the name of alignment to common core, an unproven experiment mandated by the state.

It was a year in which conscientious educators, principals, students and families rose up and said enough to excessive standardized testing.

We needed to respond to their concerns in a much more supportive manner.

But as many of you recall the attempt by Director Patu and myself to bring a sane approach to the Smarter Balanced test was met with a fair bit of opposition.

Meanwhile a record number of Seattle students opted out of testing this past year.

So I believe there is a lot of mending that needs to be done in this district.

I call for a new era of empathy and cooperation where remediation and conciliation are our first remedies and outcomes rather than intimidation and lawsuits.

I call for authentic engagement and listening.

to and with our families, our students, our educators, the greater community.

We should not be adversaries.

Fundamental needs of students and teachers should not have to wait until collective bargaining agreements are negotiated.

We have a state legislature that is earning daily fines for failing to fund our students.

This has trickled down in various austerity measures that have impacted the classroom in the form of large class sizes, uprooted teachers, limited transportation options, outdated curricular materials, lack of counselors.

Many of these funding shortfalls come to us from the state's failures but some are decisions that are made by the district which frankly should be reviewed.

I recognize and appreciate Dr. Nyland's accomplishments and contributions.

Some internal and lesser known by the public and reflected in the board's evaluation comments.

But I'm also aware of what a rocky year it has been and how difficult it has been for students and families and teachers.

So in this year where families are told that the district cannot afford two start times instead of three, some high school students have to choose between breakfast and bus fare to get to school.

It is difficult to make a strong case for increasing the salary of one of the highest paid public officials in the state.

All of these circumstances make it difficult to enhance the superintendent's salary at this time.

Yet I am grateful for Dr. Nyland's recognition of our circumstances and his offer to return his raise to the district.

It shows a connection to the community that I think is a very positive one.

Before I conclude I want to make a couple of points about process.

In the future I propose that the board conduct a superintendent evaluation first and as transparently as possible before broaching any discussion of contract extension or raise.

That is the appropriate sequence.

Also I agree with Director Karr that we should reconsider conducting the superintendent evaluation in November when we are on the verge of potentially switching over to new board members every two years when there is an election.

June may be the better time for such an assessment.

We should also consider what it means to extend a superintendent's contract into the term of new board members.

Yes it can bring stability but it brings some fiscal liabilities as well.

Also, I don't understand the circular argument that the district must continually raise the superintendent's salary in order to attract and retain top candidates.

Because it hasn't been borne out by the district's history.

We've seen superintendents leave despite how generously the district pays them.

And what is to stop the district from renegotiating a new salary level with the next superintendent?

Nothing really.

So, I am conflicted tonight.

I want my vote to be one for austerity.

I am committed to working with Superintendent Nyland in the coming years and do everything I can to ensure a smooth transition for the new board members who are joining us at the next meeting.

And I remain conflicted about this vote but I do appreciate Dr. Nyland offering to return his raise.

Thank you.

All right other directors have any comments that they would like to make?

Director Peasley.

I would just like to point out that this raise was proposed by the school board and not by Dr. Nyland.

And I would also like to point out that 3% of the 5% is a state COLA.

So, the raise, the salary increase that the board is proposing is essentially 2% on top of a COLA.

It is below the district average and the process we used was we looked at the district average of salary increases for this year and it was 5.8% which was beyond what we could budget towards a salary increase for Dr. Nyland.

So, we brought it down to 5%.

I would also like to point out that I'm not going to go down through the entire list that Director Peters raised but the staff allocations, the staffing adjustments that were made in October is something we do every single year.

The teacher strike was in the plans, WEA was planning a teacher strike here.

We were able to resolve the strike without legal action.

I think that's all I'm going to say right now.

Other directors that have comments?

Director Martin Morris and then we will go to Director McLaren.

So one of the reasons I am supportive of this is the fact that yes indeed Seattle does have the highest paid superintendent.

We are twice as large as the next largest school district in the state.

We are far more complex.

We have thousands and thousands of employees.

that work for us and because of the size, because of the complexity, it is warranted in my book to have the salary reflective of the complexity of this work.

No one obviously goes into education to make money, I mean none of us did when we got there.

we should have a salary that is reflective of the work.

I think what we are offering is reflective of that and as we go forward and try to attract other talent in the future this gives us a good base to work from and quite frankly yes you may find people that want to, that are willing to work for less money but you may not want them.

And so you have to think, you know they would use Seattle as a stepping stone.

And that is not what the board intends, that is not what the board wants and so that is one of the reasons why I am supportive of this action.

Director McHenry.

So I appreciate especially that that last bit of context because I think it is something that is easily lost if you don't understand the national scene and the incredible challenges of finding a really really outstanding superintendent.

So as far as I'm concerned this is a well-reasoned and researched decision.

When we hired Dr. Nyland he identified clear areas of needed improvement, student achievement and equity, special education, human resources, customer service.

In all four areas he's demonstrated measurable improvements in the district.

It's work that got done because of his leadership and so I'm very hopeful for the district to continue on this course with someone who will stay around and see it through.

So I'm very much in favor of continuing the contract and adding the whatever the word is.

I just lost it.

Anyway you get my drift.

Thank you.

Any other comments from anyone?

All right I will just add a couple of comments here at the end.

So it is extremely important that we attract and retain high-quality superintendents.

Dr. Nyland is a seasoned superintendent, he's got a track record for success in turning around other school districts and as Director McLaren just identified he's got a core set of focus areas that are squarely aligned with the needs of Seattle Public Schools and we are making progress for the first time in some time.

And so I'm very pleased with what we have seen by way of progress in Seattle Public Schools.

And I will as I read in the earlier comments I acknowledge that it is not, all problems are not solved right.

I mean we know that we have extensive work that needs to be done in terms of relationships and that message has been sounded clearly.

That will be the challenge as the new board comes on and the work continues in Seattle Public Schools.

I will read the numbers to you again in the last 10 years.

6 superintendents, 7 chief academic officers, 5 chief operating officers, 9 chief financial officers, 6 chief information officers, 8 human resource directors, 9 special ed directors, 5 general counsel, 3 deputy superintendents, 3 assistant superintendents of capital or school operations.

It does not serve the district or the students in this district or this community well to continue to turn over leadership.

When you find someone that can do a good job for you we need to find a way to continue to retain them.

Having a contract extension considered annually and a reasonable pay raise that is benchmarked to market and market in the case of Seattle Public Schools while other school districts in Washington are interesting.

The relative benchmarks are places like Portland and San Francisco and Minneapolis and Anchorage.

Those are the benchmark school districts for Seattle Public Schools.

We have looked at that data and what we are putting forth here is competitive.

And so I would just close by saying you know I think anybody that has watched my work over the last eight years I am the biggest tightwad here.

I mean I have had to turn over every rock to find money to close budget gaps.

I would never throw money around recklessly.

But I do believe there are times that you have to spend money where it is a wise investment and so I do believe that this is one of those places and I am most happy to support the extension and the salary increase.

And so with that at 935 let's go ahead and call the roll on this item please.

Director Martin Morris.

Aye.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

No.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion has passed by a vote of 6-1.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right item number seven race to the top project P1 teaching and learning round three Seattle teacher residency and this is coming out of C&I.

So Clover Codd chief partnership officer there have been.

Wait wait I have to read.

I know it is past our bedtime too but you still have to wait for us to read it into the record.

I will read it really fast.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to accept raise to the top funding in the amount of $338,000 allocated to partially support the Seattle teacher residency program.

I second the motion.

All right and before Ms. Codd jumps in I want to hear from C&I and that would be Director Blanford.

This item was considered by the curriculum and instruction committee on the 12th of October and was moved forward for approval.

All right and so I said Ms. Codd but it's Dr. Codd so Dr. Codd please speak to this item.

I was just going to say that there have been no changes since introduction.

All right great.

All right so questions from any of the directors?

Radio silence.

Any comments from directors?

All right Director McLaren.

I just have to give a shout out to the fact that we are able to continue supporting the teacher residency with this grant.

It is financially it is a heavy lift and the only way we can do it is through grants but it is a fantastic contribution to the quality of the teachers who are coming into our district and to their their tenure, their long-term tenure in the district.

So hooray for the teacher residency.

Any other comments?

Director Blanford.

I would just say there is a connection between this receiving these grant funds and I believe particularly the African-American male initiative, the language of that.

The research would suggest that more diverse teaching cores are more effective in educating underperforming populations.

The mission in my mind of the Seattle teacher residency beyond preparing really strong teachers is diversifying our teaching pool and so I see a synergy or a confluence of interest that is I believe beneficial to Seattle Public Schools so I am happy to support this.

Any other comments?

All right so with that let's call the roll please Ms. Fodey.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Alright so that brings us to the end of the action items and we now have five introduction items.

And why don't we start with introduction item number one amending board policy number 3246 repealing board policy number 3247 and that's coming out of C&I so we will look to Ms. Bennett to speak to this.

Good evening we are bringing this motion forward based on new legislation that was put into effect and Mr. Boyle will come up shortly to speak to what those legislative changes are.

I just wanted to call out there are a team of people working on this project including members of the special education department, the operations department, Legal policy, the board office, the student civil rights office as well as safety and security as well as coordinated school health.

You will see many members sitting behind me.

The policy that is in front of you, the amended 3246 is based on the WASDA model policy.

with a few tweaks.

There will be a procedure that goes along with this policy.

It's in development.

We are working on some of the systems in order to be able to implement this policy.

We anticipate bringing that procedure to the curriculum instruction committee in December.

We have started to engage and recognize the need to continue to engage with our stakeholders around this topic including the special education PTSA, the Seattle Council PTSA and our principals.

I did want to call out a few edits were made based on feedback since C&I.

And we also called that out in the bar as well.

For consistency of language a couple of tweaks were made with regards to when it referred to reasonable versus physical force.

We also removed the word district when it referenced property and we separated a paragraph into two because the feedback we heard was that the paragraph was confusing combined together so we split it into two.

But I did want to call out those changes since the C&A committee.

since they were made since the C&I committee.

I will now invite Mr. Boyd to the podium to explain the legislative basis for this motion.

Ronald Boyd, assistant general counsel.

I would just like to inform the board that this policy and the subsequent changes were guided by the changes in the law and the policy as proposed at this point is a direct reflection of those changes in the law.

The main change that's important to know is that in the past whereas the restraint and isolation requirements applied only to special ed students now applies to all students within the district which is a positive change so that we will now essentially be required to get data that will be helpful to us.

The law also, the changes in the law also refined the definitions for restraint and isolation.

An interesting thing I think is a reflection of just the change in the times is that it recognized the fact that isolation does not include voluntary isolation of a student if that is a coping skill that they have.

makes the distinction that isolation does not include positive behavior interventions that sometimes are utilized that are helpful to a student like taking a timeout.

And then to just speak to the changes that occurred after committee as to the change to the definition of property or the way that property was stated.

Prior the policy as proposed stated risk of harm to district property.

District was taken off as a result of communication we received from principals stating that sometimes other property is at risk.

It could be teacher property within a school so if the students are out in the community possibly at a museum or other environment we would need to protect that property as well and that is also from the legal perspective that is still consistent with the law that guides the definition of imminent harm.

which is one of the guiding laws for this policy and the law that backs it up.

Also the other big change with the law which is very significant to the district and is a procedural, a lot of procedural decisions for us to make relates to the reporting requirements.

It requires that starting January 1st of 2016 and every year thereafter the district will report a summary of these interventions, the isolation restraint to the state and that those summaries include a lot of data that we have to determine as a district and the procedure in detail how it's going to be collected and the responsibility of who will be doing that data collection reporting.

Any questions right now?

All right questions from directors.

Oh I'm sorry can I have the committee recommendation thank you for the prompt.

So this was reviewed by the curriculum and instruction committee on November 9 and the committee moved the item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Great.

All right thank you.

All right now questions from directors.

Questions or comments from directors.

I know I have none.

Sorry.

Director McLaren.

I think I was clear.

So my pertinent comment is my appreciation for the concern of staff with engaging with parents and other advocates and getting feedback and input already making some changes and obviously being available to continue working on this.

So thank you.

Other questions from directors?

All right and should new directors or directors elect have questions because they will of course be the ones voting on it they will have an opportunity to reach out to you between now and the time there is a vote.

All right thank you.

And that is true of all of these items.

All right thank you very much.

Okay the next item number two of five approval of board policy 2170 repealing board policy C48.00, C49.00, C52.00 and board procedure C52.01 from C&I.

It's a mouthful.

It is a mouthful.

I'm Mary Davison I'm the program manager for career and technical education and I'd like to first of all thank a couple of my dedicated staff that have hung in there to support me tonight so Roxanne Trees and Jane Hendrickson, two of our pathway specialists.

So this motion is to repeal three policies to consolidate them into one which is the WSSDA model 2170. The old language and the old policies were in 1983 and 2007. This new policy reflects the language from vocational education for example to career and technical education.

That career and technical education leads to certification or credentials that are state or nationally recognized by trades, industries or other professional associations as necessary for employment or advancement in that field and or allow students to earn dual credit for high school and college through tech prep which is A lot like either college in the high school and or running start, advanced placement or other agreements or programs that lead to workforce entry, state or nationally approved apprenticeships or postsecondary education in a related field.

The new policy would reflect the updated information from legislation as well as address any internal audit finding.

An internal audit finding that was presented to audit and finance on March 17 and April 17. The finding recommended that this policy be rewritten.

What else did I want to say?

When our research we reviewed the WASDA model.

We reviewed policies from Spokane, Tacoma, and the Evergreen school districts.

We distributed our drafts and updates to our general advisory committee, our health and human services advisory committee, and our Seattle academy foundation committee which are the longest-running advisory committees that we have in career and technical education.

for their review and recommendations and all advisory committees supported the new policy.

All I have to say.

Are there questions?

All right so thank you, thank you.

Let's hear from Director McLaren from C&I.

So the curriculum and instruction committee reviewed this on November 9 and moved it forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

So I will just comment that I noticed that one of the policies is dated 1983 so I am glad to see that we are making some changes there.

So what questions do directors have?

I will just say thank you to you and your team for staying here this late.

I bet you when you said yes you didn't know you'd be here until almost 10 o'clock.

So we thank you.

It's great to be able to see some of the team members that are behind the work so thank you.

Other questions or comments?

Director Patu.

Certification, so this actually will allow the skill centers to able to give kids the actual completion you know performance where they can actually use that for a job?

Many of our skill center in fact all of our skill center programs lead to either a certification and or college credit.

and or a pre-apprenticeship model into the apprenticeship field so it's a pre-apprenticeship activities are involved.

So are they getting certifications for every skills that they actually complete?

I believe so in all of our skill center programs yes.

Okay thank you.

Other questions or comments?

Alright well thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you to you guys again for staying late and being here as this was presented.

Thank you.

Alright action item, intro item number three annual approval of written plans for alternative learning experience programs or schools coming from C&I and we lost our C&I person so hopefully she is coming right back.

Alright so let's go ahead and hear from you Ms. Heath.

Good evening Shawna Heath Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction.

So tonight per state Washington administrative code they require that the school board annually approve each school or program that uses an alternative learning experience model.

School boards must review the district policy authorizing these alternative learning programs.

So what we are doing this evening is we are asking you to review and approve, well we are introing for review and approval of programs and schools using the ALE or the alternative learning experience model and their plans as the requirement that I mentioned earlier.

There are, there is a 45 item checklist with requirements that are annually reviewed by the schools per the Washington Administrative Code and they are reviewed to ensure that we are meeting all the criteria.

In addition there is board policy that requires six of those items be documented.

Those are all attached to the bar at this time in the form of individual school reports.

Each one of them does state that they have met the six narrative responses or six questions in narrative response and the 45 item checklist.

The two schools are interagency and the cascade partnerships.

Tonight Ms. Andrews was not able to stay but Mr. Gonder from the cascade partnership is here to answer any questions for you.

All right so why don't we hear from our C&I chair before, our delegate C&I chair for when Director Blanford was away.

So this was considered by C&I on the 9th of November and the committee moved the motion forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Correct.

All right so now let's open it up to questions and I thought I saw hands over here.

Why don't we go to Director Martin-Morris.

This is more kind of I guess a semi-technical question.

Is the cascade parent partnership considered a school or a program?

We are considered a school sir.

Okay and same as interagency then.

Okay.

It was just because sometimes they get, because in the language it talks about it as a program some places when it actually is a school.

Thank you.

Other questions?

I notice the list continues to get shorter, right?

I mean it used to have four schools, I think Nova was on there and Cleveland was on there.

Who was the fifth one?

Oh Middle College, okay.

Alright so it kind of gets shorter.

Are schools opting out of the designation of ALE?

I mean I'm thinking specifically about Cleveland.

Michael Tolley associate superintendent for teaching and learning.

There was a period of time that schools like Cleveland high school used the alternative learning experience model.

That's back when the state required 150 hours of planned instructional time per credit.

When Cleveland moved to an eight-period academic program we were not able to meet that requirement under the traditional model so we moved to the alternative learning experience model to stay in compliance.

Although the school itself maintained a more traditional master schedule but we went to an eight-period AB block schedule.

And then what about Nova?

I mean that surprises me that Nova is not on there but maybe I'm not remembering the

So NOVA was on there for a period of time and in fact there is a renewed interest with NOVA to move that direction.

NOVA was moved off of that list, there was just a few years back that the state decided to fund alternative learning experience schools at a reduced rate, 80 to 90%.

I remember.

It was at that point that we moved NOVA off the list.

I remember that thank you for that refresher.

But we have restored that funding to full at this point.

Okay.

Other questions from directors on this item?

All right I think that we will call it good on that item for tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you for staying late.

All right item 4 acceptance of teacher principal evaluation program or TPEP I grant 664 from C&I.

Good evening, Clever Codd, Chief Partnership Officer.

So I'm here tonight to present the TPEP I grant and ask that you authorize the superintendent to accept $261,322 to support teacher professional development activities.

Just for a little bit of context the 2015 legislature appropriated $5 million solely for the provision of training teachers in the teacher and principal evaluation program.

Each district in the state is allocated an amount based upon the percentage of the state's total teachers.

The Seattle Public Schools total allocation for the 15-16 school year is $261,322.

We do have to apply for these funds through the state's iGrant application process.

It is not a competitive grant but you still have to apply for them and be approved.

Of the $261,000 we have budgeted as such $78,000 for extra time for teachers face-to-face training which would be outside of the school day.

Roughly $10,000 for supplies and materials and $155,000 for contracts and services which will support the development and production of an online interactive video module series which would support the TPEP areas of goal setting, how to use formative assessments to show student growth and learning, how to collect evidence that is aligned to the rubric, and how to work with your principal in the summative evaluation.

All right and can we hear from our delegate C&I chair for this item.

So this also was reviewed on November 9 and the committee moved this item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Great.

Questions from directors?

Questions or comments from directors?

Looks like no.

So we will say thank you to you for staying late and we will move to the last agenda item.

Number five for introduction amendment to science warehouse lease agreement at Seattle distribution center coming from audit and finance.

I'm Lewis Carlson I'm in property management I take care of lease operations.

This is a renewal for a lease that we have for the Science Materials Distribution Center.

We've had a distribution center now since 1999. This renews it for another five years.

All right and with that let's hear from our NF chair.

This did come before audit and finance on November 12 with a recommendation for full approval by the board.

All right and so I will ask directors what questions they have on this item.

I'll only make the short story that about six years ago at about this time of the night I asked about 400 questions on this item.

It drove everybody bonkers and I promised myself I would never ask questions on this one again because I was thorough.

So I don't see, Director Martin-Morse.

So this isn't a question, it's more of a comment for those that weren't in audit and finance because there is a little bit of background.

We leased this space and leased property in the City of Seattle right now is incredibly hard to come by.

We cannot combine this space with other spaces that we have because of the demands, the number of square foot footage like moving it here wouldn't be able to accommodate the items that are in the warehouse.

So we have to keep that space.

Although we're locked in for five years we're not actually locked in and that's the other key element.

We are allowed to sublet so if we do find a new space for us that is at a lesser price or is better suited to what our needs are we can sublet that space for the remainder of the lease.

So the landlord is incredibly accommodating to us.

I just wanted to publicly say that just so it was out there.

Any other questions?

All right.

So as there is no further business before the board the meeting stands adjourned at 9.59pm.

must be on.