School Board Meeting May 29, 2019 Part 3

And we are back on the record.

Business action items C 1 high school science instructional materials adoption.

This came before C&I April 23rd and April 30th for.

Consideration.

Motion please.

I need to take a deep breath for this one.

I move that the Seattle School Board approve the high school science adoption committee's recommendation to adopt carbon time for instructional materials for Seattle Public Schools.

High School Biology A Bio A science classrooms the Bio B curriculum developed by Seattle Public Schools in collaboration with university partners for instructional materials for Seattle Public Schools High School Biology B Bio B science classrooms the Chem A curriculum developed by Seattle Public Schools in collaboration with university partners for instructional materials for Seattle Schools High School Chemistry A Chem A science classrooms and peer physics through evidence empowerment through reasoning for instruction materials for Seattle Public Schools high school physics A and B.

Phys A and B science classrooms.

I further move that the Seattle School Board authorize the superintendent to purchase carbon time as the core instructional materials for Seattle Public Schools high school biology A bio A science classrooms to approve the district developed curriculum for bio B as the core instructional materials for Seattle Public Schools high school biology B bio B science classrooms To approve the district developed curriculum for CHEM A as the core instruction materials for Seattle Public Schools high school chemistry A CHEM A science classrooms and to purchase PEER as the core instruction materials for Seattle Public Schools high school high school 1 physics A and B physics A and B science classrooms for an amount not to exceed one million and thirty four thousand dollars one hundred.

Not to exceed one million thirty four thousand one hundred and thirty two dollars covering licensing through school years 2019 20 through 20 27 28. Second.

Absolutely.

Chief academic officer Diane DeBacker take it away.

Thank you President Harris and board directors before answering questions about the bars that are before you tonight.

I'd like to make a few points that apply to all of them.

And again I promise you that I'll only do this one time.

You will not have to hear this three times.

As you know tonight we are presenting you three bars and by doing so we are proposing to adopt a K through 12 science program in Seattle Public Schools.

We've confirmed that we have the funding to do the high school the middle school and a phased in approach at the elementary school.

Our current system of disjointed out of date science in K-12 is not because of action but rather a lack of action.

And it's not by the teachers who individually try to bring the best science they can to students nor the local communities who contribute to funding to fill gaps nor to the curriculum assessment and instruction department who have made attempts to bring science up to standard.

You'll know and you'll remember that with the K5 English language arts middle school and middle school math the current board has made moves to make up for the prior lack of commitment to improving curriculum in Seattle by past boards.

This board tonight's board has the opportunity to remedy that lack of action and to bring our what we consider a very poor standard of science up to date.

We believe that the focus tonight should be on the best curriculum for students and not about the extraneous conversations about what happened prior to the work of the current adoption committees.

Since introduction as you know we have answered many many questions about the background and the information leading up to the adoption.

I'd like to remind the board that your decision tonight is about selecting the best science programs for Seattle Public School students.

The recommendations came to you from three different adoption committees who painstakingly spent over 4000 hours collectively to evaluate the large number of curriculums.

The implication of not acting tonight will mean that there will be real children in real classrooms that will not get science education for at least another year or not at least up to date science education.

The 2013 science standards and the new materials will prepare students for what science is today and for their future in college and the workplace.

Our out of date science materials were current 30 years ago but sadly they are out of date today.

And this leads me to a point that I think has been lost in the conversations that we had previously.

Tonight you the Seattle School Board has the opportunity that few boards have and that's in one board meeting to make a decision that will create a cohesive continuous progression of science learning start starting from kindergarten through 12th grade.

This would put Seattle Public Schools as a leader in science education in the region science education that will prepare students to take their place in one of the leading STEM economies in the nation.

We of course will answer any remaining questions that you have for each of the bars but we believe that we have provided you with information over the past several months.

Finally we want to thank you as board directors for the hours that you have spent combing through all of those materials for the time that you have spent responding to e-mails for the time that you have spent examining the curriculum as we've had the kids here visiting different schools.

Your job is not an easy job.

and the decisions that you make weigh heavily on your minds and we know that and we acknowledge that.

As we answer questions tonight I want you to know that you will have with you and the assistance of Mary Margaret Welch our science program manager of Dr. Kyle Kenosha executive director of curriculum assessment and instruction and Ronald Boy will be here to answer any of the questions that may surround any legal issues.

And I would expect that if it.

Technology comes up you'll probably hear from John Crowell as well.

So with that we stand for questions.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues Director Geary and then Director Burke.

Couple of questions.

While we're calling this a high school science adoption this is actually also an adoption of materials for our highly capable middle schoolers as well isn't that correct.

Yes it is correct.

If you'd like more clarification on that Mary Margaret would be happy to answer you.

Yes thank you.

Thank you.

Mary Margaret Welch science program manager.

So as we do in our district for science our students in middle school are two years accelerated which means our seventh grade HC students are using the same instructional material as our Phys A Chem A. Those teachers also have been for the last eight years.

fully collaborate with high school teachers.

That's so we ensure that all of our middle school students in grade 7 have the same experience as high school and they're fully prepared.

Likewise in 8th grade biology is instructional material that is used for so this will be your carbon time and teacher developed instructional materials will be used for 8th grade students.

And Director Mack I'm looking at you so with regard to our sixth grade students because the primary areas of focus will be physical science for seven and biology for eight.

What we've done is we've taken all the instructional materials that have to do with earth and space science and we have put those in grade six so that our 8C students will have a full complement of all the science curricula.

Thank you.

And just one other.

Are any of these under number one.

Have we had them into our district pursuant to waiver.

None of those were on a waiver.

None of none of the none of the proposed high school.

None of the high school proposed.

Have we used these instructional materials.

Yes we have.

Because in the void of having nothing our teachers have been bag borrowing and stealing all kinds of things.

So some of these have been used by our teachers just not pursuant to a waiver.

Exactly.

That's correct.

So.

All right.

So teachers have had experiences in honestly everything that's on that sheet.

OK.

Thank you.

Burke.

I have I have four questions in all.

So the first one are the for this sort of blanket question for all of the high school programs and considerations are the assessments for these taken online or are they taken via another method.

The state assessments are taken online.

No for the the instructional materials we're talking about adopting.

the formative assessments or unit assessments or.

Summative assessments are the state assessment is taken online.

Right.

I'm asking about for the materials we're adopting.

Proposed adoption.

Right.

So the question the answer is some of these are have assessments that are online mostly because our teachers have put them online and to Schoology and so have been using online resources to be able to give our students immediate feedback.

So the important benefit to having online assessments is that students Teachers get immediate feedback that they can give to their students.

What I'd like to say is sometimes what happens with assessments instead of being formative they become punitive because it's been too long from the time the teacher can authentically grade one hundred and fifty pages in order to give students feedback.

So we've put many of our assessments online but through our Schoology platform.

Thank you.

So do I guess.

Is any student information I guess our individual students logged in and is that information shared with the providers or is that as you mentioned on Schoology where they're working within our system.

It's within Schoology within our system.

So we have actually collected some data through our carbon time affiliation but no student names have been associated with the students.

So as part of our research project with Michigan State University.

We've actually provided some of the student assessment data so that we could learn if those assessments were actually working on behalf of our learners.

But none of the student data has been impacted at all because it has to go through our portal and we have a clever portal that keeps our kids safe.

Perfect.

Thank you.

So I guess that probably negates the question.

We do not need data sharing agreements for any of these.

That is correct.

Thank you.

So my last question different topic what should be the board expectation for feedback on implementation.

You've got a little bit of that described in the BAR but it'd be great if you could highlight for the board and the public you know how we're launching in this great new sort of journey and what that feedback looks like.

I think one of the components that we've spoken about several times is the lack of assessments that we've had in science all the way K through 12. So honestly when you've asked me questions about information regarding our students I don't have any information except high stakes assessments.

Grade 5, grade 8, grade 11 is not enough to give us an understanding if the instructional materials are useful.

As part of our collaboration, teachers bring student work to the table.

Together, we assess student data, we learn if our assessment tools are working, and we're actually meeting the needs of all learners.

And that means that we look at our historically underserved students as well as our highly capable students.

And in those conversations we make a determination not only about the effectiveness of the assessments but how are our children doing.

We owe that to our community to give that level of feedback.

Without assessments prior to we haven't been able to.

You have my commitment if we move forward with this that we will continue as our collaboration of colleagues to continue to collect that data and have those conversations together.

Director DeWolf Director.

Thank you.

Director Patu Director Director Patu Director Mack Director DeWolf.

What kind of support are we actually giving to kids that speaks a second language.

We all know that science has really hard terminology.

And so what kind of support are we giving them.

So what we have done in through our collaborations primarily through middle school we've learned a lot of structures and strategies around English language learner support.

We're taking those elements of our learning from middle school and we're applying them into the high school.

So we have English language learning strategies that are definitely a part of.

what we need to fully integrate into our program.

So at our middle school level and I know we're talking high school but we have pieces that actually read to students in other language.

So we need to bring those and fully flesh those into our high school program.

At this moment we don't have those resources because a lot of this has been our internal developed.

And so those are commitments that we need to continue to make on behalf of our English language learners.

My questions are around the budget and what we are actually committing to with these bars and especially in the future years and what how that plays out.

The we're here in the high school one but to understand the whole map I'd like to understand are what we've already proposed for next year's budget.

And since the following year hasn't actually been even discussed yet how future boards may not.

eradicate the budget for actually implementing these things.

So to kind of drill into the specifics of understanding that I had a conversation earlier with Ms. Berge.

Hello.

Thanks for coming up here.

And I was looking at our budget book for this year.

which had originally for curriculum and textbooks put five hundred five million eight hundred and sixty one thousand dollars for curriculum.

But that was cut this year.

Correct.

Correct.

Right.

So our current year budget for this year that we're in right now was cut to three million eight hundred and fifty.

Correct.

Right.

And next year what's being allocated is one million eight hundred 58000 is that is that correct that we it's under two million dollars for curriculum.

Correct.

That's the current budget.

OK.

So that's for what we have for this coming year.

So then on all of the bars they say a year one a year two year three is year one this year or next year.

Generally speaking I mean it depends on when the expenditure is going to occur.

So we've taken them together.

So the history of the curriculum budget we had adopted a budget with a little over five million dollars in it for 18 19. In January the board directors had said we will have a total amount available of five million dollars for both 18 19 and 19 20. That was the total amount that the board reached consensus on.

And then in May the board restored another seven hundred thousand dollars.

So for 18 19 and 19 20 there's a total of five point seven million dollars available for curriculum.

That gives us enough money to meet our obligations for K 5 ELA middle school math.

Other things that we have adopted the strategy that we've been taking and this is in the BAR is when we are if these adoptions are approved the nine year cost for high school will be set aside out of that amount of money out of the five point seven million dollars we're holding it in escrow basically to fund and commit to the nine year cost.

So that's set aside and budgeted for both high school and middle school for elementary school.

We have enough to do phase one which is the first one point one million dollars.

There is not funding yet identified for the remaining out years for elementary.

per the bar and the bar talks about that as well in detail.

So we structure out the annual costs for each year.

This district districts generally have a hard time committing especially in crisis to funding curriculum.

So the way we've been doing it the last few years at least since I've been here is once we adopt something we're putting enough money to get us through nine years of that curriculum adoption.

It's set aside and that's committed to and that's it.

But just for clarification to understand what the bars say in terms of year one year two year three that doesn't actually track.

You're saying that we're holding it in escrow out of this year's budget.

Out of the five point seven million dollars that we have set aside for 18 19 and 19 20. We have identified enough money to pay for years 1 through 9 for high school years 1 through 9 for middle school and the first year for the 19 20 costs for elementary school.

That's the one point one four zero number in the bar that's been identified as resources currently available.

And that's where we're at.

OK.

So then the PD or the curriculum specialist which is different than the curriculum.

So that comes out of the curriculum and textbook budget.

Right.

But then we also are.

Committing to funding.

In the high school curriculum specialist at point four and in the middle school and elementary at.

varying amounts for in-house PD.

Those don't come out of the curriculum budget.

Correct.

They come out of PD.

No they come out of that identified budget.

So when we do an adoption one of the things that we've been struggling with over time is not having the full cost.

So if it takes staff if it takes ongoing PD if it takes licensing you know other materials.

All of that's been outlined in the bar and all of that is accounted for and we're paying for it out of that five point seven million dollars that's available for 18 19 and 19 20.

Thank you President Harris.

Well it sounds like we've certainly Nip that one in the bud I hope.

I want to talk about a little bit.

I got to spend some time looking at the materials which I think is actually probably more to in the weeds than any board should really do.

But I got to talk today about grade 4 which is the same year that I got last place in a two person contest for best volcano in the science fair.

But the unit was on energy conversion and I heard this really great thing today that science.

is about change and moving our world forward.

And innovation is about making mistakes failing forward iterating.

And I have a sense that we maybe nerdily we in this room tonight could be a part of science.

Because if we convert all of your good energy and I maybe if I'm if I'm messing this up for science teachers please I apologize.

We can be converting your energy tonight into good change and progress and I really thank you for being here tonight and all the nights you have come out here on your nights off when you should be home with your families.

I appreciate you.

I know this has been hard work.

I do trust that the board is very very thorough and really takes their job seriously and I hope we can follow through on bringing some change and do some science live in front of you tonight.

Director Pinkham.

Potential energy.

So we're talking about here not kinematic.

So we got the potential for things to be good.

But once it goes to process that the energy that I want to kind of focus on right now and also kind of.

I'm just going to talk about the high school not about middle school elementary right now.

But I was curious when I pulled up the bar for a high school it says high school amplify.

So I was what what is that.

What happened there.

What's up with the title that we're calling this high school amplify.

Was that just a copy and paste mistake.

OK we want high school or middle school amplify elementary middle school.

Yeah that's a document title.

Just is that a technology issue.

Acting Chief Counsel Ronald Boy is that a Scrivener's error that can be backfilled sir.

The title of the document or the PDF it says

I want clarity here tonight folks above all else.

Ronald Boy acting chief legal counsel.

It appears that the actual board action report that was posted with the agenda does not say amplify in the title.

I read high school science and social materials adoption.

Yeah.

And then the link is you look at the link and bring that up the file that downloads says it's high school amplify.

That's a Scrivener's error and will be changed tomorrow.

Yeah.

So the wing can be changed.

Simple.

OK.

And then as we're looking at my other question is this with all this free and open source free and open source for some of these paying costs is that going to be up to the central office is going to be the schools that are be taking up those costs.

The printing cost for the day to day work will be.

By the school.

Budgets.

May I ask a question follow up on that.

At the last ledge meeting we asked about the copying costs and printing costs to be borne by each individual school.

We were advised we would have some feedback on what the scope and costs would be.

Do we have those numbers.

Yes we provided that in the information that was sent on Friday and Saturday.

Was that also distributed to principals so that they could So that they could.

So that they could factor that in to their individual school budgets.

We have not specifically provided the information that was provided to you on the share point to the principals.

The answer is no.

Thank you.

Ms. Welch, did you have something more to add to that?

Director Harris we have LLD on Tuesday and everything that happens here tonight will be communicated.

And then just to remind you in terms of the documents that you received either by SharePoint or by attachments that I sent to you.

We did a copier cost analysis as was asked of us.

It's number 10 impact on school copier usages.

So we were able to ask some of our central office staff to help us with that and we find essentially no difference.

between adopting the new instructional materials and the materials as teachers have been using it.

Reminding us all that in a void teachers have been using a lot of copies to pull things down and we haven't even put them online.

So pieces of this will be using our Schoology platform to allow us to put some of these materials on board for our children so they can access them.

Can we publicly share how much is being spent instead of just saying it's comparable please.

I believe that it's in the attachment number 10 impact of amplifier amplify on school copier costs because that's the one that we dug into most specifically.

And if you'd like some specific numbers we can certainly get those to you.

We have people poised to give us those numbers.

Yeah I think we're here with a public meeting and be great if we can share that with the public that's here.

We'll pull it up right now.

And just for future reference CIO Krull some of us need assistance with SharePoint doesn't work for us and could be considered non transparent for the public.

So I'm not quite sure how we get out of that box but for future reference we want to be as transparent as we can be so that folks who do not.

Appreciate.

The scope of what we're doing have the opportunity to peruse it.

You had more questions.

I have to say that.

I'm enamored with the nimbleness of this curriculum.

And the fact that we are not selling our.

Soul to the company store.

That this is collaborative that we're taking the best minds and we have some of the very best minds.

To uplift this curriculum and that it is.

Continually updated.

I think is a really terrific thing.

I.

I wish we had 10 times as many teachers to be able to do that kind of collaborative and uplifting work.

But sadly we do not.

To develop our own curriculum because we do have some of the best minds in the country here.

And we're privileged.

To have them working with us.

Not for us with us.

I.

Intend to vote.

Yes.

On this.

Particular curriculum adoption.

And again.

The kind of collaboration and uplifting.

Our students futures is a beautiful thing.

I have significant concerns about the other two.

Curriculum adoptions and I'll express those then.

Other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Pinkham.

We actually have a physical copy for you to see.

You read it so the public can resist.

Again we want to try to be transparent here and not just show it to me but for people that are out here as well.

OK.

The difference in 2016 17 between what we projected was for the schools that actually had the new instructional materials as one was twenty three thousand three hundred.

Twenty three million three hundred sixteen thousand eighty.

And then for the non waiver schools 14,401,929.

So actually significantly.

That was just in 16, 17, 17, 18. We have a cost of.

And again Director Pinkham this is for amplify versus non amplify schools because that's what was asked of us and that was the information that was given to us.

OK well that's another.

That's excuse me.

Sorry.

That's not the high school adoption.

So bring your question back up during.

The other two adoptions because this now is off topic.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we talk a little bit about professional development please.

for high school adoption.

The professional development plan will be to bring collaborations of teachers together.

And this is what we've actually been able to do.

For the last eight years because of actually budgetary resources from grants.

And essentially the way we operate is we have a.

During the summer we have a summer institute where teachers come together.

They work as content area specialists because by the time you get to high school that's generally what teachers are as content area specialists.

So all the physics teachers come together, chemistry, biology, and we spend time in the summer to look over the resources, to review the resources, to understand the scope and sequence, and understand the pacing that's expected.

And during the school year we have two we usually have three release days.

And what happens during those days is teachers teach the instructional material.

Bring student work.

Have an opportunity to ask questions of one another.

To share practices.

With the new next generation science standards there's so much more in terms of students talking with each other.

And so thinking about discourse strategies and quite frankly how do you get sassy 14 year olds to really stay on task and talk.

And so we have a lot of those conversations about how we make it happen.

And honestly the other part of this is our kids.

We have had opportunities to go into the schools and ask our students what's working and not.

And our teachers bring that to the collaborations.

So it gives us the opportunity to understand the effectiveness.

So essentially what happens is we have checkpoints during the course of the year to look at student work to understand more deeply how this is working on behalf of our students.

To reflect on current and necessary pedagogy and to keep cycling through this work.

And I've been really privileged since 2011 to be able to lead this work with remarkable high school teachers who have taught me the best way to do professional development.

And that's your collaborative work.

I have another comment question and then Director Mack.

Nine year adoption.

Y'all had been working on it.

A great long time before it was.

Daylighted to the board.

And again I will say that.

This was not on Superintendent Juneau or Chief Academic Officer.

DeBacker's watch.

I think we can all agree that better communication would have been.

A better thing.

Nonetheless we're here now.

Nine year curriculum adoption.

When do we check in and have research and evaluation do a look back to tell us whether all of this good work is actually closing the opportunity gap.

And how do we determine that and is that in the BAR.

Yes it is.

In fact we do that yearly.

Research and evaluation did a baseline this year in anticipation for the adoption.

So we actually did check in with all of our high school teachers who are willing to give us the information.

We do have that data as our baseline and every year research and evaluation has made a commitment to work with us to continually check in to see how that work is doing.

OK you said something there that concerns me.

OK.

And again I'm listening as intently as I can.

All the teachers that agreed to share information.

Is that a scientific process.

Well depending on how big your end size is and we believe that our end size was big enough to give us a representation of the of the strategies that teachers were using.

So we really got a pretty good number and I can't tell you the exact number right now I'd need to ask —

I'm not sure the word I want to say cohort perhaps.

I think any time we ask teachers to give their input it's always self-selected.

Teachers have the option to give input or not give input.

So in indeed teachers would come forward to ask.

But I would like to propose that teachers with a negative viewpoint come forward as much as teachers who have a positive viewpoint.

So again if our end size is adequate we should be able to get the kind of data that we're looking for.

And our research and evaluation team was actually quite pleased with the number of pieces of data that we actually received.

OK thank you.

Director Mack.

I just wanted clarity on what the numbers represent that are here for what we're what we're purchasing and what they're paying for.

JoLynn.

I think it says that this includes all essential adoption teacher student teacher related items including but not limited to hard copy and electronic versions of textual materials consumable materials hands on and manipulative teacher materials and online access research.

and professional development in the in the high school alone.

They'll have the same question later on the other ones to get clarity around what exactly is in those budget items.

But on the high school alone is this primarily these numbers are primarily professional development.

So we actually are doing for high school where we're getting the actual online digital curriculum we're getting hard copies where appropriate and we're paying for the PD and the total amount is one million.

for all of these three courses.

That's correct.

Six six courses six courses.

Five actually.

Yes.

Yes.

But it includes PD and it includes the appropriate.

OK great.

Thank you.

I just wanted that.

Director Mack just to make clarification at the high school level high schools have budgets.

They have science budgets, and that's part of their allocation.

So most of our high schools, when you walk in, they have laboratories, and the laboratories have stocked items that are purchased.

We actually do need to do a better job to look across our district to make sure that those allocations are even, to make sure that every one of our schools has an opportunity to have the same resources.

What a collaboration does is it lets us borrow from one another and we're really good at that.

And so it's really what our teachers have been able to do because when we found out that Rainier Beach didn't have microscopes to be able to do an investigation.

Franklin loaned them to them.

Director Burke.

I just wanted to.

Follow up bookend what Director Mack had said because my understanding was that the funding.

Within this was partially for materials but then also partially for.

Investing in our educators to help.

Enhance support them.

That's correct.

As compared to professional development.

So.

I think we're splitting hairs in terms of what I consider professional.

Yeah.

How much we're investing in professional development on this.

I tend to call it collaboration.

OK.

That's that's my word and it's been my word since I walked into this district because I really professional development seems to be a little bit to me like I'm going to come in here and teach you what to do.

And I feel like it's always been a collaboration.

I learn more from my colleagues than I'm certain they learn from me.

And so it is about reevaluating.

It's about reassessing.

It's about learning together and about growing and making modifications on behalf of our learners.

Thank you.

OK.

Last call questions comments concerns.

Seeing none roll call please.

Director Burke aye Director DeWolf yes Director Geary aye Director Mack aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Harris aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Number two middle school science instructional materials adoption.

This came before C&I April 23rd and April 30th for consideration.

Motion please.

Take a deep breath everyone.

Here we go again.

I move that the Seattle School Board approve the middle school science adoption committee's recommendation to adopt amplify science for instructional materials for all grades 6 through 8 Seattle Public Schools science classrooms.

I further move that the Seattle School Board authorize the superintendent to purchase amplify science.

As the core instructional materials for all grades 6 to 8 Seattle Public Schools science classrooms for an amount not to exceed one million five hundred and three thousand eight hundred twenty nine dollars covering licensing from school year 20 19 20 to 20 27 dash 28. And an amount not to exceed.

Five hundred sixty five thousand eight hundred fifty seven.

For in-house professional development and collaboration at a 1.0 FTE.

Curriculum specialist.

Second.

Take it away.

We are available for questions.

OK.

Same intro as before.

Comments.

Thank you.

I pause for a moment.

I think the yes sir.

The one million.

We have a technical question here.

The amount that's listed on the agenda as compared to the motion is different.

Staff please confirm what the motion is.

Are we moving.

Acting Chief Counsel in the room.

1.5 million or 2.069 million.

Elegant handoff.

Thank you.

JoLynn Berge, Chief Financial Officer, $2,069,686.

That's an error.

It needs to be corrected.

I think there was some confusion about year one versus all of the years, and so it was just picked up incorrectly when it was edited.

So you'll see that the one million five oh three eight two nine are the year one costs in total.

What needs to be approved in this motion are years 1 through 9 just like we just did for high school.

If it is approved.

But the motion should be two million sixty nine thousand six hundred eighty six.

For.

The total cost for years 1 through 9.

And Mr. Acting Chief.

Counsel.

Is this a Scrivener's error given the fact that we are on video.

so that it can be corrected in that fashion.

Yes I believe that it is a Scribner's error and with the information provided by Ms. Berge and then if we reread the motion with the correct language that will cover us sufficiently.

I'm looking for clarity.

The total amount is the difference this five hundred and sixty five thousand eight hundred and fifty seven for professional development.

And is that included within or is that in addition to.

Sorry, I misspoke earlier.

So if you look on the fiscal impact statement piece, you can see that the first line is Amplify 6 through 8 includes vendor kits, and it's the 1503829 that is the years 1 through 9 cost, but it's only for the first line.

I think that was picked up as an error.

It should be the total.

The total is, and there's, Option A is the smaller amount.

There's two options in this motion that were put forward.

One is if we use refurbished kits using science material warehouse and buying our own supplies.

That is the option B.

Option A is buying them from the vendor year after year as far as refurbishing the kit amount.

So the total amount for option A if that's what's selected two million sixty nine thousand six hundred eighty six.

Did you read the two million number.

No.

So is the five hundred sixty five thousand an additional amount on top of that.

So we are we are approving purchase authority for actually two point five six million.

No.

No, the total amount, there's two options.

There's option A and option B in the fiscal impact statement section.

The first option is the $2,069,686.

That is buying the kits from the vendor and refurbishing the kits with the vendor doing that work.

If we use the science materials warehouse to refurbish the kits the amount would need to be two million one hundred twenty three thousand three hundred and seventy six.

Right.

My my my feeling is that that total amount the two million sixty nine thousand.

Includes.

It does.

This this amount whereas the motion as it's written.

Implies that it is a dish in addition to.

So I would like to include.

The words.

You know the total amount including professional development and I can read it as such if folks are comfortable with that.

And that would be two million sixty nine thousand six eighty six.

I just want to verify double check put it out there again.

So proper I can withdraw the motion it's been moved and seconded or second your withdrawal.

Help me out here.

You want to stay with it?

Give us some guidance here, love.

Our objective here is to be transparent.

So if you just, I think we just clearly stated that you wanted to withdraw the motion.

I would like to withdraw this motion.

You seconded it.

So I believe that that's clear for the public watching.

OK.

And now we just redo it, and I think we'll be good.

So before you second, I'm going to look around.

I move that the Seattle School Board approve the middle school science adoption committee's recommendation to adopt amplify science for instruction materials for all grades 6 to 8 Seattle Public Schools science classrooms.

I further move that Seattle School Board authorize the superintendent to purchase amplify science as the core instruction materials for all grades 6 to 8 Seattle schools science classrooms for an amount Not to exceed two million and sixty nine thousand six hundred and eighty six dollars covering licensing from school year 2019 20 to 2027 28 and also including an amount not to exceed five hundred sixty five thousand eight hundred fifty seven for in-house professional development and collaboration and a 1.0 FTE curriculum specialist.

Second.

Thanks everyone.

Before we get rolling here Mr. Boy I'd like to have you show on the big screen.

There's been a great deal of controversy misunderstanding about whether or not we got money from amplify when it came in etc.

And our request Mr. Boy and amplify work together.

There is a penalty of perjury clause.

It is an affidavit.

It is important that we earn trust.

from the public and the taxpayers.

This will be uploaded tonight or first thing tomorrow morning so folks can take a look at their chronology and the affidavit and we can put some of these misunderstandings to the side.

I did have one question earlier today about what other schools were paying for amplify that came up at the last ledge meeting to determine how amplify is valuing its curriculum that they gifted to us and whether or not in total that exceeded the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

And I have not yet heard an answer to that question and would appreciate one.

Thank you so much.

Yes.

On Friday evening, I sent a financial report to you, which was part of the address that inquiry.

And what we found was that when we looked at the affidavit provided by Amplify Science, and we looked at all of our records as far as the expenditures to Amplify, that everything matched up through my inquiry.

When we look at the value of the product, that has been consistent in the affidavit as well as with our records, which were an original invoice of the value, it equals about $100,000.

So it's well under the $250,000.

We also found that in my inquiry into it that when we looked at all of the purchases to Amplify, this is not the value of donations, but all the purchases, all the money coming out from the district, that all of those amounts were well under $250,000 as well.

When I was looking into the matter, originally there was a little bit of confusion on my part, because the amounts that were provided by Amplify were based on their fiscal year, whereas our fiscal year runs September through August.

So once I figured that out, we had numbers matching well under $250,000, and so I found that no policies were violated.

especially policy 62 20 in relation to the value.

OK.

And I again can you stay there if you would please for a moment because we want to be transparent.

I think it is important that we suggest and identify for folks that a request for an audit has been made from the office of the state auditor.

Are are we reasonably sure here.

that we're in good shape.

I am very confident that we will be fine.

And I am — I got to ask the questions.

It has to be transparent and we need to put things on the table and either move them off or continue on.

Yes.

And I would I would admit that you know originally you know I had questions as well.

And once we dug into the numbers I found that everything lined up.

I feel very confident that we will be found to be to follow things correctly in an audit.

I appreciate that very much.

Thank you.

Other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

Yeah I have just again a clarification around exactly what it is that we're purchasing.

What is what what's in what's included in these numbers and the BAR has on page 16 which you were just discussing what the total option A is which is what has been motioned.

which is that two million and the amplify six through eight includes vendor kits.

Year one is one point three million and year two is one hundred eighty five or years two through nine with the total of one point five million.

My question is what exactly is included in those kits.

Are we are they are the students.

When the middle school teacher was up here earlier saying you know it's great.

I have all the materials I need or maybe it was the elementary.

I'm wondering what exactly that means is because the motion itself says digital licenses it doesn't say it doesn't.

We are not specifically saying teacher teachers guides or the boxes of the materials and the kits it doesn't say that in the motion.

So I have a lack of clarity around we are purchasing that in the motion it says we're purchasing the licenses but it doesn't say that we are purchasing kits or that we're purchasing teacher's guides.

So for the record what what exactly is included in this number.

Director Mack, as was requested by you at this last meeting, we have actually provided you with this information.

Thank you, Alicia.

It's number six, I'm sorry, number seven in the attachments that I sent to you most recently.

That has all of the material kits listed, all of the instructional materials.

I have it here that I can hand to you.

We actually have copies for each of the directors if you'd like to see it.

But it happens to be attachment number seven.

And as you saw,

Thank you.

Director Mack thank you again for coming last Friday morning to take a look at the instructional materials and so I would like to review what comes in the boxes and what teachers will receive.

We've been a kit based program since 1995 and what that means is that our teachers receive a box and inside the box there's all kinds of goodies.

There's laboratory materials, there's materials that are what we call consumable because they go away.

Maybe your volcano baking soda was gone.

But we also have instructional materials that stay, like things like scales.

And so what you'll get in a kit, what comes in a box for a teacher, so if a teacher is teaching the unit on weather patterns, as an example, inside of the box will be every bit of the instructional materials they need, both consumable and non-consumable.

And there will be instructional materials, such as sometimes there's little cards that they need.

That will be all in there as well.

And yes indeed the licenses at middle school our students each get a license.

So indeed they have the licenses.

So the instructional materials on this attachment should give you.

An indicator of all the instructional materials that would be included in the price that we've given to you.

I think that this is actually really helpful to show.

Because the I the motion says licenses and it doesn't actually talk about the consumables and the hands on.

Kit portion is it's so critically important and that's part of what we're buying now and that it is it's that is it's very helpful to see that the licensing costs are all put into year one.

And just for clarity on a budgeting perspective are those going to be charged year by year based on the number of students.

So they actually they will be hitting our budget.

But we are forecasting and setting aside this dollar amount.

Yes.

And Ronald boy if I could just make a note the documents that have been handed up tonight will be posted online tomorrow for transparency and For this one.

I'd just like to read into the record that this the document that you're looking at now is titled calculation of six through eight bar financials so for the public watching that that will be the document that they will be looking for the title for tomorrow when it's posted and anything else that's brought up tonight if it does occur if we could just read the title into the record so that people will have a good reference.

Director Burke.

I'm going to ask Brad Chiganaka who's my colleague to actually pull these documents up so that we will have them on the screen so people can see them as we're discussing them.

Burke.

I have two questions around this.

The first one is similarly related to the what I had asked around the high school are all of our student names entered in middle school entered into the amplify system.

And if so is there a DSA in place for that.

Our students' names are not entered into the Amplify system.

John Kroll, I could actually ask to come.

We have a clever portal, and our students are all protected through our own firewalls.

So, John.

John Kroll.

John Kroll chief information officer.

Yes we use a clever portal that collects that has the student logins and that's how they log in.

And then there's a secure handshake with a token that communicates with amplify.

So no student data is passed over to amplify.

Thank you so much for sharing that.

Before you leave the podium sir.

Student handshake.

Can you explain a little more without using lingo so that A we all understand it and B the public understands it as well.

Please.

Thank you.

President Harris I'll try my best.

We.

There is a connection that is secure where the student logs in.

So we know who the student is and then it creates.

A connection to amplify.

But that.

Connection.

Stays within our system with Clever.

And does not pass over to amplify.

Clever is our our log in system.

Yes.

The second question is one that we've discussed previously but I'd like to have addressed for the record.

Will there be middle school STEM fairs next year.

That was one of the points of of of of interest among our community around what what experiences were being available for students.

As you know, Director Burke, I actually came to your facility to learn a little bit more about your own STEM project.

We had actually hoped that we would partner with our department here to actually produce a STEM fair this spring.

And we were very optimistic, and we just couldn't pull the pieces together.

There were a variety of factors.

I think our teachers just really had so much going on and I don't mean just with amplify.

I just mean that this has been a tough year.

Many of the people in this room sit on these adoption committees and they have given so many hours of their time.

Quite frankly I don't exhaust easy and I'm pretty tired.

And but indeed what we decided is to take a buy on our STEM fair because we didn't really think we could do it well.

So our CTE department is committed to working with us to develop instead of a science fair a STEM fair because we need to include engineering and we need to include.

People like yourself who work in the field who can communicate with our young people about different options because most of the careers our kids will face haven't even been created.

So we need to give them encouragement to see how STEM plays out in a variety of manners.

So it is on postpone until next year.

I'd like you to serve on the committee, sir, to help us design that STEM fair.

I had the pleasure of volunteering at a couple of school-level and district-level STEM fairs.

I would be honored to do that, and thank you for that opportunity.

I'll take you up on that.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you President Harris.

You don't want to see us try to figure out where we're going to go for dinner.

This is kind of a process.

My curiosity is about my curiosity is one of the questions that Director Burke brought up which is about the STEM fairs.

I have not to belabor that point but I think my concern and what I want to pose to you Director Director Burke Is that instead of us as adults telling students what they need as far as a science fair or these traditional science fairs that like I said I did mine in fourth grade.

I would be interested in actually collaborating with the student advisory group and asking them what they want to see us do for them in that regard and elevate those ideas.

So.

Absolutely.

And I think the other thing is that we really felt that our traditional science fairs were actually created for adults, not for children.

And when most of our underserved children were not showing up at the science fair, and we could only take at least 179 kids total, we knew that we weren't doing the kind of work we wanted to do that is equity work.

And so we decided we needed to take a buy so we could rethink and revision.

Thank you.

Director Geary then Director Burke.

As you know we're looking at adopting other curriculum we're bringing in since time immemorial and then we've heard a lot and we all share a desire to to embed more ethnic studies into our everyday learning.

Let's put it that way not into any particular.

What.

are the opportunities with regard to this adoption.

How do those two ideas mesh because we heard today a lot of concern that it potentially is an either or.

So is there.

And then we heard from the teacher from Licton Springs who gave a beautiful example of her own work.

How do we make sure that that work is shared and embedded.

Thank you.

Director Geary, I really would like to highlight this piece.

You heard from my colleague, Dr. Phil Bell, who's the lead author on Chapter 11, which is calling for equity.

And he sent me a text to say what we needed to do.

is to remember that there's a centering of indigenous pedagogy and multiple ways of knowing that is fit within the frameworks and focused on culturally responsive instruction.

It is our standards.

Our standards are asking us to be sure that everything we do in beds and considers multiple cultures not just the sorry Director Burke the white the white Eurocentric view.

And so it is our call and within my colleagues collaboration from middle school because those who have been using the waiver have had a common platform.

And by having a common platform, we can do some of the things that are urgent.

This is urgent.

It's not just about saying, well, we need so many beakers and so many labs or even so much time on the screen.

What's urgent is that every one of our children see the potential and the opportunity.

And this set of standards is calling us to task on that.

So in our middle school, our colleagues call it a social focus question, where we identify what are some of those relational components of the science to our children's everyday lives.

I'd also like to call out a collaboration we have with Dr. Megan Bang.

who Director Pinkham, you probably know Dr. Bang.

She herself is a native woman and we do a grant with her to really study how do we make sure that culturally responsive opportunities exist in our curriculum.

Once we have a framework of common instructional material, that is our work.

That's what those collaborations are about.

That's where smart teachers come to the table and say, these are the ways we meet the needs of our learners.

And, as was just mentioned, it's also about asking our kids what's working and not working.

Sophia Jessa stood up here and told you about a piece that is in Amplify Science about a Native American story that's embedded in there.

We need to highlight those.

We need to bring those forward.

Culturally relevant teaching is part of our standards and we have a firm commitment and we have exhibited over the last three years that we not only commit to this but we are bringing those ideas forward on behalf of our learners.

Director Pinkham hasn't spoken yet on this resolution so let's let him go next and then Director Burke.

Thank you.

And Mary can you include that information you just shared in this information.

So I want to document yes we are working with native educators to make sure the curriculum is not only to their educational needs but all of our students of color and their educational needs and also students that are made from low socioeconomic backgrounds homeless students because I still have that concern with this technology online curriculum.

Students leave the school, get away from that technology.

How are they going to be able to study at home?

And I would hate to see that, unfortunately, then it becomes like shaming where a student, oh, I got to take home a hard copy while everyone else has.

Hopefully, that's not going to come across to students.

But that's something that comes to my mind that as a student, as they leave, oh, those students don't need to take home the hard copy, but I do.

I'm not saying that's what they may think, but those are just things that are going through my mind right now.

So as far as technology failures, what do we do there?

Like power goes out.

They were supposed to do online homework.

What is the backup?

Will they take hard copies?

Will they have access to those kind of files?

Will they be able to download the materials on a USB?

And those kind of things, those questions.

Because I did hear from one of my community that actually meeting that I attended that a parent said yes my child got home and they had logged on to do homework online and that's something I felt should have been brought up.

Okay yes there is some harm in the technology access includes online homework.

And then if a student doesn't have a computer or the computer.

Download speed takes too long.

There's all these other kind of issues that we have to look at.

So first answer those kind of technology questions.

I think I have two questions that I need to answer on your behalf.

One of which is what about students who don't have technology and how will they access the resources.

And the second one I don't know that you really ask this but I want to answer it.

It's about homework.

So I would like to first talk about the resources that students need.

Everything is downloadable on Amplify.

Everything.

And we also have a platform that I've heard all of you talk about before.

It's called Schoology.

And our teachers are actually needing to be able to use Schoology so that we can post those resources on behalf of learners.

I don't there's no teacher in this district that I know that would that would purposely shame a student by having them take home resources that others don't know about.

I mean I work with the most remarkable colleagues in the world.

I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for them.

And quite frankly, you know, they know how to do this.

They know their kids.

They know which kids need it.

They know what kids' resources.

But as you heard from some of our student speakers and from my colleague who I learn from every day, Yolanda Jones, It is an equity move to not give them technology, to never give them an opportunity.

So I do believe that our children need to have the technology resources when they can.

And yes, we do have power outages.

And Director Geary and Director Patu, yesterday we saw an example of that.

And so what we also have to do, Director Harris, is learn them up.

Because at the end of the day, those teachers need to know how to be thinking about and thinking ahead about how they're going to do that.

So the resources are available digitally.

We will have them available for teachers to literally download from their laptops.

So even when the technology is out, that they can have those.

And then the homework question.

So did I answer your tech question?

It says primarily, again, technology in the classroom.

Again, I'm wondering when students go home that may not have that technology.

They don't have a computer to download the information on, or if that download is given to them, they don't have resources at home to- They have an analog copy.

Okay, so that'll be something that we can make sure hopefully every student has the option to take home an analog copy, and that would be included in that printing cost that we're kind of talking about.

Indeed.

Indeed and our teachers are already doing that.

If I shared this microphone with people they would tell you exactly that they are doing that.

There are some of our schools where kids we know our schools and we know which children don't have technology at home.

Our teachers are preparing them by giving them an analog version so that's fully available and our teachers are absolutely using it.

An analog means paper.

You got it.

Thank you.

Director DeWolf please.

Oh wait.

Sorry.

Oh.

I have a couple of things to say about homework.

I was actually surprised in Seattle Public Schools how many kids don't get homework and don't do homework.

And the reason why.

And if you think about this there's something called a flip classroom which in the world it says you go home and you read and you do this stuff and then you come to class prepared.

And we actually know who our kids are and we know that if we're providing homework and expectations of homework that frequently even marginalize those kids even more.

So my professional colleagues have taught me that what their obligation is is to look carefully at the students who are in front of them to know which students have the opportunities and which students have the resources to do that and then make a decision on behalf of all kids in that classroom.

So I'd like to dissuade you from thinking a lot of homework actually happens that might happen in your at your home.

But I think our teachers are really good at discerning which children have access and which children would be marginalized if we didn't give them access.

Thanks President Harris.

I think what's coming up for me is this the sense of distrust we have.

I mean I imagine I'm not in the classroom every day.

Y'all are trained in that.

That's your work.

We we want you to be part of our family to do that work.

I don't think our questions are new things to our teachers.

These are things that they think about every day.

I don't think us asking it today is the first time it's come up.

I want to be really thoughtful that the ways in which we're engaged with these questions makes it seem as though our teachers are not critical thinkers.

Quick on the fly.

Scrappy like they've done a lot with a little.

I want to be really mindful that they have done this work over and over again meeting and exceeding expectations without curriculum for three decades.

And we have to be mindful that they've done a really great job.

Thank you.

Director Burke Director Mack.

So I've heard it from from comments and it's I got to see the inspired instruction during my tour at Denny.

There've been a lot of points raised and so we as directors have to take a big picture view.

I appreciate your comment Director DeWolf that the minutiae maybe are not where we should be questioning.

OK.

The trust element.

Well where I want to go is that you know we as a board have to we have to combine our taxpayer dollars with the passion of the people in this room and the rest of our district to improve science learning for our students.

And I think that's a place where we can start from a common place.

Yeah we we need to improve science learning for our students we need to close our gaps.

And that doesn't mean being influenced by blogs or emotion but by being strategic and intentional.

So.

I tried.

To apply a scientific mindset to this.

And because I'm I. Was having some challenge around it.

And.

Amplify as essentially as an incumbent.

Has a bit of a higher bar.

So I started.

I needed some PowerPoint to talk over.

So thanks for teeing up the slides.

So the theory of action around this if we provide standards aligned instruction materials.

Professional development for the content and the pedagogy.

And opportunities for student centered collaboration will eliminate opportunity gaps and raise learning for all students.

So it is the whole basis of a theory is that it is a theory until proven.

So what is our proof.

I think that's what.

The board has been asking in many cases.

The reality is that the assessments and you know Ms. Welch has has clearly stated that the assessment landscape.

is not optimal for those of us that are asking those questions or those of us that are trying to create those answers.

But next slide please.

But I wanted to share that we're not alone in this.

This is a quote from Amplify CEO Larry Berger from last year.

I've gone around the country being willing to do deals with school districts saying don't pay me unless I show real results.

And schools are like, I don't really know how to do that.

Either I buy your product or I don't buy your product.

I don't have a way of holding you to a performance contract.

I think if we could get that in place, lots of other things would change.

And so I thought, wow, this is a guy that I could really appreciate, because this is the mindset that I'm having, is how do we, I hear the stories, I love the passion and enthusiasm, does it deliver the results?

How do we know.

And so we've we've inquired with our research evaluation team around that.

Next slide please.

But we have a way we have a policy that governs this our policy 2020 states when the district begins a process to adopt new instruction materials pursuant to policy 2015 staff participating in the adoption process should evaluate the school level data for the subject up for adoption of all schools with the relevant grades.

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

This is exactly the situation that this policy was intended to to address.

It should not suppress innovation.

It should not block us from having waivers.

It should allow us to use waivers as a tool to vet out programs in advance.

So next slide please.

And so also within the waivers the actual waiver applications from our schools.

This was the commitment that we.

I say we the schools that applied for these waivers made.

Data generated from the Washington State science learning standard.

Washington State science learning standards next generation science assessment for grade 8 to begin spring 2018. That's last spring.

Comparisons will be made between schools using the amplify science online platform compared to schools using our current kit based program.

Other pertinent data collection a robust evaluation system will be implemented to assess the effectiveness of this web based program that will include but not be limited to pre and post student and teacher attitudinal surveys.

The SPS science department will also conduct focus group interviews.

University of Washington School of Education will serve as our partners in this data collection.

So.

My feeling on this is we have.

Waivers in place.

We have a policy that governs it.

We have the beginning of data collection.

Our data collection as of today.

Even when.

Even when especially when corrected for socioeconomic and racial.

Differences between our amplify and non amplify schools shows no statistically significant difference.

I'm hearing the stories the passion.

I saw it firsthand.

It feels statistically significant.

Our results don't show it and that creates a point of concern for me.

Are we missing something in our theory of action.

So my belief is we have another year to show that we have the waivers in place.

We have the materials in the schools the schools that don't have waivers also have processes in place that they're satisfied with.

I've spoken with and have been spoken to by some of those educators that I also hold in super high regard.

And that's what creates this sense of of concern around.

Committing to this program for the next essentially nine years when we are several months away from another cycle of assessment data that would show either positive improvement or no statistic statistically significant difference.

Director Burke, when in a prior adoption have you required a full year's worth of instructional materials and review before you made a decision about an adoption?

I also would like to remind you that in the attachments that I gave you most recently, there is a statement, number 12, from the research and evaluation regarding the eighth grade data.

So you referenced the WACAS, and specifically it states that we cannot tell the first year with new standards and new testing.

I am telling you that my colleagues stood and came to all of these meetings.

They have made a recommendation before you.

They are not willing to stall out for another year.

I'm not willing to bring another committee together for another year either.

I think the time is to make a decision and not stall out so that we can collect additional data.

We've never done that in any other adoption that I know of.

Excuse me.

Can we keep our tone as elegant as we are all capable of.

This is not personal in any way shape or form.

We have utmost respect for each other.

Thank you.

Director Geary.

What is the difference in terms of the professional development that came through in terms of the waiver process versus that which we will be purchasing as part of a formal adoption.

Is there a difference in that.

And could you please describe that process because that's my concern that through this sort of piecemeal waiver some schools here we get it through a new school opening.

I haven't.

Gotten the sense from what I've heard that there has been uniform professional development around the use of this curriculum.

That's correct.

And so.

Would that have a difference in terms of how it's utilized.

What are the thoughts of the adoption committee and.

The department.

So we had a three and a half year grant that was through Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and during that time we were just trying to learn what the new standards were asking us to do.

The 2013 standards were asked to do so during that time we actually worked with the University of Washington Renton School District and OSPI and most of our teachers came to the table for those collaborations.

Almost everybody even schools that are not currently under the waiver process.

We were working together to figure this out.

In this past year, our grant ended last August.

In this past year, I've literally scrapped together some money through our Title II budget to be able to bring some teachers to the table to do the evaluation.

So it's on their backs that they actually ask their colleagues.

I can't afford to bring everybody right now.

And so this adoption would allow us to bring every single teacher to the table.

And if we just pilot one more year, I can't keep scrapping it together.

There's just not enough money to do that.

And grants are closing.

I don't have any more money to do that.

So the professional development, this will be what most of my colleagues will tell you, is probably the big reason we're standing here tonight.

It's because we want to come together to collaborate.

We want to improve instruction.

We want to do the work in front of us.

Superintendent Juneau.

Yeah.

So.

I would say all of that right.

Professional development has to happen.

We have to have a common curriculum.

Where did you get the theory of action around what you put up there.

This is what I have.

This this theory of action is what I have have assimilated through.

Learning from.

The amazing people here.

And how that has shifted from.

What my theory of action used to be before I started.

And that's why I put it up.

I didn't know if it was district adopted or just.

Burke adopted.

No this is this is this is Burke winging it and I'm putting it up there.

For.

That conversation.

OK.

Because I do want to bring us back to our.

Theory of action for our strategic plan.

When we focus on ensuring racial equity in our educational system.

Unapologetically address the needs of students of color who are furthest from educational justice.

And work to undo the legacies of racism in our educational system.

By doing the following one of which is.

Delivering high quality standards aligned instruction across all abilities.

And to continue.

Continuum of services for learners.

We do those things.

Then we will eliminate opportunity and achievement gaps and every student will receive a high quality world class education.

So when we talk about theory of action.

And the strategic plan y'all adopted.

Which I'm really a proud leader to help implement and carry out.

I think.

That's the theory of action that we should be talking about about.

A common standards aligned.

Curriculum.

Instruction and instruction.

With professional development.

That is a law across continuum of services for learners and so when we.

Talk about piecemealing things or doing a pilot for another.

Year it doesn't address.

The full scope of what we need.

And so I just wanted to ask where that came from because I do think we have a theory of action.

That dictates.

We should be adopting.

A common curriculum every time we can especially when we hear from students of color furthest from educational justice and the teachers who teach them.

Director Mack.

I think this is a really healthy conversation around where we're going to be spending our money.

Because that's exactly the question that's being raised here.

If we're going to put our money.

Into creating high quality instruction and that requires this level of PD.

Because it's a lot of it's really this is a lot of money.

Per student.

Per year.

To invest in this specific curriculum as compared to other curriculums.

I did that I just because I'm you know wonky.

I broke it out.

I did the math.

The bio sequence is about eight bucks a kid a year.

Phys A is about 15 bucks.

And the middle school.

Is 18. So it's more.

I mean we're.

We are investing if this is adopted and selected.

The district is making a conscious choice to spend.

Dollars that the state does not provide us.

They don't provide these dollars.

They provide limited dollars we don't have extra dollars is coming in our levy.

And in our levy.

There's a lot of dollars that are being competed for there.

So the decision on this is a.

We're making a.

Strong budgetary decision that we need to.

Provide.

A. Relatively expensive.

Curriculum.

It has all the stuff that I think it should have.

So.

It's got kits it's got hands on that that all makes sense it stands or just line is what we want to do.

And we have to pay.

To.

We have to do a lot of.

Professional development.

So we're not we're not just buying curriculum in order to actually implement this and do it well to reach those furthest from educational justice.

What I'm understanding is that we have to spend the time and money on the PD which is which is an expense and it's a decision that we are making in this in this decision.

Just clarifying that that's what this is.

I would.

Yes.

We're paying for the curriculum we're paying for professional development that's been necessary for over three decades to actually deliver a high quality instruction that is common across the system and so we are making up.

For all of that time as well.

This district has under invested in operations and curriculum.

For a long long time.

So we're now entering the place where it's going to cost money.

What I will also say is a district's main purpose.

The reason we exist is teaching and learning and we need to make sure we are paying attention to the experts the teachers in the classroom that we are providing them the supports that are necessary.

And when we adopt a new curriculum that yes we are providing the professional development necessary so they can carry it out.

So yes but we are a teaching and learning organization as well.

And I would just add that we are investing in our people.

You know teaching is a very unique profession in that we expect people to graduate from their undergraduate programs and go into the classrooms.

And then.

Why in the world would we expect us not to continue to with their education.

You introduce a new curriculum with an entirely new set of standards.

We must invest in the people who will deliver that to our students.

It's.

It's our investment in our future.

In this city and in our students and in our staff.

Director Pinkham and then Director Patu and then Director Geary.

Director Harris may I complete the conversation with Director Mack because I think it's important that she would understand in order to build the high school instructional materials we had university partners we had grants and we had a heck of a lot of a team that worked their tails off to put this together.

It didn't come in one year.

These people have worked for since 2011. when I met little Kim Din, who was first year of her education, and she had nothing to teach, nothing.

And so these teachers have come together with their hearts and their souls and their brilliance to pull these instructional materials together.

So we should add up what's happened in high school over those years to give you a really accurate number for high school.

I'm not, we can't keep doing that.

If you were a medical professional, you would expect to be doing continuing medical education.

The attorneys at the table know they have to do CLEs.

Our teachers deserve to have ongoing professional work, and they do this with excellence.

And that work costs money, and I don't think it's too much.

Director Mack one response then Director Patu then Director.

Director Pinkham Director Patu Director Geary.

I appreciate that the context because it is it's something that's critically important that we support professional development of our teachers and and and do that.

The question for me as a board director that comes into play in balancing.

A budget.

Which is not funded.

Is what else gives.

And does this.

When we are making this decision to spend this much money in this way.

What are the other things that we are potentially foregoing.

And do we have enough curriculum PD reserved for the other more critical or not more critical but equally critical especially with our strategic plan centered around literacy.

Do we have that PD completely.

Fully funded.

Do we have are we fully funding those things and what about the other curriculum like science.

I mean with like Spanish that we need to be doing and also What about the translation of these materials for our dual language programs and our English language learners.

All those those are additional things that.

Aren't being.

Asked of us now.

But there is a zero sum of how much money we're provided.

And then when we end up with the budget shortfall in a year or two years.

And I'm still sitting here on this board and I have to.

hear from the librarians and, oh, I'm sorry, we actually can't do that PD anymore, even though we committed to it.

I'm trying to understand what we're giving up and that if this is top priority, what are the other things we're potentially not going to be funding?

Kyle Kinoshita.

Executive director curriculum assessment instruction.

Did a little bit of math.

You know.

Just to answer an earlier question.

In terms of per student cost.

If.

You recall our.

English language arts adoption was about five point six million.

Which was materials and professional development.

And that was for approximately half of our students in K through five.

If I do some simple calculations that came comes out to two hundred twenty four dollars per student.

Our middle school math adoption.

Which cost one point nine million over nine years.

And if you.

Quarter.

Our student population of fifty two thousand.

That's about.

Thirteen thousand.

That comes to about one hundred and forty six thousand dollars per student.

So I believe the science curriculum.

Unless my calculations are off.

And they could be very well be.

I think eighteen dollars per student is is.

Not very much.

But I would also.

Point out that.

You know.

Basically Chief JoLynn Berge.

Explained that.

The five million dollars which is now five point seven million dollars.

has been an allocation that was earmarked specifically for curricula.

And, you know, she did explain that, you know, the cost of which could be accommodated, you know, well within those boundaries without necessarily giving up other projects as well.

Quickly.

This is where the math doesn't match up for me and I appreciate that but the math for the high school is one point something or other.

The math for the middle school is two point something or other and the math.

The.

The cost for the elementary is seven point five.

And we've only reserved five point seven.

There's a there's there in these bars right here what's being proposed to us.

Come on down CFO Berge.

Is this about a different bar though.

Because I think we're I mean.

No it's about that this cost is part of the overall budget that.

Overall budgets we have to extract them out and make sure they match and and own the choices we're going to make.

Just two reminders.

uh...

we have not said that elementary is completely funded we've said that in the bar so i would read i would remind us that that we have not identified funding yet to pay for the rest of the elementary adoption we know that that doesn't mean it can't happen i think that the process that the board used to get as we work through our budget for the 19-20 school year we talked about 24 credits.

We talked about fall enrollment.

We talked about the WSS.

There were several different priorities that the board worked through to identify an amount of money that we were willing to set aside for certain areas.

So those Those decisions that consensus was reached already.

So within this amount of money what we have said.

Is that middle school science.

It's it's well within the same amount roughly that we have been spending for middle school math.

As well as for the K 5 ELA adoption.

Over that same time period it's about the same amount of money.

So we have said that middle.

Science adoption is something that we.

Can choose to afford and that's what the board had.

Already reached consensus on as far as setting that amount of money aside for curriculum.

So it's it's earmarked within that amount.

Director Pinkham.

Also want to address that one of our public commenters brought up about screen time and how this may add more hours even though it's a little below 10 percent per or whatever curriculum the concerns there.

And also I was looking over and I'm going to go back to the high school.

Comments there's comments within the high school adoption curriculum where someone said one teacher said last year we were learning to amplify and we use computers a lot.

Some of it was not helpful.

It got very repetitive.

Like even the tests would ask the same question five times.

I feel like there wasn't any thinking outside the box.

It was very much about learning in a certain way.

Amplify almost no hands on doing rather than reading but doesn't go far enough into the side of the ideas they're learning.

Readings introduce new concepts sometimes briefly unassessed with no evidence collected.

So we're seeing some comments.

On the high school.

That's kind of saying amplify isn't doing too well.

So I'd wonder can you address those concerns and hopefully maybe some of you today there are some comments here from teachers that are.

Not saying good things about amplify from high school and I don't know if that's the used amplify as a waiver or who these people that are making these comments.

Yeah.

Maybe they used it in middle school.

I don't know.

But this is in the high school adoption where people aren't aren't saying very good things about amplify.

I don't know why the high school teachers would report on amplify they don't use it.

So that's the good question then are they were they formerly middle school.

This is the high school adoption where they had some comments from teachers.

It's part of the high school bar.

OK.

Of the materials for the high school bar it's on of the.

PDF version it's on page three hundred and thirty two of four hundred and forty one.

If I have that correctly here.

Let me.

Check again.

Director Pinkham what's the end size of that please.

How many.

How many reports is that please.

Well this is just some comments that I'm seeing from.

It's just a student interview teacher for is all that I can see and just let you know there are some comments that are too supportive of amplify in the high school adoption curriculum.

And just if we can address those concerns where someone is saying hey this is.

There weren't any hands on and.

That could have been again a student replying to that where I've been hearing some other people here saying it's good.

How do we make sure.

That we're getting to all their students and then.

That this curriculum is going to be.

I guess you know.

I guess that's where the professional development will come in.

But.

How long will that take and who's going to.

Suffer for that.

Well.

The children who suffer most are the children who have teachers who don't show up to the collaborations.

And they don't honestly know how to implement the curriculum correctly.

I'm not sure about the document you're looking at.

My colleague is looking for right now so he'll be able to answer better.

With some specificity.

But the reason for the professional development is to help teachers implement a very new pedagogy.

This is a different way of teaching and learning.

And it is not how any of us learned.

And it is incumbent upon us to do the kind of professional work to help bring our teachers on board.

So I need to see the data set that you're looking at.

So.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It wasn't it wasn't just a data set but again it was this interview and it looks like apparently this is a teacher asking a student that might have had to amplify in middle school and not in high school.

I was the teacher who did those interviews so I'll need to look at the data set.

Just give me a minute to pull that up and I'll answer that.

But with regard to implementing any instructional material requires teachers to learn the new pedagogy.

Fred's found it.

OK.

Next up Director Patu please.

I guess the follow up on that question was the overall just wanted to find out to see whether.

How far how successful is this actually.

Course within the schools.

Up to this point.

I know it's new but.

You know what is the.

Feedback in terms of how the kids are actually taking it and.

I'm sorry Director Patu I was a little distracted.

Could you please repeat your question.

I guess what I wanted to say was since it's a new course.

Yes.

Just wondering what the feedback is from the kids that actually are.

Actually taking it right now.

I think you've heard from a lot of kids tonight.

Not every child loves it.

There are kids who'd like to change things but there are kids who definitely need to have some teacher help and guidance.

And so I think what I found and I think you have the data set inside your middle school bar where we actually interviewed all the children who were on the field test and I was actually quite pleased.

I think for the first year I think that the kids primarily are happy.

They're learning.

That's what's really important.

And they they see themselves as being successful.

And as some of my colleagues pointed out.

Our kids who have been furthest away from.

Justice.

Are the ones who are showing the greatest gains.

And so no I don't have analytic data division of each assessment yet.

But we will.

And I do believe that our children deserve that.

I do have Director Patu did I answer your question.

You did.

But I just wanted to throw one more follow up.

Besides that what is actually.

One thing that actually really stands out in terms of.

This particular curriculum within.

Students actually.

Looking at it and hopefully learning from it.

From my perspective when I read the comments and I talk to children as we did yesterday when we were and as we did last week at Mercer.

The thing that heartens me the most is when kids say.

I like this.

And I'm learning.

And when kids say I'm learning.

That's that's what I'm here for.

As.

As our superintendent said.

We're teaching and learning.

That's why we work.

We want to make sure that our kids are adequately prepared for the choices they make in the future.

And when kids start believing in themselves and believing they can be successful.

That's everything.

Now.

I don't know how many of you have ever worked with adolescents.

But I have.

For 40 years.

And not all kids like everything.

And some days even when they like it they don't like it.

So.

I want to make sure that we do as Director Burke is asking us to in a longitudinal study to make sure that we are assessing.

Ongoing.

Materials.

Director Pinkham I have the answer to your question.

I did this interview.

And I remember it now.

He was actually in Josh Foley's class.

Josh sorry.

Josh my boy.

Sorry.

This is how I know him when he came.

So Josh it was in Josh's class and I asked him the question.

Did this unit help you learn science ideas.

Did you like the way it was organized.

How is it different or the same from other units.

And so this child was reflecting as a ninth grader who loves Josh.

and is learning a ton in his class said last year we were learning amplify and we use computers a lot.

Some of it was not helpful.

It got kind of repetitive.

Like even the tests.

And so Director Pinkham you read that that was one student.

In one classroom.

That I interviewed.

Thank you.

on going and just Google or search for amplify in the document.

There's other comments that are aren't too.

That isn't just one.

There's more comments within that document to just want to let you know that again I don't want to.

Belabor this but just that there are.

I want to hear those voices of people I didn't have.

I'm sure of it.

And I gave you all the data.

I'm not hiding anything from you.

All the research all of the interviews everything you want to see is right here.

No I'm not saying so.

I'm just saying indeed he has the information.

OK first of all I'm I'm excited about investing in our teachers because I've recently read an article by Linda Darling Hammond who is out of Stanford and her theory of action is that or her belief is that.

The.

Opportunity gap that exists today is truly an opportunity gap in that well-trained teachers.

with high quality instruction have been funneled into the schools with the greatest affluence and she has a book to prove all of that and that the one way you can close the gap is to make sure that you are providing students with good curriculum and that the teachers are well trained in delivering that curriculum.

So I don't think we can continue to do the same things that we have done in the past and expect different results.

We have a horrific gap.

We need to invest in our teachers so I'm happy that we are building in substantial professional development over time.

To the cost that has not been discussed and not been quantified.

But I think we know anecdotally is what is the cost of not listening to our adoption committee.

What will be the cost in terms of the goodwill that our teachers bring.

Because I only anecdotally know from my fellow directors that when the adoption committee has not been respected and treated And that respect shown.

Through.

A reasonable adoption of that which they have.

Have.

Worked on and proposed.

That it has had a hugely deflating.

Result to our district.

And that the curriculum is then.

Not implemented well.

So.

I haven't heard about that cost.

It seems like a huge cost from what everybody has told me.

But we don't we don't monetize it.

But we will send a workforce out tomorrow to our students knowing that they haven't been given tools if we don't vote for this and knowing they haven't been trusted or heard to do right if they are given good aligned curriculum and they are given a chance to have professional development And they are trusted to have heard that we want them to eliminate the gap.

We want them to do it through a lens of 0 0 3 0. We ask them day in day out to take on more all for and in service to our students.

We have to trust them.

And if we don't, how would you feel?

How would you feel as a professional who's put all that work in?

How would you go back to your workplace?

And what do we ask them to do?

We ask them to walk into a room with a smile and goodwill and love for every single one of our kids.

So I haven't heard anybody monetize that, but it's It's real and it will affect our students tomorrow and the day after and the day after especially those teachers who go into the hardest classrooms and are expected to get great results are expected to pump out data.

You think they're going to pump out data if we don't trust them.

I don't know.

I don't know how we could do that to them.

Director Mack.

I do agree with Director Geary that.

We are at a position.

And a point in time.

Where trust has been broken.

In different ways on different sides in this district.

And.

That is a really it's really hard to come back from that.

The committee has done all the work that they've done.

And on my side as a board director I feel like there were.

I didn't get informed and wasn't carried along in the process and we didn't have guiding principles and we don't have.

a technology policy in place before we made a decision to go so digital.

There's a there's.

There's.

There's kind of a two way street here on how important it is to respect each other's work and roles.

And I think we're at a point in time where.

A lot of.

Great work has been done.

People are filling the gaps and the passion is there and that our teachers are our greatest asset in this district.

And.

The question in front of us is.

Voting to.

Spend.

And adopt a specific curriculum for nine years long commitment and spend a bunch of money when we are underfunded.

And.

Without with with a with a hope that this is you know we believe that this is going to be.

Helping us to close the opportunity gap.

And I wanted that to be true.

It's been said about things in the past too that this is the magic bullet.

This is the thing we need to do.

So I'm wondering because I feel like.

I am personally caught between a rock and a hard place here.

I want a new science curriculum.

I want aligned curriculum.

I want our students furthest away from educational justice to be getting.

Excited about science.

I.

I want this so desperately.

And I have concerns that this.

Curriculum.

May or may not actually be the magic bullet like will we actually be getting the outcome that we're asking for.

So I have maybe a radical or not radical.

Suggestion.

And I don't know if it's.

It's late.

It's very late late in the process for me to throw this suggestion out here but.

The.

The the following of the data and the showing like are we actually doing what we think we're doing.

Is this curriculum and the PD once we actually implement it is it going to do that.

Is there a way to build into this board action.

That there is.

A touch point at year four.

Where we evaluate and check in and say.

It's working.

Or.

It's not working and so we actually might want to reconsider.

Whether or not we continue being committed to this specific curriculum.

Is there a way to actually.

Because what we're doing here is we're committing to a nine year thing.

And I'm wondering if there's a way.

To put a.

A point at year four after the we've.

Spent all the money on the PD we've done all of the work.

To do an evaluation and assessment of is it actually working.

Director Harris.

Mr. Boy.

Please enlighten us.

Learn us up.

Thank you.

Director Mack I believe that the.

Appropriate thing that you could do here would be to make a motion to.

Amend.

And add additional language to the motion indicating that at year 4 the board.

Directs that a evaluation will be done to assess.

Whether we continue.

Supporting the program for the additional five years.

Aren't we contractually bound for nine.

We don't have to be we still are.

We'll.

We've just budgeted for nine.

We haven't contractually bound ourselves for nine.

It's not until you guys approve that we can move forward with any contractual agreements.

So contracts are still subject to negotiation.

We could potentially do that.

And this is just you know spur of the moment.

But we could.

Well and I'm really leery of spur of the moment unintended consequences from diocese.

And I wonder if there's consensus on this.

At all.

Director Geary please.

I am one I'm Leary of.

We know what a poor curriculum adoption history we have.

So we say we're going to do that and then what we're going to be expecting some future board to do something based upon us.

Saying it now we we can't even.

We don't have a great history with that kind of language anyway.

And I. Wouldn't expect any future board necessarily to.

They could do the evaluation they could get it and.

Shrug.

But more to going back to something President Harris said before with regard to the high school.

You asked for a commitment in terms of ongoing evaluation and feedback to the board.

What is the difference in terms of.

Asking for that same kind of commitment.

With regard.

To.

This.

I don't I'm not hearing a real difference because at any time we should be evaluating what's happening.

And at that moment the board that exists at that moment can decide well we should adopt a different curriculum.

But I'm not that board.

And many of the people on here are not going to be that board.

And I think it's.

And I appreciate.

You're.

Laying that out.

But I will push back and say that for two years we've been looking for an evaluation of honors for all.

We got nothing.

And.

If we're going to change bars the language needs to be clear.

I am very leery of unintended consequences.

Director Burke.

So those of you who know me know that I'm constantly trying to find some sort of path to consensus and it may not look like that on this issue but I.

I have experienced personally a divided district around amplify around science.

And that makes me sad.

I love the energy in the room.

And it's.

The predominant energy around this science topic but it's not.

All of the energy.

And so my.

My.

Ask I guess to the science department and the curriculum instruction team is to find a way to bring.

Everybody on board.

And and create more more unity around that.

And I think that.

If if we were having this conversation right now.

And we had evidence of student growth and closing the gap.

In.

Science.

Would we even be having this conversation.

I believe not.

And I believe that that data will exist in another.

I mean the students are taking the assessment essentially now ish.

I believe we'll have that data in another two to three months.

I'm not sure exactly what the turnaround time is on it.

And I believe that revisiting this conversation hearing from our adoption committee in light of that data which either includes wow this is great we should go for it or wow we looked at the data and we need a course correction and we're going to build it in as part of a extended instructional material which work is being done on policy 2015. We could get a better more comprehensive more folks on board middle school adoption following that.

That's just where my brain is.

Director Pinkham was your question about screen time answered and then Director DeWolf did you have something.

I think.

So as a.

Superintendent.

So I'm I'm standing here to reply to Director Mack's earlier question not the conversation that followed.

If that is no longer pertinent I will not waste everyone's time.

If you would like me to try to answer the question I'm happy to do so.

My my question is is my consideration that I may put a motion forward to have a touch point in the contract where we evaluate and the board looks at it again and there's an opportunity to consider whether or not to extend the adoption or to reconsider at that point and what there may be unintended consequences there.

And that's the question because for me having that check in point.

Helps me get to a yes where otherwise I don't know if I can.

Do a check in.

So the technical answer is given the process that we have used in the negotiations that we've had throughout the whole process of following the law you asked earlier about.

The Amplify guy said he'd give it to us for free if it didn't work we don't pay.

I saw that.

That's right.

So you asked earlier whether or not the process that we have followed would pass an audit.

You heard from our chief general counsel that he believes the answer is yes.

I think adding things at this point adds ambiguity and potential risk.

We wouldn't know until we went back and asked Amplify.

And they may say yes they may say no but I can say for certainty that it would modify the negotiation process that we have followed.

And that includes following purchasing laws the state of Washington and therefore there is added risk involved in doing something to that end.

For me I'm willing to take that risk.

Also, just on this particular topic, I think it would be good to hear from Dr. Cashel Toner as she describes, well, Dr. Cashel Toner, in my opinion, as she describes what we've done with CCC.

We have had research and evaluation along with this the entire way.

We have feedback continually from them.

So if you could describe that process, because that's the same process we'll use with this science adoption.

Hi, good evening, late evening-ish.

So we had some work to do leading curriculum assessment and instruction over the last several years with regard to implementation because we had issues with implementation in one of our previous adoptions.

So when we had consensus from our adoption committee.

When we had consensus from our board then our work was to implement.

As intended.

And that's the language we were very careful that we used with implementing.

Our common instruction material for ELA.

We also.

I was.

I couldn't lead the C&I department without having some data behind.

I knew you were going to ask me and say Cashel.

Are the teachers teaching the thing we just spent five million dollars on.

So we needed to partner with research assessment.

With research and.

Evaluation department.

To get a better answer than yes anecdotally the teachers are teaching.

The instructional material we just bought.

So we partnered and have committed to a three year study where we've had survey data.

We've done focus groups.

We scheduled a board work session with you.

We actually kind of fought for that time so that we could come and report back to you and say this is what we've learned in our first year of implementation.

This is what we're hearing from our teachers and these are the course corrections we're going to make.

We followed the same process when we had consensus from our adoption committee with middle school math instructional material adoption and we had support from our board.

We've studied our implementation and we've actually implemented some of the lessons learned from CCC and made those course corrections in a more timely manner for middle school.

We're getting better as we go.

But what we need what we've learned over time is when we have consensus from the committee and support from our board we study our implementation and we make course corrections.

So I would offer that that is the same plan that we have moving forward for this.

Opportunity to have a common instructional material in middle school for science.

Director Mack.

Thank you I appreciate that.

So the process is in place for studying the implementation.

I think we're at the motion and I think I might need some help Mr. Boy on framing it correctly.

But the motion that I would like to make is to.

Provide a check in.

Point.

At year four.

With the board on implementation and results.

And that at that time if the results aren't there the board would reserve the right to consider a different adoption.

Is that possible.

Point of clarification.

If I might.

If we do that aren't we talking about a four year contract with a renewal period of five years to get to the nine years.

Let's be as clear as humanly possible here folks please.

Yes that could obviously could potentially throw off the numbers because the quote that we have at this point.

You said free.

The van said free.

So that is something to keep in mind.

The other thing that is to keep in mind is that any contract that we enter into we do have termination clauses that could potentially be utilized if something happened like where Director Geary mentioned that.

you know, we decide, you know, at some point that this isn't working, we need to get out, you know, termination clauses are always an option for that as well.

Um, so I, I believe that it would probably be most appropriate to say a check-in, uh, to evaluate, to look at, uh, the information and, And what the what the board that's in place at that time decide next steps as a result of that check in.

But that could be added to easily added to the motion as far as just an additional amendment to add language for check in.

Okay do you have some can you help me with the specific language here that would be would reflect that I don't I don't want to have unintended consequences and yes there's termination clause and all of that but I I just I do want us to be deliberate about checking in.

And.

I guess the question for you would be how would you like to see that check in would be a check into the curriculum and instruction committee.

No it's a check in with the board.

It is it is.

It is the.

I guess what I'm in my mind it would be during year four the evaluation would be done and in year five there would be a report back to the board.

about this is how it's all going just like I mean you've already got a process in place you're doing other ways so it's not really different from that process but that that there would be that built in.

Yeah.

So I think that it'd probably be appropriate to say that.

Add a sentence at the end that says in year 4 the board directs curriculum instruction to perform an evaluation and a report of the success or of the of the instruction materials and hold a work session with the board to report that out.

Something to that effect would probably be.

Effective.

And I just quote that and say that's so moved.

Second.

Honestly I am I'm very uncomfortable with that because we've not set anything around what the check in will be.

We've not set anything around what we're going to measure.

Is it just going to be on the state assessments.

Is it going to be on growth.

Is it going to be on something else.

So putting that into this amendment and everything that we would adopt.

And not knowing that going in makes me very very uncomfortable with the the language that was shared.

And then I would like to in in the BAR and Mary Margaret I don't know if you have that pulled back up but.

After materials are implemented it is expected that staff shall systematically collect and evaluate student performance data to determine if the outcomes sought by the adoption were successful and report that information to the school board.

This is normal.

This is what we do.

You're going to get that information.

I guess the question is that does that give us an escape clause with the money amount.

The evaluation is going to happen.

You're going to get those annual reports.

But.

To be able to write.

An escape clause within this.

I believe.

From my experience doing adoptions at state level.

We would have to go back and ask for different pricing in order for that to be done.

I'm just very uncomfortable with us doing that.

With this at this moment.

OK a motion has been made a second's been made but I think it was not.

Necessarily.

Spelled out.

I have a question for.

Mr. Boy.

Might as well sit there.

Can tell.

Former council tree.

He got out just in time.

So I have a question for you.

Does it make sense.

Hypothetically.

Given these concerns have been raised which would pull people over.

The top.

To adopt said curriculum does it make sense to.

Put forth a.

Motion to table till the next legislative meeting until we can determine what the financial consequences are.

Of.

A four year contract with a five year renewal whether the check in will give us the wiggle room to leave the the adoption process.

I don't want to kick the can down the road to use the phrase at all.

But at the same time I'm wondering if that's a way to save this process.

Asking hypothetically of course.

hypothetically my legal answer would be that it that that would be an option that the board could do would be to table a motion until the next meeting.

However I would presume that just from my experience working at the district that I know that there's a lot of things that have to fall into place on schedule in order to roll out Instructional materials on time for a new school year.

Considering that we are right up against June.

I would imagine that our time frames would be very very crunched.

And our next board meeting is in two weeks.

Correct.

OK.

Superintendent Juneau please.

If it gets Director Mack to yes.

She's my fourth and I'd love to get this done.

So can we add.

Words that say something like.

The board approves.

This.

Curriculum adoption for four years with a renewal option that must be approved by the board at that time.

We could do that and of course.

But it may well change.

It may change our pricing so we would need this.

That is a risk that we would take.

I found that when we go back to these people who are getting large sums of money for us and.

District staff.

Exacerbated.

Says.

This is what my board demands.

I've found that we've been fairly successful.

And all they got to do is watch the video.

Yeah I just I.

I would predict that the risk is there.

I.

I'm not thinking it's a huge risk that the prices will increase but there is definitely a risk there.

The price is probably going to get just passed.

And I wonder if that's not the way.

to get there from here and I think the same concerns would follow to the elementary.

So I'm going to do it.

I'm going to make a motion to table this to the next legislative meeting.

Thank you y'all.

I think that it may be.

We don't know what the changes in the contract numbers are going to be and I don't know that we can we can vote on that fiduciarily is my point.

I'm looking for a way out of this box.

Please appreciate the collaborative spirit in which this is offered.

Director DeWolf please.

We can vote for it as is and that will get us out of any box right now.

And that's your right to say so and I appreciate and respect that.

Thank you.

Director Geary please.

I don't mind us looking at.

We asked research and evaluation to do deep dives.

I don't mind us putting in a research and evaluation deep dive into the efficacy of our science adoption across all grades.

In four years.

Based upon the fourth year of.

Results.

And we can look formative.

Summative.

In a row.

We can we can look at them all like have research and evaluation do the deep dive into it.

In four years across all of the adoptions because we got a bunch of things going on at high school too.

And just report that back to us in the fifth year.

And then.

That board can decide if it needs to do a supplemental adoption to fill holes or do something else which would probably be less expensive.

Than.

Trying to figure out how to negotiate this here.

On.

Speculation that the board in the future is going to have the money or do anything with it anyway.

But if we if we get the deep dive and we embed that in then that board in four years will have a public document that they can be held accountable to.

And at that point there will be a whole new conversation in the context of that work session about how we applaud or fix science.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

But I don't think it's, there's a book called Learning to Learn, and it's all rolling forward.

It's an iterative process.

And just switching direction, making hard left turns, isn't good for anybody.

But continuing to roll forward in education and adjust is what we do is what they do.

And if we decide by a policy that we're going to put limits on digital time they will have to adjust to that.

And if we make a policy that says they have to hand out worksheets every day they will have to do that.

So they will adjust but we've got to give them.

something, but I think a deep dive in the fourth year.

You know, I would move after the fourth year of implementation, research and evaluation, she'll do a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes across formative, summative, and interim assessments.

For K through 12.

For K through 12. I move that.

Okay, well I will do K through 12, it's just part of this bar and they'll have to do it all.

Will that pass muster?

Before we ask Mr. Boyd to weigh in on that.

Let me say we are confident in the three bars that we brought you.

We are confident that we can get results in four years.

And if this is what it takes to get to yes we will do our work on our end to make that happen.

And so if we can if it's legal we're in.

Yeah I think this is the most legal question so far.

So I I I think that the language that Director Geary suggested with the type of assessment or the type of assessment.

Can we hurt a second.

Comments questions concerns Director Pinkham.

OK and you mentioned before that there is policy in here to kind of do check ins.

Now does this commit us to four years.

What if after one year we see it doesn't work.

Or just does this commit us to four years versus our current process.

We can look at it each year to see if it's doing what we're hoping it will do.

We will be looking at it each year.

That is within policy 2015. So that's already established that our already will happen.

Yeah so then if we accept this motion does that then commit us to four years minimum if we find out after maybe two years it's not doing what we thought it would do.

After three years it's not doing what I thought it would do.

Yeah so then if we're saying the check is at four years we're committed to four years.

So what if it comes up.

Do you want me to answer.

Zachary had his hand up and then I'm happy to have you speak to it.

Well I guess for me I'm just thinking like we are asking something to we are asking the Titanic to shift on a dime and not giving the thing it needs to steep and actually be in our schools and I think even putting a year is. is cutting the work off at the knees and I think it just needs to sit and steep and be in our schools and actually have professional development and be implemented.

People to understand this people to see that we are committed to this shift.

Then we will see data.

But I think to tag it for a year I mean I.

I've been meeting with the trainer for a year and I'm not really showing much difference but it's going to take a while.

Director Geary and then Director Pinkham.

I take I see the rationale of the four year because that will give a certain cohort of kids an opportunity to move up through some grade levels and go from elementary and maybe even all the way through middle school and we might actually start seeing how ninth graders are coming in differently with a four year window.

And so we can see it across all segments across all of our schools whereas one year I think is just probably not enough in terms of a comprehensive research and evaluation dive to get what they would call statistically reliable results that we should be making any type of decision on.

I like the four year deep dive.

I like the four because I think we do find In our position that time slips by and we had questions that we were hoping we're going to get answers to and we know the data is out there somewhere but it never is presented to us and it's not presented to us all at once.

Then we can't talk about it because we have open public meetings act.

But if it is formally presented to us.

In a work session then we will be forced to look at it talk about it and make decisions based upon it as a board.

And I say us the board.

So I think that that is fair because I think we all feel like the check ins around this really important teaching and learning stuff don't come often enough for us.

Director Pinkham Director Burke.

Yeah I wasn't saying that we would.

Take a vote.

I wouldn't I wasn't saying that if we don't do this amendment that we're going to abandon this after one year I'm just saying is this.

We're still going to do the check ins after one year and after two years after three years.

But hopefully if something happens within those three years before we reach that fourth.

That we're not saying we can't change not saying to stop on a dime and change course but if you see something there is systematically wrong that is not doing what we even thought it would because we've had some already waivers we seem like we should have that data already.

How long have these other schools that have waivers.

How have they been doing.

We don't have the data research and evaluation told you we don't have the data.

Director Burke and then I really want to close discussion.

I want to remind folks that it is nine fifty p.m.

and we have not yet gotten through our action items and we have had valuable discussion not just this evening but for months.

Thank you.

On this topic.

Do we have.

Contract language from the vendor that includes any indication about a cancellation clause because that's essentially what we're talking about here.

And.

I asked that question I didn't get an answer would address this entire conversation.

We would be using our general terms and conditions.

And so this would always have a termination clause that's generous to the district.

I guess as far as the.

Annual license fees and how the termination clause would impact the payment of those.

You know it's fully front loaded.

Then that's not necessarily beneficial to the district if it's something which we're paying annually for the licenses that we incur.

Then having the cancellation clause would seem like it would address this entire conversation.

It's annual payments.

Can you help us with this please.

Would you please repeat the question I want to make sure that I have it clear.

Thank you.

You can.

Two part question.

Is the payment arrangement with this vendor an annual payment that is uniformly spaced or is it front loaded.

Secondly if there's a cancellation clause would there be any penalty or termination fee for that.

Stephen Nielsen deputy superintendent.

I do not know the answer to question 1. I'm doing this from memory and Ms. Berge has seemed to.

Oh she's right here.

Sorry she moves.

So perhaps she can answer that item 2. There's almost always some negotiation that goes through a cancellation clause.

And as our deputy excuse me our general counsel stated there is usually a favor for us as we negotiate as best we can.

That said there's almost always a cost and in many cases we would be buying something that we're paying for nothing if we canceled.

That's speculation we wouldn't know until that time.

Yeah I would agree with that.

I mean I think that there's generally ways when we have these kinds of contracts with vendors there's usually out clauses that we can get out after a certain period of time.

Usually it's year to year where we can have you know some type of cancellation for convenience something like that.

And the pricing structure will have to go back and rework with them.

We think that we can structure something year by year so that we can continue to negotiate with them within the parameters of the board motion.

Director Mack and then I'm going to call a question so that we can vote on it.

So the thing about this we've been doing this experiment with amplify for a couple of years but not with full PD for everyone not with the same materials but not with the full kits.

And so it is it is an experiment.

It's a new curriculum as a new scope and sequence.

It's it's going to require a bunch of PD and.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the whole fact that we had them as waivers and then this is the one option and we don't have any data to show that it works.

It makes me very uncomfortable especially with this expensive it is this whole the whole thing is uncomfortable to say yes to.

And we are at this point in time when all of this work has gone into it.

We are we either.

say no and shut the whole thing down which doesn't feel good either.

Correct because the waivers continue for another year.

OK.

Thank you.

That's true.

That's true.

My thought is that if there is if this is if we had done this with everyday math and done a check in would that have been a better experience because.

Everyday math had this strong narrative that this is going to be the best thing and it's a fix.

No I'm talking about everyday math.

That was even longer ago.

But anyway that.

Folks let's stay on track here.

Time check.

Thank you.

I will rest and you can call the question.

Thank you.

Superintendent Juneau.

Thank you.

And I appreciate this robust conversation with the board.

So thank you all for paying attention and being diligent and making sure that we I know it's a lot to ask and to move forward and decide what is best for the 53000 students in Seattle public schools and whether it's the right thing to move forward so that you know they can learn science.

We are.

Living in like the biggest science and technology.

City in the country.

Right.

We have the big tech companies here we have people looking to us to produce the workers of tomorrow that they need to be in this region.

I am an English and history teacher.

And so.

The only way and now I'm the superintendent of Seattle Public Schools the only way.

That I know about a science curriculum.

Is to trust the science teachers.

The experts who are at the table I don't know how to teach science.

I know some pedagogy I know some kind of instruction stuff but I don't have the content.

I don't do that on a daily basis and so when a group of people come together.

And.

Work it out and try things out and field test it interview and.

You know look at it critically.

Every which way.

The only way that I know whether it's a good science curriculum and whether it can be positive for our students is that I have to trust that process and I have to trust the people who are at the table and the people who are at the table.

If this is any evidence of our teachers in this district they are fierce.

And they are people who have put their hearts and soul into this curriculum adoption and they are looking to us and to you to do the right thing by them and by our students.

And so I appreciate the robust conversation.

I appreciate the concerns.

You know if we move forward with this.

Amendment to take a deep dive in four years to look at it and which we will be doing on a yearly basis anyway.

But to really.

At that point make sure that we are being transparent with the public about the rollout of this.

I think that's an appropriate way to go forward and so thank you Director Mack for putting that forward and saying that you would vote yes if this is on the record.

I appreciate that and look forward to a positive vote and I just want to thank everybody.

There's a squeeze.

Well that's what she said.

That's what she said.

And so I just want to thank everybody in the room.

Thank you teachers.

Thank you science people.

Thank you university professors.

Thank you everybody who contributed to this effort.

Whatever comes out of this vote.

You are appreciated by this district.

Thank you for the work that you do every day.

Thank you.

The motions the motions in the record already.

Roll call please on the amendment.

So I actually think we had we had a number of motions that were thrown out and seconded.

The four.

Year.

Check in.

Gary.

Seconded by Director Patu is the motion and excuse me the amendment we are currently voting on.

And then I think we should also say for the record that all other motions that were thrown out are withdrawn.

All other amendments that were thrown out have been withdrawn.

Excellent.

So said.

Roll call please on the amendment please.

Director Burke.

No.

Director DeWolf.

Absolutely.

Director Geary yes Director Mack aye Director Patu yes Director Pinkham no Director Harris aye.

This motion has passed with this amendment has passed with a vote of 5 to 2.

Now we vote on the main motion as amended.

Roll call please.

Director Burke no Director DeWolf absolutely.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

No.

Director Harris.

Yes.

This motion as amended has passed with a vote of 5 to 2.

OK.

Action item number three elementary school science instructional materials adoption.

This came before C&I April 23rd and 30th for.

Motion please.

And the time check is 10 p.m.

Thanks y'all for sticking around.

Much appreciate.

I move that the Seattle School Board approve the elementary school science adoption committee's recommendation to adopt amplify science for instructional materials for all grade K 5 Seattle Public Schools science classrooms.

I further move that Seattle School Board authorize the superintendent to purchase amplify science as the core instruction materials for all grade K 5 Seattle Public School classrooms for an amount not to exceed two million three hundred and sixty eight thousand eight hundred and seventy dollars in a three year phased in purchase and implementation plan out of the fiscal year 2020 2019 20 fiscal year 2021. That's 2020 21 and fiscal year 2022. 2021 through 2022 budgets covering licensing through school years 2019 2020 through 2027 through 2028 and an amount not to exceed five million forty thousand six hundred and seventy four for in-house professional development and collaboration.

Second.

If the state legislate almost.

If the state legislature does not address current funding concerns the district is authorized to fund a phased in purchase and implementation plan within funding limitations beginning with the 2020 2021 budget identifying when expenditures for this adoption can proceed as part of the 2021 school year and when the purchase and implementation plan can continue in the 2021 22 and 2022 23 school years.

OK.

Clarification question here.

Do we make the amendment as we did the last one.

Vote on that and then we start talking about.

The main motion.

I believe we do.

Yeah we need to.

Thank you.

If we want the same thing to occur with the check in we would do an amendment here as well.

Point of clarification.

Go ahead please.

I just want to highlight for the public and the community that the original amendment that was the Burke Pinkham amendment has been formally withdrawn.

That was something which came up and was discussed fairly extensively at the last meeting.

So in conversation around amendments I want folks to understand that that has been withdrawn.

It was another experience to try to find some unity and clearly it did not.

So thanks for that.

It did however.

What's the word I want.

Did however open up the conversation from the dais on the record.

Not all bad.

Director Geary could you make the amendment please.

for the four year check in.

Sure.

But we did do it K through 12 before.

OK.

So I move that we amend this motion to include the statement after the fourth year of implementation research and evaluation shall do a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes across formative summative and interim assessment for grades K through 12.

Do we have a second.

Second.

Can we do a roll call on the amendment presently.

Director Burke.

No.

Director DeWolf.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

No.

Director Harris.

Yes.

This amendment has passed with a vote of 5 to 2.

OK now we're on the main motion comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director.

Director Mack Director Burke.

So this BAR is different because the cost is substantially higher and the expense that we're laying out for PD And it doesn't have a funding source leaves me deeply concerned that reliance on digital at elementary I don't think is as necessary as the middle school adoption and what was brought forward.

So I am just going to lay it out here that it may be surprising and I'm sorry for those of you that feel disappointed but I am not going to be voting yes on this because the cost is too high.

We don't have the money for it set aside.

And I think there are other options that would not have been as digitally focused.

So I'm just there's my thing.

Director Burke then Director Geary.

Well thank you for starting with that because those are my two concerns as well.

I've vocalized previously that I do not want our elementary school students to be in front of screens.

I don't think that's the highest value use of our relationship building time.

I think there are places where we can help them develop skills but it's not really a race to use computers.

They're going to get there.

They're going to get there soon enough.

We don't have to.

Pull that exposure all the way down to kindergarten first grade second grade.

I think they should have some opportunity to.

Play with more tangible things and less digital things.

The.

The.

Concern around professional development.

This.

Is.

I raised previously that I do not believe that this professional development model is scalable or or viable in our current budget situations and I pulled some historical things.

Our middle school math in March of 2018 is three hundred ninety four thousand dollars in professional development.

Our CCC adoption in February of 2017 is one point four four or one point four million in professional development around literacy.

And that includes a five year hundred twenty thousand dollars a year.

Our middle school social studies did not have professional development broken out, but it was $1.8 million total for materials and professional development.

And in this case, all of our middle school and high school are both sub $1 million, and our elementary school is $5 million.

And when I look at our priorities around instructional materials and I think of the great work that's being done around ethnic studies and I think around think about this since time immemorial instruction materials curriculum that.

We as a board have been adamantly asking for adoption and professional development and this putting a five million dollar debt on our curriculum adoption budget feels to me like it's going to limit those things in the future.

So I would really like to see the science team take a more innovative look at how professional development is delivered in elementary.

and how to remove the reliance on technology and bring it back.

That would be my my hope.

Director DeWolf.

I guess my question is you had mentioned you.

There are some tangible things that you want our students to be engaging with.

What are those things.

What are the things that we need them to be playing with physically.

And my other question is have you utilized those things that you're talking about tangibly in front of students of color and teaching them science.

I'm not saying that I think any of this is perfect but I think we are on a pathway to getting there.

My curiosity is by.

Putting out open ended kind of vague things like they need to they need to have time with some tangible things.

What are those things.

What is the research telling us.

What are teachers telling us.

Because tangible things is a throwaway phrase.

And screen time.

Is also a throwaway.

I want to be very specific.

What do you mean.

In this city we're in a city of technology.

I want our students to be engaging with it.

I also kind of maybe I'm not a parent yet but I would expect our parents need to take responsibility as well and not put their students in front of screen time at home.

But that's not something I can say.

But at schools we need to engage them deeply and critically thinking about technology.

My recollection from my conversation with Mary Margaret Welch was that.

There's a kit in there and sometimes they're playing with tangible things.

Sometimes it's being with somebody that you maybe never talked to before from a different life experience.

Talking about energy conversion today talking about how hydropower works all these things there's a blackout in the city.

How would you solve that.

How would you solve that as a student that has never had access to the same wealth or privilege.

There's going to be some really great social emotional conversations.

I do.

You know this Rick.

I appreciate you so much.

And I have had the best time serving with you.

And today we're actually wearing the same shirt.

So I want you to know, this is more just to say, yes, we do.

I want to be really thoughtful about these types of questions about screen time and naming some tangible things, which is the phrase you just said, because I don't know what that means.

And I want to make sure publicly we are also talking about what that means.

Because from my recollection of that kit, there's things that they're touching.

There's there's consumables that will go away after each time they teach it.

So I'm perplexed.

Director DeWolf we don't have.

Overriding principles about the use of technology online learning blended learning reverse learning.

And one of the times that this board has been the most successful is when we have established guiding principles.

I want to go back to the levies and the levy ask and when we were in a bit we realized that we needed a course correction and we doubled the points for race and equity.

I'm really proud of that.

There are other people saying you screwed up.

No I'm really proud of that because there's a whole lot of good stuff on this board to talk about where we're going in the future.

And I feel sometimes like we're cart before the horse here.

Those those are really profound conversations and you pointed out what does that mean.

And I don't know that we know what that means.

Point of clarification.

Director Geary please.

I thought the screen time was K through 12 none and 3 through 5 no more than 10 minutes a class in pairs.

That's what I thought the screen time was in amplify as I recall it being told to us before.

But maybe I'm wrong.

That's correct.

Director Geary.

So that's what that's what screen time is.

So we know.

None in K1 and it's 10 percent in and it's only with partners under the supervision of a teacher.

Is that embedded in the BAR.

Yes I don't.

It's in I know it's in one of your attachments.

Well and I appreciate the attachments but something that Director Geary said earlier today that really resonates and we're making a record here.

OK.

And.

She says you know if we decide we need to do X Y and Z we pass a resolution and they have to do X Y and Z.

So is there a problem with putting those standards in the BAR.

No there's no problem at all because that's exactly the accuracy of the program.

Comments questions concerns.

John Krull chief information officer if I could have a word.

Please.

Thank you.

I want to remind the board of policy 2022 and I'd like to read this into the record.

The board also believes that students need to be proficient users of information media and technology to succeed in a digital world.

Therefore the district will use electronic resources as powerful and compelling means for students to learn core subjects and applied skills in relevant and rigorous ways.

It is the district's goal to provide students with rich and ample opportunities to use technology for important purposes in schools just as individuals in workplaces and other real life settings.

Again policy excuse me policy 2022. And then if I may.

The state adopted ed tech standards in May of 2017. There are standards for grades 2 through 3. If I may I'd like to read some of those standards.

Standard number one empowered learner.

This is for K through 2. Students leverage technology to take an active role in choosing achieving and demonstrating competency competency in their learning goals and perform learning sciences.

Standard number two.

Digital citizenship.

Students recognize the rights responsibilities and opportunities of living learning and working in an interconnected digital world and they act and model ways that are safe legal and ethical.

Is there a grade band that's attached to that sir.

That is grades K through 2. Thank you.

Let me continue.

Knowledge constructor students critically curate a variety of resources using digital tools to construct knowledge produce creative artifacts and make meaningful learning experiences for themselves and others.

State adopted standards.

Number four innovative designer students use a variety of technologies.

within a design process to identify and solve problems by creating new, useful, imaginative solutions.

Are we still at K through 2, sir?

K through 2. Thank you.

K through 2, number 5, computational thinker.

Students develop and employ strategies for understanding and solving problems in ways that leverage the power of technological methods to develop and test solutions.

Standard number six creative communicator.

Students communicate clearly and express themselves creatively for a variety of purposes using platforms tools styles formats and digital media to achieve their goals.

Standard number seven for K through 2 approved by.

How many more standards do you have to read.

I think you've made your point.

One more.

You're not running this meeting Adam.

Number seven.

There you go.

Global collaborator students use digital tools to broaden their perspective and enrich their learning by collaborating with others and working effectively in teams locally and globally.

And that's K through 2 again.

That's.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And our teachers are expected to achieve these standards with their students.

So a long way from Freddy Fish.

Director Geary.

So.

We hear what the standards are.

And we know that that's considered basic education because I.

Talked about that earlier.

And we also heard from our teachers.

That.

While some of the students grow up very tech savvy.

Some of our students don't.

And so this is their only opportunity.

To be exposed to it so that by third grade and fifth grade and sixth grade and ninth grade.

As the demands.

With that technology become greater.

They're prepared for it they're not left behind.

So.

You know we're setting them up for a high school curriculum.

And preparing them over time is part of what our state expects us to do.

Right or wrong.

That is what.

Education is.

In this state.

Now the other thing that's really important to me.

Is that.

This teaches a lot of our kids are exposed to technology a lot of technology and it is where they watch really stupid YouTubes do it yourself stuff you know cute kittens and it's a game it's a toy.

And we need that we need our students to look at it as a tool.

And that that education has to start before they just see it as a toy.

And our schools are the ones that can teach them that this is a tool.

And again.

If we give our teachers instruction.

I was in middle school classes.

Where.

There were no the kids spent almost no time in front of the computers there was one where they just sat around talking to each other.

And another one where they spent very little time.

And the teacher was talking to them and getting them to talk.

It's up to us to train our teachers well to use this as a tool.

But if we don't.

Do it right.

Then.

Yeah.

When the.

When the technology finally shows up the kids don't know how to use it.

The teachers haven't had the opportunity to prep them up for it.

And they're already behind the eight ball.

And we've said that we're going to assess them in four years but we're not going to really make a great platform for them if we don't.

Do.

The.

The educational standards because that's what our.

That's what they're going to be tested on and that's what our state is going to test them on.

Other comments questions concerns.

Director Pinkham.

Can you hopefully somebody elaborate on this five million dollar in-house professional development who's providing it.

And where is the training coming from amplify or we using our current staff or something to do the training.

That would be me.

So I will provide the professional.

$5 million?

I made $2 million already on some other project I was on.

But essentially, please withdraw that from the record.

Sorry, it's late.

Indeed, the professional development that's in houses is actually by, for elementary, right now it's Christine Benita.

Part of the bar will also provide us with more opportunities to bring in some instructional science specialists to help with that PD.

And that's my work, not this.

That's what I want to do.

I want to work with teachers.

I want to help them improve their practice.

I want to help them inspire kids.

I want every single child to love science.

I want our kids to be able to be in an ecosystem where they can make great decisions because they're armed with the equipment of science to help them.

Do things that the adults in this world aren't doing right now.

Because our future is our children.

And I believe our children deserve better from all of us.

And bless her bless her hearts.

My elementary colleagues haven't had anything for twenty five years.

And quite frankly when I came here there were eight curriculum specialists.

Eight.

Eight of us.

And now we have two point six of us.

And we.

And let me ping off of that if I might please.

Thank you.

It is late.

I don't mean to cut you off.

I have extreme respect.

But we're getting a little off course here.

Question.

We're going to phase this in.

Correct.

OK.

Are we putting the money into escrow because CFO Berge tells me that we're headed for even worse times a year from now.

So we can pass all the resolutions we want.

But if we're making promises our wallets can't catch capture.

Are we.

Prioritizing lower socioeconomic schools etc etc.

Help me understand worst case scenario here.

and best case scenario given that our friends in the legislature still don't.

I don't know fund nurses counselors social workers.

McCleary blah blah blah.

So we know that we have.

The one point.

One.

Available and ready to go through the 1920 school year.

We.

Don't know yet.

What the 2021 school year will hold.

So what we are.

Looking for in this BAR.

I think is an approval of the curriculum obviously and saying you know this is the curriculum that will be provided.

What happens in those out years in 2021 and what we can afford to do and how we can afford to phase that in is yet to be determined.

And that's what we've been trying to be really up front about about we know that we have money to start.

So how are we prioritizing it.

How are we reaching the children furthest away from educational justice.

Do you want to talk about which schools and that will be part of what the board will get to work with as we start the development for the twenty twenty one budget.

It's it's how are we going to prioritize or what are we going to prioritize.

And Mary — And I understand that you live your life by numbers and I understand that you're better than a computer on numbers.

But but frankly balancing budgets thumbs up thumbs down consensus.

is I think everybody shares the frustration here when we have weighted staffing standards when we don't move wait lists etc etc etc.

And please please appreciate that our communities and our taxpayers are coming at us 24 7 and we have to have some answers for them on that.

So how are we going to prioritize it and how are we not going to make promises that our wallets can't cash.

That's what the BAR lays out is that we are promising to do a first phase implementation with selected schools and Mary Margaret can talk about which schools those are.

We are not promising anything until the board reaches some decision about the 2021 school year and after that there is not a financial commitment that is being made at this point in time.