And because of the importance of getting this right and getting it right and getting it clear.
And also the fact that we have a little bit of time because it is not due until December, the early part of December we still have one more board meeting where we can get this and still make the ballot deadline.
So I would ask if someone could offer a motion to move this item to the November 18 agenda And that will give everybody a chance to go back and make sure that the language is dialed, the directors can look at it and be sure they are satisfied that we can have a legal review so that we get it right.
Because we just can't afford to get it wrong.
So I move that we delay this until the November 18 agenda.
I second that.
Okay I think Sue did.
Oh I'm sorry I thought I heard it over here.
I second.
Okay I heard something over here I just couldn't hear who.
Okay so we've had it moved and seconded.
Any questions before, any questions on that?
All right so with that why don't we go ahead and vote and again the motion is to delay this item until November 18. All right so if you want to go ahead and call the roll, sorry that was my cue to make sure you are ready.
Absolutely.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Martin-Morris.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
All right.
All right and thank you, I just want to say thank you to the staff.
I mean they recognize the criticality of this so we'll be sure we've got it all dialed in and we'll get it moved forward the next time.
All right.
All right so thank you for that.
So let's go to the last action item.
And that is BEX IV, Procurement of Portables and Capital Improvements made by Tenet while at E.C.
Hughes Elementary.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute the purchase from Westside school in the amount of $525,000 plus Washington State sales tax, excuse me, Washington State taxes of four existing portables and leaseholder improvements to the site and facility at E.C.
Hughes elementary school.
I second the motion.
All right so there, well I've got to refire up my computer.
There do not appear to be any changes to this item.
If we could hear from Director Patu from Ops.
This item came to Ops and it was recommended by the committee to move forward for full board approval.
Great thank you.
All right so questions from directors on this item.
Questions or comments on the procurement of portables and capital improvements.
Looks like none.
So with that why don't we go ahead and have a roll call please.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Martin-Morris.
Aye.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
All right thank you.
All right so that is the end of the action items for tonight.
And we have three introduction items.
Starting with the approval of the 2015-16 board governance priorities and superintendent evaluation instrument, SMART goals and accompanying rubrics.
And it's coming from ops although we met several times as a whole board and so.
With that I will ask Erin Bennett to please do the discussion of it, overview please.
Good evening.
So this motion has several elements to it.
It's the 2015-16 board governance priorities, the 2015-16 superintendent evaluation instrument, and the superintendent SMART goals and accompanying rubrics for 2015-16.
This is the first year that we have looked at the board's governance priorities and the superintendent's SMART goals at the same time.
That was a lessons learned that we learned from last year's superintendent evaluation system and this is an intentional shift to create better alignment.
There is a graphic organizer as one of the attachments to the board action report that shows the alignment of the goals.
The selection of governance priorities is to maintain the focus on a few priority and high impact goals focused on student achievement and align those goals with the 2013-18 strategic plan.
So this motion as was referenced has been discussed several times at an August 26, 2015 work session, a September 26, 2015 board retreat, an October 14, 2015 work session and then as a process point with regards to the board action report at the executive committee on October 28, 2015. Since the October 14th work session staff have tried to incorporate the feedback that they heard in both the goal and rubric language.
The rubrics themselves may look a little bit different.
As we mentioned at the October 14th we were going to be working to make sure that they were aligned not only with the goal but also as you go across the different columns so from basic to proficient to distinguished etc.
At this point you will see a team of people who are available to answer questions if needed and I'm also happy to answer any questions that you have.
Alright thank you and I left the room momentarily and I don't know if you highlighted the time, I mean we had We had a board retreat, we had one or two or maybe even three committees of the whole.
We had a number of engagements, public engagements on this.
So just by way of giving that background.
And so with that why don't I open it up for questions from directors.
We spent a fair bit of time on it so.
All right.
All right so any comments?
Director McLaren.
So as we heard earlier tonight there is disagreement about some of the language in the first two SMART goals and when staff originally presented this language to us they recommended that we use the language African-American males and other students of color.
And we've considered this language a lot and I have been weighing the value of the language as originally suggested and then I was wavering the last time and at the last work session I opted for more inclusive language but I am now letting people know that I am going to be presenting an amendment to revert to the original language that was suggested by staff which is focusing on African-American males and other students of color.
And I just want to read a paragraph of a statement that I've written and I will make some copies of that available.
So recent history and evidence shows conclusively that by focusing on this group African-American males We demand of our classroom teachers, principals, support staff and leadership that we specifically identify and remedy the practices that have caused the achievement gap.
Data from schools and districts in which teachers have focused on African-American males have worked collaboratively, identified learning deficits and provided appropriate interventions is available.
This evidence shows dramatic progress in closing the achievement gap not only for this group but for all groups.
The strategy known as targeted universalism starts by focusing on African-American males then changing the learning environment to close those gaps.
The effect of targeted universalism has been to help close the gap for all other underserved groups.
So I'm not going to spend any more time on this now but I will make this statement available.
All right thank you for that.
Other questions or comments?
Director Patu.
I actually wanted to make sure that I agree with the fact that I would like to focus on African-American male but also would like to have an emphasis on the three groups that we had actually, the Native Americans, Pacific Islander, and the Hispanics.
And wanted to keep the focus And actually I know on the SMART goal to make that the focus but I still want to see an emphasis on the other three groups.
Director Peasley.
I will restate the points that I made earlier that the goal is to use targeted universalism to impact all of our most disadvantaged learners.
It is very inconsistent with our strategic plan and our race and equity policy to focus on one group to the exclusion of other equally disadvantaged groups.
If we were to change this so that the focus were on Native American students it would make the Native American community extremely happy but it would cause a great deal of anger among African-Americans.
So why are we creating a smart goal that is divisive rather than inclusive?
I think it is extremely important that our governance priorities for our entire district are inclusive and aligned and consistent with our strategic plan.
And I would be in favor of calling out all of the most disadvantaged groups but if there is strong argument against that I think the next best thing is to refer to all of our disadvantaged groups as our most historically disadvantaged students.
So I will argue in support of keeping the language as it has been amended to the current form.
Alright so I'm sure there will be more lively discussion as we get to action.
Other questions or comments at this time?
Alright I think that that is it for that one again I didn't, I'm not surprised there weren't lots of questions.
We spent a fair bit of time as a collective body and over a number of sessions so thanks for everybody's work on that.
Alright and thank you Erin Bennett for the presentation.
Alright okay the next item is the superintendent's employment agreement, employment agreement duration and salary coming out of the executive committee.
And I will do the presentation on this.
Hold on just a second get to the right place.
And so just by way of the most summary of overviews what is being proposed is an extension of the contract by one year.
So the intent being standard practice being that you strive for a three year rolling contract.
The signal being that you'd like the superintendent to continue on.
In this particular case because of the timing of when we hired Dr. Nyland it was a two and a half year contract we couldn't go three and a half because by law you're limited to three.
And so it's down to one and a half, the proposal in the motion is to extend it to two and a half.
And then the other component of it is an adjustment to the salary by an amount of 5%.
And what we have What's been typical practice in my experience in Seattle Public Schools is we look to a couple of things.
One we benchmark with other Washington school districts that are of comparable size and complexity.
Of course none of them approaching the magnitude that we have here in Seattle Public Schools.
Since we are by far and above the largest school district in the state, we've always striven to have a salary that's commensurate with that challenge.
The other thing that we've benchmarked is similar, again, kind of typical practice benchmarked.
Peer districts as defined by this council for great city schools, those are listed in the bar.
If I tried to do them from memory I would get them wrong so I won't try to.
And then the other piece of information in looking to set the superintendent's salary.
You were smiling.
I didn't know if I said something wrong.
Okay.
Stop smiling.
The other piece that we typically have done is look to set the superintendent's raise at sort of the average of all the bargaining units and groups within Seattle Public Schools.
When we did that this year because of the raised values that we gave to the SEA the weighted average was like 5.8% which was beyond the budgeted or planned value within the budget and so to go that high One, was deemed not necessary but two, also beyond affordability and would require other adjustments be made.
So that was brought back down to the amount that was set at the budgeted value.
It should be clear that of that 5%, 3% is a pass-through from the state, all employees got a 3% COLA and so that money came directly from the state with a dedicated objective of the of raise for employees.
So a couple of key messages you know a competitive salary is important to attract and retain any employee it's especially true for a superintendent.
One only has to look at the amount of turnover we've had over the last decade to understand that retention of a superintendent is critical.
And compensation is a critical factor in that retention.
And especially true, I mentioned it a moment ago, but especially true for a superintendent in a major urban school district.
And so the compensation needs to be set commensurate with the difficulty of the role.
Some of these are starting to repeat themselves.
They're not repeating, I'd already said some of them so I'm kind of skipping through them.
It's important, setting an appropriate salary also sets a signal to other potential future candidates coming into Seattle Public Schools that the board takes the role seriously and is willing to compensate the superintendent for the job that they do.
Again, because of the high challenge.
So in terms of an approach, tried to work an approach that was very transparent.
You see it laid out in the bar.
We did have an opportunity in executive session as a whole board, all of us together to discuss the particulars and that was what authorized the discussion of the amounts in the contract proposal.
One clarification just because we have two directors elect here in the room.
The BAR tried to be clear this doesn't create any additional obligation for the school district.
Under these contracts you are fiscally committed for 12 months.
The current contract was already 18 months so extending it to two and a half years is still the obligation is that first 12 months so there's no additional impact in that way so that's worth noting for future board members.
And I think I will stop with that and ask if there are any questions or comments.
Okay all right so we will have an opportunity to take this up again at the next meeting.
Since I didn't see any questions or comments coming and again we had some conversation.
Okay Director Peters.
Would you mind going over the content of Superintendent Nyland's letter to us?
Oh, so I'll let him do that because we've offered a compensation amount in the contract and thank you for calling that out in my tired brain I forgot.
So I'll let Dr. Nyland talk about his
I appreciate the board's consideration for many of the reasons that President Carr indicated.
Keeping the salary competitive for future superintendents I think is an important step and I certainly appreciate the consideration by the board for me personally.
At the same time I do recognize that for a variety of reasons as we move into this school year primarily due to the difference in enrollment projections that being able to meet our budget has not been possible.
have offered in my letter is that if the board moves ahead for the second reading and approval of this action that I would donate back half of that increase back to the general fund in recognition of the cuts that we need to do to balance the budget.
Okay I think some of the folks in the room didn't hear some of that so could you just repeat that last couple sentences please.
That I would donate back half of the increase to the general fund.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
All right so I'm not seeing any other questions and I'll thank Director Peters for mentioning that and reminding me.
And that brings us then to the last agenda item.
Race to the top project P1 teaching and learning round three Seattle teacher residency coming from C&I.
Good evening, Clover Codd, Chief Partnership Officer.
I am here to present an introduction to the latest round of the Race to the Top funding that we have been awarded for the purposes of the Seattle teacher residency.
We are asking the board to approve the acceptance of this award and because I know you have already read the bar and the attachments I will be brief.
and I am the last item for the night.
The Race to the Top grant award of $40 million was shared among eight different projects and seven different school districts.
Project one the teaching and leading investment fund was allocated a total of $7.2 million over the course of four years.
In order for districts to access these funds we have to turn in grant proposals.
For the past two years we have been awarded race to the top funds for the Seattle teacher residency in the first year $225,455.
In the second year $355,635.
And in this past August we applied for a third and final round of funding for the Seattle teacher residency.
In October we were notified that we have been awarded $338,000 for the 15-16 school year.
There are currently 31 residents in this third cohort and 55% of those identify as residents of color.
These residents will become first-year teachers in Seattle Public Schools next school year if they successfully complete the program.
I might add that cohort one teachers had a 100% same school retention rate compared to 82% of other first-year teachers.
We do know that retention rate in a school is positively correlated to student achievement.
Accepting this award does not impact any decision regarding the future relationship with the alliance and the Seattle teacher residents.
These are two separate conversations.
What you are being introduced is to accept the race to the top funding for this school
All right so with that I will open it up to questions from directors.
Director Blanford.
The curriculum and instruction committee heard this item on October 12 and recommended it to the board for approval.
My apologies.
Thank you for remembering.
Director Martin Morris.
This is the last, is this the last and final year for this part?
This is the last round that we can apply for funding.
So after this we will have to seek other streams?
Yes.
Thank you.
Director Geary.
I'm sorry can you restate what the two of you just sort of said?
This is the last year that we can do what?
So this is the last year that we will be able to access the race to the top funds.
The race to the top award was for a four-year period of time.
We are coming into that end of that and this will be the last round that we can apply for these funds for this purpose.
And so the people going through the STR program it's a one-year program so they are not going to be cut off in mid-program.
we don't have funding.
Okay thank you.
Director Peters is going to ask, I know the question I'm going to ask, so what happens after we no longer have that source of funding?
So that's a really good question.
We've got a lot of fundraising to do.
We are still going to be having conversations about what the future of the Seattle teacher residency partnership looks like with the alliance and the Seattle education association and the University of Washington.
Dr. Nyland has committed no more than $50,000 moving forward to the Seattle teacher residency program from our baseline funds.
We are currently working to secure some AmeriCorps funding.
There are other opportunities in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
Should it be reauthorized in some current version?
There may be a possibility of using Title II funds for Seattle teacher residency.
So there are other opportunities but it will be a fundraising endeavor for sure.
Just for clarification's sake can you define what Title II funds are designated for?
Oh I do know what they are designated for.
So Title II funds are really around supporting teaching in the classroom, new teaching induction, it's professional development support for teachers and it is really aimed at professional development and support and so there may be an opportunity for those funds to be used for residency programs.
That is not set in stone and you know they still haven't reauthorized it but there is conversation about that.
And then can you identify what the philanthropic funding is?
Which philanthropy are we talking about?
So the alliance is the fiscal agent and they do the fundraising and there are a host of philanthropic partners that donate to the Seattle teacher residency.
All right thank you.
Other questions?
Okay that brings us to the bottom of the agenda and it is 939 PM and we will adjourn.
Thank you all thanks to staff and thanks to the board for all of this.
Thanks for everybody for sticking it all the way to the end sticking it out all the way to the end.