Seattle School Board Meeting April 4, 2018 Part 2

Elementary feeder school grant.

This came before C&I March 13th for.

Approval.

This came before C&I March 13th and was moved forward enthusiastically for approval.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to accept the Satterberg Foundation elementary feeder school grant funds in the amount of nine hundred fifty thousand dollars.

Do I hear a motion.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to accept the Satterberg Foundation elementary feeder school grant funds in the amount of nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

I second the motion.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Double dog dare you.

Or say thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you in harmony.

One two three.

Thank you.

Director Mack please.

No.

Director DeWolf.

Roll call please.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Mack.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director DeWolf.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Thank you so much.

Number three Seattle teacher residency program funding.

This came before executive committee March 15th for approval.

Approval of this item would provide authority for the superintendent to dedicate two hundred fifty one thousand dollars for the purposes of the Seattle teacher residency STR program in the 2018 19 school year.

Do I hear a motion.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to dedicate two hundred and fifty one thousand dollars in the 2018 19 school year budget for the purpose of the Seattle teacher residency program.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions comments and concerns Ms. Broome could you stand and be acknowledged please for your work on this with the Alliance for Education.

Thank you so much.

We ask our other partners to stand previously.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you Director Harris.

I just wanted to say a special thank you to Alliance for Education and the Seattle Education Association our folks here at SPS and UW.

Thank you.

I know there's four.

I'm just really grateful for your work and service around making sure that we have a pipeline of teachers of color in our schools.

We not only heard that question last week to the public during the public forum but that question was in pretty much every conversation we had with our future superintendent.

So I know that All of our candidates and particularly the one we elevated earlier tonight are interested in this issue and I'm so grateful for the work that you do.

In a perfect world our state would fully fund us and we could support you with more money.

But thank you for letting us give you what we can.

And thank you for making sure we have teachers of color that look like the students in our schools.

Thank you.

Director Geary please.

I second of course the comments of Director DeWolf but and there's another aspect about it that I think is so fantastic and we can't even monetize it.

But as we create this pipeline those teachers just bring that enthusiasm that the new ideas that they've been exposed to out in their studies and And I can only imagine that it just reinvigorates the whole educational environment around the students with a lens of really appreciating that every single student is somebody who can learn and deserves that kind of passion.

So I love this program.

I've always loved this program.

I wish we could have it everywhere and we'll continue to work for that.

Thank you.

Dr. Clover Codd the assistant superintendent for H.R.

If you would like to make a few quick comments we'd be grateful.

Thank you.

I had not planned on making any comments except for I am deeply grateful to all of you for your support and to the Alliance for Education the Seattle Education Association and the University of Washington for their continued partnership and perseverance over the last several years to make sure that this is a viable program.

So thank you to everybody.

Thank you.

Any other questions comments concerns before roll call.

Short and sweet.

Thank you very much.

Director Burke please.

I just want it to be known that as part of the discussion around this you know this is a this is a funding leverage strategy and it's an expensive program but it's an investment.

into our future educators and therefore our future students and our system that is making impacts in ways that we can't do without very focused work.

And so this contribution will be basically 25 percent of the operating budget for this program.

And some of the concerns that have been raised both on and off the board is is it sustainable?

How do we maintain that?

And I think the the work of our partners at the Alliance for Education and the enthusiasm around this program help sustain that.

But we recognize that there will be an ongoing cost as part of the future structure of this moving forward.

We're trying to put in place a sustainable model where Seattle Public Schools covers one third of the of the ongoing cost.

with two thirds being covered through philanthropy and grant funding.

So there is a commitment from the board from the district level to continue to invest in this along with the understanding that that investment is shared and supported by the rest of the community.

So I want that loud and proud.

Roll call please.

Director Patu.

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

This motion has passed unanimously.

Next up number for approval of information technology advisory committee.

This came before the executive committee March 15th for consideration.

Approval of this item would authorize and approve the charge of the Information Technology Advisory Committee.

May I hear the motion please.

I move that the school board authorize and approve the charge of the Information Technology Advisory Committee with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent.

I second the motion.

Director Burke would you speak to this motion please.

I would love to share with my my colleagues and I'll let John Crow fill in the details.

This has been a long term.

Goal need has been mentioned multiple times by folks on the board has been a passion of President Harris and of myself and I.

You know I've heard it from some of you as well that how do we engage our our community in this high tech and amazing city in informing us and helping us be better about the tech we're doing.

We.

We ask our voters for a significant amount of money and we're grateful for their support through levies.

And we have a component of funding that comes from the BTA levy is buildings technology and academics and a funding of our tech that comes from the BEX the building excellence because we infuse technology in all of our buildings and how we how we shape that request to the community of what work we're doing how we set our budgetary guidelines and then how we implement that so that it's prioritized according to our strategic goals our equity lens all the things that we talk about putting that amount of money into practice to really benefit students.

It's pretty multifaceted.

And it's hard.

It's nuanced for us as a board to make decisions on a million dollars here a million dollars there.

Technology can really rack up quickly.

So having a committee that's made up of of.

community students industry experts staff you know across multiple staffing categories is a great way to sort of extend our reach as a board.

And that's why this is a board committee.

So that's really the intent behind it between when it came through executive committee and then was introduced and now is coming to you for action.

There were comments that came up and feedback from folks in the community but also we got some really great dialogue with with Director Harris President Harris and captured hopefully a lot of that.

And to the point where Director Harris and I are now co-sponsoring this.

tip of the hat.

So I'm really excited.

I think a lot of the things that came up were great improvements in transparency and ways to build the committee to be strong sustainable and effective.

And so the document that's attached to the board agenda.

I apologize it's a little bit kind of red line madness but the resulting.

bar and charge I believe is a much more solid thing than what we brought forward.

Four weeks ago.

Two weeks was it two weeks two weeks time flies.

When you're having fun.

Yeah.

So John Krull I don't know if you have anything else to add or if you want to go to questions.

I defer to you.

And we need to keep it short because we still have a number of agenda items to discuss this evening.

Yes thank you Director Burke and Director Harris.

I was disappointed when the press left because I thought they were here for the technology advisory committee.

You're ready for your close up are you Mr. DeMille?

I just wanted to emphasize that we move the start of the committee to the third week in May to allow for more engagement to to reach a diverse and underserved historically underserved group the best that we can in getting a large group of people to apply.

And I think another improvement was we've added a second student so there's room on the board for two student voices.

On the committee not the board or committee.

Not so fast.

So so with that I will let board members speak.

Comments questions concerns director Mack.

I just if you could briefly explain the structure of the general structure of the advisory committee how those folks are going to be selected and who they report to.

And I'm fully in support.

This is definitely a need.

I'll give it a try and John you'll get my back.

So just shake your head if I get it wrong.

And I'll hurt you.

18 members nine community eight community eight staff two students.

The goal you know all of them are selected by application.

The applications are reviewed using a rubric that's developed jointly with the executive committee.

Deputy Superintendent Nielsen and CIO John Krull will be developing the rubric scoring the applicants and determine the final selections.

the operation of the committee.

John Krull serves as ex officio vice ex officio co-chair and then a second co-chair is selected from the committee members.

And it rotates year year by year year to year whether it's from the community or the staff.

So we have shared representation sort of a shared leadership structure as well.

And John kind of gluing it all together and making sure that everybody plays well.

And the agendas and the minutes of said committee will be posted on the Web site.

The meetings will in fact be open.

They will be at a determined time same time.

every month.

Initially here at the John Stanford Center but does not mean that they can't meet elsewhere and all of that will be posted and shared.

And the meetings will begin with a budget component much like the BEX oversight where we say here's the projects we're working on.

Here's the budgets for them.

Here's our progress.

Quick summary of that just so we have full transparency into the projects.

It will also be used as a.

As a sounding board for key technology initiatives not all of them necessarily but the ones that are that you know merit review by the advisory committee will come to the committee to be discussed and debated and then the guidance from that would be included in bars as part of the community and equity components.

The committee will be trained using the community engagement tool and our equity framework as well.

Director Patu please and then Director Geary.

Just curious how are students actually chosen to be on this committee.

That still has yet to be developed by the executive committee.

Deputy Nielsen and CIO Krull.

Also we will stagger one to two year terms by drawing lots when the committee first meets so that you will have best practices in the nonprofit world.

So you will have some carry over so we don't start over and flip the whole thing and people are eligible to serve multiple terms.

Director Geary please.

And as I recall when this came up before I did mention that I had done a search and didn't see anything discussing assistive technology.

I do see that there is now there is talking about different characteristics that will be considered along with subject matter and specific topic expertise per ed tech data privacy enterprise business systems online blended learning etc.

I think assistive technology is very specialized and it needs to be blended into the general education environment in a way that is planned and seamless and supports students progress in general education.

And so I'm not seeing how.

This committee is going to have somebody who has the expertise necessary to do that kind of.

Critical analysis of the work that the task force could task force is doing.

To provide meaningful input.

So I'm disappointed in that.

Director Burke.

Just just to highlight on page 6 there is a list of key projects for possible consideration by the committee include but are not limited to the third one down on the list is adaptive technology and accessibility for a different differently abled students and community.

So I think that there was definitely a Awareness around that as an important element.

And I believe it's also built into the the sort of the qualifications or what we're looking for in terms of applicants.

And I would suggest that you as a member of the executive committee that will be helping develop the rubric and choosing folks.

Potentially we could give extra points and certainly double down on those concerns.

I am I am just concerned that if we don't specifically call out the type of people that we are looking for there is such a historic division between that which is considered the normal business of the district and that which is relegated to special ed that people who are in assistive technology won't really fully understand that their expertise is wanted.

That is just.

that has just the result the unfortunate result of historical marginalization around that work.

So I don't.

Director Burke.

I think that it's important to acknowledge that that that was one of the comments that motivated the shift of the start date which originally had been proposed as the third Monday in April and is now the third Monday in May.

And so once this should this bar be approved.

The community engagement team will immediately begin to do outreach along with us as directors to engage folks that.

that bring those extra perspectives that perhaps haven't been in the past.

And so there's there's I believe a little bit more than four weeks.

May 11th I think is the is the due date for applicants.

So a fairly decent amount of time it'll go by quickly but I just wanted to.

That's why I tell everybody tell everyone you know.

And.

There is nothing that would prevent us.

From adding.

An amendment.

One sentence for a.

Emphasis director Geary if you so choose we could move on to the next board action issue if you'd like to determine.

An amendment.

We could circle back to this.

I respect your comments greatly and if there's a way we can incorporate those comments or the substance of what you're looking for.

I'd be more than happy to move the agenda along and circle back.

My pleasure.

Number five amending board policy number 14 10 executive or closed sessions and board procedure number 14 30 BP audience participation.

This came before the executive committee March 15th for consideration.

Approval of this item would amend board policy number 14 10 executive or closed sessions and the board procedure number 14 30 BP audience participation.

May I hear the motion please.

I move that the board amend policy number 14 10 executive or closed sessions and board procedure number 14 30 BP audience participation as attached to this board action report.

I second the motion.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

We heard from a community member about the concern that Public testimony on the consent agenda is difficult because of the timing of our agenda.

That they can't.

The consent agenda happens before public comment.

And.

It is action.

So consent agenda is an action item.

But I don't technically have the ability to speak to it before action is taken.

And so I'm kind of curious about that.

If there is a resolution to that.

challenge director Burke and then director DeWolf please.

I want to thank Nate Van Duzer for on.

There's there was an amendment.

That's the change that has been made for speaking to action items on the agenda including items on the consent agenda.

So they will be prioritized first.

And so now it's incumbent on us.

as as a board to look at the audience participation and what those items are.

And if we see people that have public testimony for items on the consent agenda any of the seven of us can request that that item be removed and could you know could move that it be shifted till after comments.

Director DeWolf and then we'll circle back to Director Mack.

Thank you.

I was also just curious given that our public comment does start at 530 if there's a reason timing wise for folks if they're coming from work or other parts of the city that just with kind of the timing around traffic and all those things at 530. It's just where we've kind of put the public comment.

You know if we did it at the beginning before any of the consent I'd be I would be concerned that people would be able to get here.

So I'm just curious if it's more around kind of the balance between logistics and purpose.

Director Mack.

The timing of our public comment is as I understand it important so folks can get here.

The concern I have around us being diligent to make sure that we flag it is.

I don't I don't think I want to leave that for us to accidentally miss.

I'm sorry.

I mean we have so much information we're tracking.

So just if it is on the consent agenda and someone is Speaking to that I think.

Maybe it's an appropriate notation.

On the speaking list and.

That gets called out meaning.

They're listed their topic and then parens on consent agenda so that would be flagged for us.

We wouldn't have to try to cross reference.

Mr. Van Duzer would you like to respond or give us your thoughts please sir.

Yes good evening Nate Van Duzer director of policy and board relations.

That was a thought that director Burke had as well.

My initial response to that is putting together the testimony list.

There's a lot of different pieces to it and adding one more.

I was just hesitant to go there in part because sometimes people's topic lists, we try to just take what they give us and put it on there without trying to interpret it too much or change the wording too much.

So that was my initial reaction.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you for that.

I wonder if instead of putting extra homework on our staff if maybe the executive committee and I'm not trying to give you more homework but maybe if the executive committee given that I think it's a good idea to help us kind of flag it.

I if maybe that's something the executive committee could kind of help flag for us.

I'm agreeable to that.

Director Pinkham.

Well I was just saying that it's taken what the people that are going to do public comment are putting in there.

Can we then definitely be more specific to them and say if you are going to address something on the consent agenda please put that in your comments so then be hopefully easier for you.

Oh there is a consent agenda item that someone said they're going to address because they said I want to address a consent agenda item.

So that again it doesn't put too much on your plate again if you're just going to kind of copy and put it in there then then I think that'll help us at the board be able to oh there's a consent agenda item that someone wants to talk to.

Would that be something that may help out?

We could think about where those instructions are and figure out if there's a place to put that in.

One thing that I did want to note, the concern that was raised in the case that was raised in the email, in that case the item was caught by directors and was pulled off the consent agenda and I believe moved to later in the evening.

And so I think part of part of me is hesitant to put in a lot of new structures or systems in place when I'm not sure there's a.

I think we caught it in that case and I don't know how many cases there are in which we're not catching.

OK.

And as most.

Dynamic organizations go.

If.

We need to make further changes.

There is nothing that stops us from doing that.

Is that correct.

That's correct.

That's correct.

And I'm happy after when the public testimony list comes in as as directors are coming in the beginning of the meeting.

If I see something on there that's that looks like a consent item I'm happy to flag that as well.

And I would suggest to the very good folks at the walls that you give us the heads up as well because we're a team.

Any other questions comments concerns seeing none roll call please.

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

This motion has passed unanimously.

Director Geary are you ready or should we continue the agenda and circle back or do you want to flag it when you are ready.

I think I'm ready.

OK.

Go for it please.

So we are back.

And general counsel is coming to the box.

So we're back.

Thank you.

We have a motion for item number four.

Yeah I was just going to treat general counsel I was just going to suggest that you since you you made the motion on the oversight committee and then you jumped in to a different motion which you made and voted on to properly put a motion on the floor you had to go back to the original remake the motion on the oversight or on the on the technology committee.

And then go from there to the amendment.

Happy to do so.

Giving space to our respected colleagues is tricky.

Do I need to withdraw it before I reissue it.

OK.

I move that the school board authorize and approve the charge of the information technology advisory committee with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent.

I second the motion.

Do I hear an amendment to the motion?

I move to amend the information technology advisory committee charge referenced in the bar to add the following language to section 3 and what I believe to be paragraph 5 which commences the deputy student superintendent comma chief information officer and board and goes on from there.

But I'm only adding to the very end of that paragraph that talks about the different kinds of people that will be considered for the committee.

The following sentence socialize specialized knowledge of assistive technology will also be considered.

I second that amendment motion.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues and Chief Jesse.

Are you good with this.

Two thumbs up or one thumb up.

Thank you.

Director Mack.

No.

Roll call please on the amendment.

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

This amendment has passed unanimously.

Roll call please.

On the motion as amended.

Director Burke aye.

Director DeWolf aye.

Director Geary aye.

Director Mack aye.

Director Patu aye.

Director Pinkham aye.

Director Harris aye.

This motion as amended has passed unanimously.

Thanks very much.

Next up.

Number six termination of ground lease at the Lake City School.

This came before Ops on March 8th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would approve early termination of the lease with Lake City Professional Building LLC in the payment amount of six million one hundred ninety three thousand dollars for the Lake City school stock to provide for increased flexibility to meet capacity needs of Seattle Public Schools.

Motion please.

Take a deep breath.

I move that the school board approve the lease termination agreement for the Lake City School property as attached to this board action report with any minor modifications additions or deletions deemed necessary by the superintendent and authorize the superintendent to take all actions necessary including payment of a six million one hundred ninety three thousand dollar lease termination payment to implement the agreement.

Second.

I second the motion.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

I don't have Bruce if you don't.

Yeah if you don't mind.

I don't have my notes from the meeting two weeks ago but I know I had a series of questions and I thought that we were going to include additional information in the bar.

Was there.

I'm trying to track back if this bar actually got edited and that information included.

I don't believe the bar was modified.

There was some additional information that was sent to the board and I believe it was a Friday memo.

There was a question about the drain issue at the property and then a copy of the appraisal was sent out.

Yeah I do recall seeing those in my email I was having a hard time finding them for some reason but I saw them come through.

But they're not here to be as part of that.

The other piece I remember wanting clearly laid out was the rate of payback or potential rate of payback that this would be.

Maybe I maybe I did not make that request but I think that was a question that I.

That.

We are.

Potentially.

Losing seven thousand dollars a month.

in income from them and potentially making X and pay back this over the course of how much time and.

Yeah I think the analysis that was done was the payback was about seven and a half to eight years.

Which.

Figured the income of.

Sixty six thousand a month.

So hearing that verbally is great.

However where I'm having a challenge is that that's not here in the public information for folks to see and to understand this transaction and the justification behind it.

So I'm a little nervous about.

passing this without that information in the bar and available.

I'm curious what other folks think but this is our public documents of what transpires and.

Director Burke.

I do recall that conversation.

I.

My feeling is that since the bar does explicitly indicate that the total cost of the property is expected to be offset by leased revenue blah blah blah blah within a nine to 10 year period.

So the the payback is stated as a high level but it doesn't actually state it as a revenue expense kind of annual.

This is under Section 5 in the bar fiscal impact.

So I'm comfortable with that at a high level.

I think having the information in the public record through the meeting is great.

I'm.

Mr. General Counsel to the box please.

What are our options here.

I appreciate that the meeting minutes and the public record and video create a record.

Is there a.

appropriate way to add the documents that director Mack rightly has concerns about to the record after the bar is passed.

Oh good I gotcha.

I'm you know I'm not thinking of a way I mean I think we can always add something for instance to our web pages or something like that to provide the public with information but in terms of a way to add it to the actual legislative record when it wasn't actually presented and considered here I'm not maybe look to Nate and see if he's got an idea.

I'll just add one thing that we've done in the past is we've added a note to the agenda with it with a new link saying the board requested that this information also be available for review.

Other questions comments concerns.

Director Mack.

I'm curious to get the feel from the rest of my board directors about this.

large amount of funds being spent on this building.

Are we comfortable with this at this point.

What are our thoughts because.

We have a lot of building needs in the district.

This isn't going to immediately become something we're actually going to be spending.

Six million.

Is that the number.

So.

Six million.

I'd like to hear perspectives and.

and get a sense of you know we being responsible taxpayer dollars here.

Director Geary and then Director Burke.

And then Director Pinkham.

From a very high level it's.

The responsibility in my mind is to.

Recognize as we have talked about before that in reducing class sizes we're going to need more space one way or another.

We're in a city that has.

Not much open land and that land is very very expensive.

The longer we wait the more expensive land becomes.

It seems to me.

That there is no way to see into the future.

What the exact cost.

Of.

gaining flexibility around land and places to create classrooms is going to be.

That's just going to be a mystery in terms of how the economy is doing what the city wants to do with housing all these things.

And so making sure that within the very limited scope that we have to control availability of classrooms.

that we need to move in that direction.

That is and I believe that's sort of honoring work that you I have heard you talk about over a long period of time and without there there is no there's going to be no cheap or smooth way to do this because unfortunately land doesn't come up as.

at ground zero of the circle of kids that we need to find new seats for.

That's not how it's going to work.

And then we know even if it did we'll have all the people going to the surrounding schools who don't want to go to that school anyway.

So it's it's.

It seems to me maximizing our flexibility in the long run.

President Harris has tagged to me Director Pinkham.

And I believe that we were offered to buy out this lease previously and it was significant less at that time.

And then any we just see this cost probably going up if we say no and then trying to buy it out at a later date would just be more expensive.

Is that correct?

Kind of.

Potentially.

And this is our once every 10 year opportunity to purchase the lease.

And then this may be a question also maybe before flip with operations again in the statement that Director Burke was referring to that the total cost of real property expected to be offset by lease revenue received by directed seemed directly by the SPS instead of the Lake City professional within nine to 10 year period.

But then followed by SPS is not anticipating the need for this facility within the next seven to 10 years.

But how long if we need it at that seventh year do we need to go in and move tenants out remodel it.

Are we going to have to say gee we're going to need two years to do that.

So we're actually maybe only collecting five years of revenue.

Yeah Flip Herndon associate superintendent operations and facilities.

Those are all very good questions.

So what this allows us to do is if we were in the position we basically gain control of the building.

First and foremost.

So the bill we don't we wouldn't have to buy the lease out from the main leaseholder anymore.

We're we have it back.

So we're gaining revenue in that particular case if we needed the building and had to turn it into educational space sooner than that sooner than less than 10 years let's say.

Correct we wouldn't be gaining the revenue monthly revenue or annual revenue off of the sub leases that we have in there.

But we also don't have to pay for the purchase of buying out the rest of the lease or acquiring land anywhere else either.

So we will have already purchased that and we have the options then we're just moving we're just moving into whatever the renovation costs may be for the building.

And we can stage that out.

We can basically figure out OK we see this coming our way.

We didn't see it a couple of years ago but within the next five years we believe we're going to need an additional building in that location.

We can attach fiscal impact to what that might be.

But in that time.

So if we have a 10 year pay 9 to 10 year payback period basically on six hundred ninety thousand dollars a year and we've done five years of that and essentially we've bought down the amount to buy at that lease by half that half that cost.

Director Mack.

Thank you.

So I want to formally make the request that those documents and that information be added to this if this does in fact pass tonight.

But the second question I have for you Dr. Herndon was.

I noted I noticed in the Webster documents that a different building that we're also talking about tonight on a different action item that Webster's not able to access the state school construction assistance program dollars because it was closed for so long.

So then Lake City is going to be in the same situation.

Correct correct.

So there's so the the up to 20 percent or less that we don't get.

I know we don't we hardly get anything and that needs to be fixed.

Yes I know.

But but there's some dollars that come to us from the state.

Webster is not able to do it because it was a surplus building.

Lake City is a surplus building so it won't get those dollars.

If.

That site were completely raised in a brand new building built.

Does that change the story.

It's it's possible there are a couple of different ways in which we qualify for school construction assistance program dollars.

And as you know we've been working with legislators to help change that qualification methodology anyway.

So we would hope by the time that we have to.

action may have action on that particular site.

We might have a different calculation for how we might be compensated more.

Currently it's definitely not 20 percent.

We're lucky to get overall budget like in the single digits 5 percent 6 percent.

And that's that's optimistic.

I just want to put that in our thoughts for legislative support to to ensure that the designation that previously surplus buildings are no longer able to access those funds to me that I don't understand why that would be part of the calculation in the first place.

But so that.

Just wanted to make the point there.

That's all I have.

If no one else has any other.

Other questions comments concerns.

Director Pinkham please.

And then on the rent roll there are three vacant offices right now.

Would there be any intention to possibly rent those out in the short term to increase the revenue?

They've contacted us I think they are planning on renting those out in the next few weeks.

I see them from a size of three hundred twenty four square feet up to two thousand five hundred sixty six square feet.

Well given the rents in South Lake Union in downtown Seattle I would think that we could do well.

Yes.

Seeing no further comments questions concerns from my colleagues roll call please.

Director Geary aye.

Director Mack aye.

Director Patu aye.

Director Pinkham aye.

Director Burke aye.

Director DeWolf aye.

Director Harris aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Seven creation of playground redevelopment fund.

This came between before ops March 8th for.

Approval of this item would request the funding of a playground redevelopment project to pay for playground installations and improvements in the amount of one million dollars.

May I have the motion please.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to create a playground redevelopment project fund of one million dollars to be utilized for playground improvement projects as described in the board action report.

Second please.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

My one question is that this assumes that the million dollars will be paid back if BEX V passes.

So do we have that already calculated on the list of potential BEX projects that's not accidentally forgotten about.

I just want to make sure that we.

Don't forget that that's part of the commitment we're making here.

We do.

We have that.

If you look on the menu of BEX V potential items we haven't broken down every single playground that might be addressed but we can certainly put a line item in the playground portion that says reimbursement to CEP fund for advancement of playground development fund.

We can do that.

And again remind me who reviews the grants or who is going to be approving the usage of these funds.

It would go through the operations committee and it would be a self-help process.

Other comments questions concerns director Pinkham.

I guess for me what we're looking at we're still talking about the BEX V and what we're going to put on it.

Do you think this is fair for us to say here's a million dollars that will go on it no matter what?

So I think in conversation about this the CEP fund which comes from capital dollars.

That's what is really fronting this so that money is available for the board to spend in this particular way.

As we've had several conversations about previous BEX and capital levies playgrounds have been on menus in the past and then not survived to the end to actually get on the ballot.

We've heard pretty strong support from this particular board to have that happen.

One of the mechanisms for at least knowing whether or not to continue to have that happen is an evaluation in the facility condition assessment to include condition of playground.

So I think once.

The public and board see some of the disparities that we have within our school buildings.

I think they'll be pretty good support in order to continue to have that happen.

But ultimately it is a board decision about how big that levy needs to be and what needs to survive.

We're just the staff going off of what we believe we've been hearing from the board.

in support of making sure playgrounds stay on BEX V. But the funds are covered in the CEP fund currently.

And then if let's say the million dollars for this doesn't make it are cut for the BEX V or the BEX V doesn't pass which hopefully doesn't happen.

We will then still be a million dollars committed from the CEP funds.

Correct.

The overall budget and CEP would go down a million dollars.

My turn.

First of all thank you.

You're welcome.

I think one of the things that has not been stated we stated at introduction is that our city and county partners have ponied up for some of our schools that are not funded by PTAs and PTOs.

These are struggling schools.

These are Title 1 schools.

This is about race and equity fresh air and exercise which we can all agree is a good thing for our student learners.

I was beyond astonished that in the past playgrounds and playground improvements were not part of the BEX levies stunned.

and frankly disappointed given what our values are in this beautiful city and for our beautiful students.

I will be ever so happy to report back to our county and city partners that we're going to recognize this inequity and address it.

Questions comments concerns seeing none.

Roll call please.

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

This is what teamwork looks like.

Thank you so much.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Number eight.

Purchase of student and staff computers for new BEX IV schools BTA projects K-3 class size reduction and enrollment growth capacity classrooms opening summer 2018. This came before Ops March 8th for.

Approval of this item would approve the purchase of student and staff computers for a total amount not to exceed one point two million dollars for levy projects and the needed enrollment growth classrooms and K-3 class size reduction classrooms opening September 2018. Motion please.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute purchase orders through RFP number 0 6 7 9 2. with Dell slash Thornburg for a total amount not to exceed one point two million dollars plus Washington state sales tax for fiscal year 2017 18 and to take any necessary actions to implement the purchase orders.

I second the motion.

Correct.

And we added one paragraph concerning the.

Could you identify yourself for the record please.

Thank you so much.

Richard Best director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools.

We added one paragraph to the bar to clarify that it is not a teacher or a student computerized ratio but rather we provide computers on carts and we allow the buildings and the end users then to determine how they would like to utilize those computers for any given day.

It's done with the input of the building principal who oversees that site.

So.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Director Burke.

I'm not sure if it's been in my mind or if it's actually been in the public where I had been fairly adamant that I was not interested in approving additional technology purchases until we had a clear theory of action around what we were doing.

That said I want to support this recognizing that this is essentially expansion of it is maintaining what we have at the same level.

For its accommodating growth.

And I will also acknowledge the work of John Krull and his team in and the board in putting together the information technology advisory committee that I think will help inform us and give us a lot of confidence that if we're putting computer hardware out in front of our students we're doing it to enhance educational outcomes.

We're not doing it just because.

We did it over there and we did it over there.

We're doing it with intentionality and that we know with a high degree of confidence that our kids are going to benefit.

Return on investment.

Other questions comments concerns.

Seeing none roll call please.

Director Mack.

Dir.

Patu aye Dir.

Pinkham aye Dir.

Burke aye Dir.

DeWolf aye Dir.

Geary aye Dir.

Harris aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Number nine BEX IV authorization of settlement change order number 25 to contract P 5 0 3 4 with Lighted Construction Company for the Cascadia Elementary School.

Licton Springs K-8 school and Robert Eagle Staff Middle School formerly Wilson Pacific project.

This came before Ops March 8th for.

Approval of this item would allow the efficient and timely payment of the completed work to most of the subcontractors thereby decreasing the risk of potential future claims against the district.

Change order number 25 is in the amount of.

933 thousand seven hundred seventy eight dollars plus Washington state sales tax.

Motion please.

I move that the school board authorize approval of change order number 25 in the amount of nine hundred and thirty three thousand seven hundred and seventy eight dollars plus Washington state sales tax.

I second the motion.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues please.

And for the public watching remember that these action items were discussed in intro two weeks ago and all that video is already on YouTube and the text of the resolutions is on our Web site at the board page.

Director Mack please.

I'll add that we also vet these through operations and in the interim we may ask additional questions and this one came through for.

Consideration and the question was something.

The question that we had was a memo about the total cost which is in here now.

And I don't think there are other concerns.

At all.

So.

Other questions comments concerns.

Seeing none roll call please.

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

This motion is passed unanimously.

Number 10 BTA IV approval of the project budget increase modifications to the architectural and engineering services A slash E contract P. 1 4 1 6 with TCF architecture an amendment to the general contractor construction manager GC slash CM contract K 5 0 7 3 with BN builders for the Webster school modernization and addition project.

This came before Ops March 8th for.

Approval of this item would approve a transfer of six million dollars from the building technology and academics athletics BTA IV capital levy program contingency fund to the BTA IV Webster school modernization and addition project budget.

In addition this motion would authorize the superintendent to execute a contract modification for six hundred forty three thousand five hundred sixty seven dollars with TCF architecture.

for additional design and construction administration fees and a contract amendment with BN builders to increase the guaranteed maximum price GMP to twenty three million nine hundred dollars.

Motion please.

Take a breath.

Deep breath on this one.

Save the best for last.

Number one I move that the school board approve a one time fund transfer from the BTA IV program contingency to the Webster school modernization and addition project budget in the amount of six point zero million dollars.

Two I also move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a modification to contract P 1 4 1 6 with TCF architecture in the amount of six hundred and forty three thousand five hundred and sixty seven for additional design and construction costs for the Webster school modernization and addition project with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent.

and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract amendment.

And three I further move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute an amendment to the general contractor construction manager GCCM contract K 5 0 7 3 with BN builders for the Webster school modernization and addition project to set the guaranteed maximum price GMP as defined by RCW 39 dot 10 dot 370 at an amount not to exceed twenty three million nine hundred dollars.

I second the emotion of the emotion.

I second the motion and that took everything for me to attend.

Questions comments concerns.

Director Pinkham.

Can I also make sure that this does get correct for those that are watching it's twenty three million nine hundred thousand not twenty three million nine hundred.

Thank you so much.

No it was me.

You did it right.

Oh.

Director DeWolf please.

I can hold my question sorry.

I ask for comments questions and concerns from my colleagues.

I have enough coffee today.

So.

I was just trying to.

Figure out.

Clarification.

Had some testimony today about our building that we had 12 years ago.

We're demolishing it.

Is there a way to figure out the depreciation because obviously we paid for a building 12 years ago.

And over the course of 12 years it.

OK I'm going to stop talking.

Director Pinkham and then Director Mack.

So the additional six million seems primarily going to a new gymnasium.

Was there a gymnasium part of the original Webster building that can be possibly remodeled versus building a whole new one?

There's not Director Pinkham a gymnasium as part of the original Webster building.

There is a large covered play area.

It's actually divided kind of separated and it's on the north side of the existing building.

Director Mack.

Mr. Best thank you so much for bringing pictures today with us.

So yeah no worries.

Thank you for bringing the pictures.

I had a bunch of questions get raised because there was community comments that were coming in saying and we had it in testimony as well about concern about this gymnasium not being appropriate for the size.

The cost to me also kind of pinged a question mark of Six million dollars really.

For a gymnasium kind of made me question mark.

You know.

Might need to do some due diligence.

And in our conversation today and the information that you provided.

There is a picture of the actual site.

Can we flip to that really quick.

So.

So that gymnasium addition that you can see there is quite large and it does take up the parking lot that parking lot used to be back in the day the playground.

So it will be substituting.

Well there will be no parking at this site.

And Magnolia building Magnolia school is another school.

Many of the new schools that are coming up are not getting parking.

So this is this is part of our reality and if we approve this Extension then.

That's part of the tradeoff that we're saying we're OK with having no parking on the site.

And then there is two play areas that are built in but they're smaller.

It's not as much space as having that entire space where the gymnasium addition is.

So Director Mack I would just note a couple of additional comments there that you and I had the opportunity to have the conversation on.

One is that gymnasiums you know provide rainy day recess.

They're a great resource for providing rainy day recess.

In addition we went back and looked at the traffic study and I'm going to quote from the traffic study that was prepared by Heffron.

It said concerning it concerning the traffic study was conducted and parking around Webster was reviewed.

The traffic study indicates area streets have adequate capacity to accommodate the parking demand.

event related demands would be far less than those generated by the existing Nordic Nordic Heritage Museum that previously occupied the site.

So we do believe that our use will actually or our impact will be less than Nordic Heritage Museums when they had events scheduled at the site.

So.

Director Pinkham and then we'll circle back to Director Mack.

Can I get a date to when that traffic study was done?

I can definitely provide you with a date.

I don't know it off the top of my head and I'll look to my senior project manager.

OK.

And the reason I bring it up because with Loyal Heights there was questions about what traffic studies they used that it was kind of bit older than more up to date one.

So I just want to make sure that we're using a more recent traffic study.

Director Mack and then Director Burke.

I just want to say that I sent a bunch of questions and I got them back in my email and they were they were shared with the board directors whether or not they had the chance to read them.

My thought is that there are still some question marks in my head.

And one of my thoughts was maybe I have more questions and that we should delay.

could delay potentially this action for two weeks to get all those questions answered.

But I understand that because we're looking at the 2020 opening of the school which we have a capacity crisis in that neighborhood in the Ballard area that that it it makes it difficult to actually get the work done.

And I respect that.

So I did have a lot of my questions answered.

I've not I'm not expressing them here but I want to know everyone else's questions and whether or not they.

have gotten their concerns addressed as well.

So Director Burke.

Sorry.

Director Burke.

Really.

So two two questions one of them sort of building off the parking and the other building off some of the public testimony concerns.

I think we've we've all you know having our sort of ears to the ground and looking at what.

in what the city of Seattle's mindset is around parking and what it's doing in terms of apartments and how those codes are working for that.

This you know where we collectively as a city are leaning towards less.

single occupancy vehicles and our infrastructure will be less able to support them as our population grows.

So that's that sort of flies in the face of one of our other challenges for us personally to personalize this as a district.

A lot of our teachers can't afford to live in the city.

And so when we look at having them come in to work this particular location I think is particularly well suited for driving.

So can you give me some background for a school of this size.

What would be the typical staff number of staff that would potentially be driving in single occupancy vehicles.

I would say there's 20 classrooms we have 17 general ed classrooms two special education classrooms and an art science classroom.

So a good general rule of thumb is two staff members per classroom.

So I'd say a total of 40.

And the on site parking when this work is done would be how many.

There is.

ADA parking on site at the north end of the gymnasium.

But it's limited to five or six stalls.

It is not a substantial amount of parking.

I will also note that there is a substantial amount of elementary schools within Seattle Public Schools that have.

Little to no parking.

This is a similar approach that we took at Magnolia Elementary School.

Loyal Heights has very little parking.

Beacon Hill has very little parking.

So there's lots of schools.

I expressed to Director Mack that we went through the departure process with Olympic Hills Elementary School and that that departure committee actually asked that we reduce the amount of parking that we were providing on site.

And I will not I will say parking is always complicated because when we provide parking we are generally taking away playground space or potential playground space.

And so in our departure meetings there are always advocates for parking and there are advocates for playground space.

The other question was in response to some community concerns we've heard about the gymnasium being being tailored for adults.

And I want to make sure that we are going ed spec first.

And if there is some sort of joint use or dual use thing that comes without compromising the work for our kids.

Can you can you help.

So the gymnasium here is sized similar to the schools the elementary schools that we opened in 2016 2017. It's similar in size to the gymnasium that's being constructed at Loyal Heights Elementary School currently.

and Magnolia elementary school.

And then it's also Queen Anne the proposed size of the Queen Anne elementary school gym.

Magnolia Queen Anne and Webster should it be used as an elementary school would all have similar size gymnasiums you know and all have similar size student populations.

I guess I'm trying to understand where the perception that it's adult focused.

Is it just based on size or have we stated that we're going to configure it with fixtures and equipment.

There are no bleachers in this gymnasium.

There is a standard sized basketball court with five foot runoff on each side.

So which is typical for our elementary schools.

Any other questions comments concerns.

Director Pinkham.

On this map you again that hearing about an indoor gymnasium where would this as you said the covered area be at.

Can we go one more slide.

Well go back to the site plan there.

Covered play area is located directly right here.

I can't see your pointer on it.

It's on the west side of the gymnasium addition.

Director Pinkham.

Webster Park is to the west of the gymnasium addition and between Webster Park and the gymnasium addition is a covered play area.

So that's all that existed before when this was an elementary school there was no.

Oh I'm sorry the existing covered play area.

Can you go back.

The existing covered play area was on the north side of the 1908 building and it still exists today.

And in lieu of.

Of modernizing that and making that because it doesn't have a good ceiling or a floor to ceiling height in lieu of modernizing that we are actually demolishing that.

The existing covered play area.

And but in place of their demolition that you're going to put classrooms or.

No actually that will become part of the site.

Part of the site meaning what part of the site building site playground site.

Eric Becker senior project manager with Capital Projects.

The once the cover play area is removed it will become the area that says deliveries.

Just north is up.

Do you see where it says 19 0 8 building.

Yes there's the pointer.

You can see the pointer that is the loading area for the school directly off the street.

And then also once the covered play is removed it also gives light access to all the classrooms on the north side of the building of the 1908 historic building.

Director Mack.

So what I'm hearing from public comment was that there's a gym inside the building or is that that's that or what is this.

There is no gymnasium inside the building.

It is a covered play area open air non heated non conditioned space.

Mr. Jackins Mr. Jackins you're out of order please.

Thank you.

Thank you sir.

Director Mack go ahead.

The lunchroom is small right.

That's correct.

Yes.

How much does it fit.

How many students is it fit at a time.

How many classrooms.

The lunchroom is in blue to the right side of the sheet.

If you move the cursor to the right just right in that area there is a historic meeting room.

It is a size of there are several.

Magnolia has the same configuration Bagley has the same room.

I believe the seating in that area is about 200 at maximum.

And there's an addition of an elevator.

It's 2400 square feet.

There's an addition of an elevator correct that didn't exist before.

That's correct.

Yes.

Is that on the north side.

And what is that.

What kind of space is that replacing.

The elevator is is on the eastern side of the building.

It's difficult not to have a pointer.

And maybe the mouse can follow me.

Is the pointer.

I love this.

It's like puppeteering.

The elevator is right here.

And that's the new elevator.

There was an existing elevator in this location but that did not access all the levels in the existing building.

So it wasn't ADA compliant.

It was not ADA compliant and did not access all the levels within the building.

That's correct.

And the gray the dark gray in the middle.

On the yes that I cannot read what those are.

The dark gray includes all the services for the building.

So more or less the boiler room the custodial area all the services for the building.

There's an electrical room and I am having a hard time seeing that also.

But the main electrical is also in that location.

So just adjacent to the loading area.

So that's kind of the operational portion of the building.

Or facilities.

Director Pinkham do you still have questions or concerns?

So what you're showing us is the proposed layout.

Do we have the layout of the original building?

We do not have the layout of the original building in this in these presentations but I believe if you went.

Do we have an upper level?

Yeah we do.

If we could go back to the floor plan I can try to.

The original building.

Well the original building here.

This is the 1908 building in this area which.

1908 being everything but the new gym.

The actually that the gym.

The area that the long area to the right is the 1930 building.

The addition to the 1908 building in the 1908 is kind of a is in between the gym and the long element on the building.

So the pointer is kind of in the.

If you moved it to the right a little bit it'd be in the center of the 1908 building.

That's the center of the 1908 building and that the 1908 goes to.

And there were classrooms in this level in the 1908 configuration.

And that changed in 1930 also.

Other comments questions concerns.

Director Burke.

So I still haven't quite in my mind reconciled the slightly awkward case where we have.

community with a high degree of confidence that there is a gymnasium and staff with a high degree of confidence that there isn't.

Is this a difference of opinion of space or size or you can't hide a gymnasium.

Well the.

Building has been closed since 1980. So how it has historically been used.

I would defer to the Webster alumni.

When you tour that building.

Director Burke the largest space in that building today that exists.

Is this dining area.

With a kitchen.

In the 1930 building.

I.

While that space could be utilized for elementary school students for a gym it would not be utilized for physical education activities that occur in that program today.

So.

Thank you for that clarification.

I appreciate that.

Other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

Buildings are getting more and more expensive to build and we are not we're we're losing time and we have great need.

And things aren't getting cheaper as time goes on.

And when I think about this building as a whole having no parking causes me concern.

Not my favorite.

And having a gym, super important, and having a lunchroom that's sized appropriately for 400 students because we have that problem in buildings where we don't have enough core spaces.

And so having an indoor gymnasium space for students, I know that the elementary school down the street from me, as under 400 students and wouldn't wouldn't be able to serve those those students very well without the gymnasium.

So.

Not having a gym.

And even if there was another space somewhere previously.

For attempting to have this building.

Fulfill the needs of 400 students.

This following this ed spec to me makes sense and the additional cost that's come on.

Unfortunately makes sense to me as well.

But not for good reasons.

It's just getting more expensive and the costs are ballooning.

So there there are my last thoughts.

OK.

Last but hopefully not least my comments are the same as for the playground issue.

It is an equity issue.

Children should have gyms.

Children should have exercise.

Because folks happen to live in a neighborhood that has an old building that has been closed since did you say 1980. 1980. Yes 1980 to not give them the benefit of physical education is not fair.

Other questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Seeing none roll call please.

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

This motion has passed with a vote of 6 to 1. OK we have two intro items and at the end of the two intro items the board will.

Go in to close session for a 15 minute expectation.

I said we have two more intro items and after those intro items.

We'll go into a closed session to discuss labor issues.

Number one approval of contract amendment with Centerpoint for interim benchmark assessments in math and English language arts for school based implementation of MTSS.

and Perens RFP 0 3 7 6 7. This came before C&I March 13th for.

Was moved forward for consideration because when the word assessment comes up we consider it thoroughly.

You're baiting me.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to execute a contract amendment with Centerpoint for an amount of two hundred fifty three thousand six hundred for benchmark interim assessments in mathematics and English language arts for grades 3 through 10.

Good evening Wyatt Jesse chief of student support services.

So this particular item that we're bringing to your attention for hopefully for introduction and hopefully approval.

It is a part of our work around developing our multi-tiered systems of support which allows for teacher teams both at the school level individual grade or department level and then also central office to monitor student progress on state standards and really specifically foremost is to give teachers an ability to know where each and every student is. on those standards so they can adjust their instruction to the needs of the student.

This particular item wasn't a field test.

That's why it's up for an amendment.

As far as a contract went through a lengthy RP process.

This year we had 20 schools applied to be part of the field test that includes elementaries K-8's middle schools and high schools throughout the district.

And through their participation we had a lot of learning and also has individual teachers helping to adjust some of those items.

I know I sent an email and also gave we gave a presentation at C&I around specific items so you can see the quality of the items.

And then moving forward we know that we want to continue to use those district wide.

We already have 95 of our schools out of the 104 already do interim assessments.

And so they're already out there but we would like to standardize them to create scalability efficiencies and oversight moving things centrally and again consistency of instructional services to students across all 104 schools.

Questions comments concerns.

Director Patu.

Is this a new contract or I mean it's something that we've actually done before but it's a different contract.

Yeah this this contract was just entered this last school year.

So this is our first year working with the particular vendor center point.

And so this this is not a previous vendor that we've worked with.

Can I have a follow up on that?

Certainly.

So can you actually tell me what made you decide to pick this?

Yeah.

The reason we picked Centerpoint.

So I have to laugh a little bit only because there is no such thing as a perfect assessment.

And so when we think about something that we can customize, CenterPoint could do that.

A lot of other vendors or people who create assessments give you a package of assessment items, and then they just say, have at it.

You don't change them.

They're already benchmarked and normed.

and use them.

The option with CenterPoint was is if we didn't like them we could change the type of assessments and also Seattle Public Schools teachers could give feedback on changing items.

They don't like a particular question for example or they don't like a particular passage that students would read in the assessment.

We can change it.

And so that's exactly what we're doing with CenterPoint and why we chose them.

Thank you.

Director DeWolf please.

Thank you Director Harris.

Just to just to clarify for the record can you also just in pursuit of a racial equity goals can you help just share a little bit about how this assessment won't further marginalize our most vulnerable students.

I mean can you share what kind of the equity analysis around it to make sure that we're not.

I guess I'm just trying to be careful around particular marginalized students.

Yeah and so that's at the basis of multi-tiered support.

It is it is an opportunity for us to evaluate where students are at through the school year instead of just relying on summative assessments.

When we only use summative assessments then we just wait and it's too late.

A whole year's passed.

And if we're really dedicated to eliminating opportunity gaps we do need some standardized way of monitoring student progress and adjusting instruction.

And that's what interim assessments allow us to do is to assess three times a year one period less than 50 minutes on 18 items.

So would you say that this is not quote unquote high stakes testing softball to you?

I love that question.

This is no no no high stakes.

This is really for individual Seattle Public Schools teachers to adjust their instruction.

Director Mack.

I might have missed it if you said it already but I want to make sure to call out something that you did say in our two by twos around this assessment tool and that it had been evaluated with a racial bias and that it had gone through extensive review of that which I think the public should know and I'm appreciative of.

Yes thank you Director Mack.

The passages in the ELA portion were not culturally sensitive.

There was some language that some of the staff thought was inappropriate and I think provided some implicit bias.

And we decided to we told back that we pushed really hard on the vendor.

And they're like no other district does this.

I go this is not how we operate in Seattle Public Schools.

So we were able to change those those questions out and we're continuing to field test next year actually with the ELA portion.

And so we've gotten double thumbs up.

And can you share that with other districts so that we can be the leaders that we are and they can stop those questions.

Absolutely.

We are we are a leader in that.

I have no doubt.

And I know that when we get this item back I bet we'll get some phone calls.

Director Burke.

Thank you to your team for putting this together.

I think you know sort of building on Director Patu's question about why did we pick this.

It's sort of look back a year and change into a process that included.

Evaluating multiple vendors field studies pilot studies and trying to refine this.

I think that as a district we've made huge progress in a lot of areas.

One of the areas that we haven't made progress is assessment because of a lack of continuity where you know we have we had map.

Now we kind of have map.

We had amplify.

Now we don't really have amplify.

So there's.

Whenever we change assessment whenever we change our assessment tool there's a training period there's an adoption period there's a we we miss an opportunity to have that be an integral component of our system.

So I know that your team has been super thoughtful about this and I I'm I'm excited that the work that's gone into this gives me confidence that it can be sustained.

Because just like in our conversations around we'd like to you know have a superintendent for 10 years.

We'd like to have an assessment for 10 years as well so that we can have that continuity.

So I was wondering if maybe you could speak a little bit to how this tool will provide continuity and maybe help me kind of contrast that with how we can customize it because both are good.

But they both have to be managed.

I'm going to keep my answer as short as possible because that gets really that could get really technical for sure.

So here's my my quick thing about that one without the without the board support for Superintendent Golden number one we wouldn't be here.

We wouldn't even have a field test to we've been able to pay teachers to come and give their critical input and some training sessions for them.

Three is that we need to be really thoughtful about this rollout.

When we had 20 we had 20 schools.

I know where we have some challenges if it's Audrey Roach and I leading training sessions.

on this work but again your support allowed this to work and how we can scale it out is we are going to be starting with the math and then keeping with the field test for the ELA.

Right?

We have to make sure that item bank is correct.

How you roll that out and move into an assessment calendar we're working with SEA.

on that calendar so that we have an agreement about when is the best time to have assessments.

And then we're also working with DOTS around the technology.

There are still limitations at some schools and so that part of our plan is where we're working it because we're not going to require three times a year for every single elementary school because there are still some requirements like MAP.

through levy.

And so we are mindful of that.

And so those are the ways because we've gone through this field test is understand where some of the barriers are.

And instead of forcing our way through we actually can be thoughtful about what we're asking that gives flexibility but also moves us towards a system wide platform.

And with our new rollout of the math curriculum at the middle school level this is a great time for us to align an interim assessment to give information to it.

And then the high schools are actually excited about this.

Because they don't have a common assessments across high schools and I know that's been well noted before around consistency between high schools.

Thank you for that one follow up.

You mentioned 95 schools that are using formative assessment tools but not this one.

Or yes this one.

Yeah out of out of those schools.

So I can give you the quick really quick breakdown.

You don't actually have to.

I just I just want to be cognizant.

Are we bringing a tool to a school that's using another tool.

And how are we engaging with them to make sure that what we're offering them is as good or better and that they buy into it and and embrace it or have we done that work already?

We have and I'm going to have Audrey answer that question because we agreed that if she was going to stay here this late that she would have a technical answer to that question that we probably predicted.

Welcome.

Audrey Roach assessment development program manager.

That's a really good question.

What we see right now with we just had 20 schools pilot that applied to pilot so that's why the numbers at 20. What we're seeing now is a scattering of schools using SBA interims.

There could be up to six or seven blocks within one subject matter.

And they're using all different ones.

There's not one school using third grade math or operations algebraic thinking standard and then another school in the same region using the exact same thing.

It's so scattered there's no uniform and it's really really hard to create data on certain standards looking at those interims.

So that's one of the reasons why a common assessment where every single school would be using it and we could sort of sort of calibrate that the standards going from every single group of kids across the district.

That's the power of that.

So yeah I think there will be I think schools have been asking for common assessments within their schools but also regionally as well.

And I think there will be buy in for sure.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Director Pinkham.

I'm looking at the SPS assessments committee meeting notes.

Can you address the cons that were brought up not a secure browser not as linked to students with accommodations prefer SBA interim over center point due to the interface gives students more practice with interface so they are ready for the summative.

How are those being addressed or.

So the whole thing let me see I'm just going to scroll down.

So the cons for going off memory right here but the interface as far as so it's going to get a little technical.

So if I lose you just slow me down as I was a teacher so I can kind of scaffold if I need to.

But so within the platform for tied it's called for the for the summative assessment the SBAC.

The setting of the accommodations is very similar within that and it stays in the session ID number They have the same types of accommodations but the session ID number for the SBAC is one per class and the session ID numbers if you were to accommodate a certain kid it could look just a little different as far as what number they're putting in when they sign in.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

They have a different log in but it's not like it's not public or anything like that.

So the kid is given their class ticket.

Yeah so we've been working with Illuminate so that's a platform with dots on how we can sort of like centralize that process and that not be how the kids log in and that has to do a lot with like something called a secure browser and a lock browser.

So I don't know how technical you want me to be I can go on and on and on because I kind of nerd out about this but.

That's a con for sure if it just puts a little bit more of a burden on a teacher in that setting but it's something that is definitely fixable.

OK that's one of the things I want to get at was something that you see could be fixable or that the teacher can be guided through it.

And the other question I have as far as the costs just want clarification.

Center revised price and structure lists about the for planning an indoor professional development of two thousand and fifty dollars per day per staff member.

Is that per.

per staff member.

It's kind of solid.

Gee if we train one staff member because as much.

But I'm assuming that means we're having one staff member from Center Point or Lumine coming here to do a full day training.

So it's just kind of hard.

One of them not one of us.

And we're only limiting it to one one day.

Yes.

OK thank you very much.

Could someone let Shawna Heath know that this will be on the BAR in two weeks given the fact that she works so very very hard on interim assessments and learned us up.

Before your time.

No no.

She's in Brazil isn't it.

Fair enough.

Number two BTA IV BEX IV award construction contract P 5 0 9 8 to CDK Construction Services Inc. for the Dearborn Park Elementary School roof replacement and seismic upgrades project.

This came before Ops March 8th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of four hundred forty $444,500 for the Dearborn Park Elementary School roof replacement and seismic upgrades project.

Mr. Best.

Yes.

So this project was bid on March 13th 2018. We received four bids.

CDK was the low responsive responsible bidder.

This will replace the existing roof at Dearborn Park International School with a three ply or excuse me with a asphalt shingle composition roof.

And then there is a couple of flat areas at the school that we will be using a three ply SPS membrane.

So we will also be enhancing the seismic diaphragm of the building as we replace the roof.

Harris What does that mean?

Seismic diaphragm.

Best Yes.

We'll be tying the roof together.

for such that the roofing materials will lay on top but it will all be act as one roof.

So.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Comments questions concerns director Mack.

I just want to note that the couple of issues that we had asked to be added to the bar have been added the correction of the BTA to the BEX and the actual dollars amounts have been added.

So I'm thinking of back when we when director Blanford headed up ops and I was on the committee and we had talked during one of the meetings about including just a little bit of history on these big projects with regard to buildings so that we would know the last time

The roof was replaced.

The roof had been replaced so that it wasn't somebody in the audience who would be informing us that the roof had been replaced only such and such period ago and there might be it might still be under warranty.

You know those issues that would just give us a sort of historical snapshot that over time.

Ten years from now when they pull this bar to look at the last time we could get a running tab of how often are we replacing these roofs.

And we talked about the fact that it should be something we know and it wouldn't take up a lot of room in the bar.

It was just really a piece of information for those who would have some questions.

And so I don't see that here.

Was that considered and not included for any reason?

No.

We could definitely add that.

I will note that we did read the main analysis report is really clear on this school that this building is at the end of its useful life.

Our facilities department personnel are also very clear that this roof is at the end of its useful life.

And so but we can add that prior to this going to action as to when it was last replaced.

Yeah that was just something we talked about doing on on these kinds of projects on every bar that came up because it was just helpful for the board to understand since we have so much rotation and even the committees themselves don't have consistency necessarily.

So I would appreciate that suggestion being moved forward.

Yeah.

And I will note and Director Geary you've probably heard me say this before at the operations committee that Seattle Public Schools had a approach of replacing portions of roofs.

And so sometimes that can get confusing.

But we'll definitely look at this and identify when these roofs were replaced.

Thank you.

That would also enhance the concept of regular maintenance.

And it would also tell us about the roofs that are 40 years old that were rated useful lives for 20. Is that correct.

Correct.

OK.

Any other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Seeing none.

We will move to the boardroom for a closed session expected to last 15 minutes.

Thank you so much everyone.

um so