School Board Meeting Date July 6th, 2016 Pt. 2

We have now come to our action items.

Our first action item.

is resolution, item actually number one is the item that was actually taken off by staff because of continued negotiations so it is no longer on the items here.

So number two is resolution 2015-16-19 approval of 2016-17 budget.

I move the board adopt resolution 2015-16-19 to fix and adopt the 2016-17 budget as presented in the budget book attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

This motion was discussed at multiple meetings of both the audit and finance and operations committees as well as at several school board work sessions.

This motion was discussed at the audit and finance committee meeting on June 9, 2016. The committee moved this forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Any questions or comments?

Good evening members of the board, Stephen Nielsen, Deputy Superintendent.

JoLynn Berge, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance.

So we bring before you today the recommended budget for the next school year beginning in September for the following year.

It's a rollover budget There are some changes to it from prior years including a slight recommended increase in enrollment based on enrollment projections.

It also has a few other changes and I want to specifically thank the budget office for their work.

to put this together.

I also want to note that the process that we use to budget and the process that we use to work with our schools is unique to Seattle and you'll hear a little bit more about where we're going in the future.

And I'd like to have our assistant superintendent of finance and fiscal, I always get the term wrong, business and finance thank you, walk you through some of the slides and I'll chime in as necessary.

So we're going to just quickly go through the agenda items that are up on the screen.

Most of this you've seen several times before as noted earlier by Director Peters.

So we have the dollars for the funds that we are adopting budgets for.

On this slide you have seen this previously.

We do talk about general fund resources specifically what we are receiving from the state, local levy, federal and other resources.

The school 16-17 budget development calendar, this calendar recaps what the development cycle was for the 16-17 budget.

So it talks about what has been done already.

In the next slide.

The next slide talks about 17-18 budget development cycle and you will note that that is starting in August and we specifically have addressed input from the board regarding more opportunities for the community to be engaged in the budget development process as well as in September there will be a board check-in during a budget work session to talk about additional community engagement topics as well.

We wanted to just re-cover some issues that are ongoing for Seattle as well as other districts in the state.

So some of these impact school year 16-17 some of them impact out years.

Two of those things that have unfunded mandates from the state are COLAs when the state grants a COLA there is an unfunded cost that comes with that to the school district as well as for K-3 teachers.

So for example when the state funds K-3 teachers they give us $10.1 million according to our bargain agreement it costs us $12.4 million so there is an unfunded component every time the state gives us an allocation either for COLA or for K-3 class size.

This is an example for the compensation specifically for the COLA.

Keep in mind that for 16-17 each 1% COLA for Seattle the allocation is approximately $2.6 million and the cost to fund is 3.9.

And that is comprised of two components both because Seattle like other districts hire more staff than the state allocates as well as each staff costs more than what the state allocates.

We also wanted to touch on the per pupil inflator also known as the PPI.

So PPI is intended to capture current year growth in the levy base meaning the increase in state and local funding that districts are receiving.

The legislature uses this dial mainly to inflate local effort assistance for property poor districts.

So while Seattle does not receive LEA funding it does benefit in levy base or levy increases when the PPI is adjusted.

However, lately the legislature has been using that as a dial to expand or contract LEA costs and it impacts Seattle as well as other districts in the amount of levy dollars that it can collect.

So for school year 16-17 and 17-18 the calculated PPI was 4.2% however the actual adopted PPI was 1.09 and those are the dollar impacts that we are expecting both for 16-17 as well as 17-18.

The levy cliff is the other main topic of the legislative upcoming session.

So current state law reduces levy authority by 4%.

It also eliminates levy base allocation known as ghosting.

As a reminder ghost calculations are for dollars that expand your levy base.

that the state doesn't actually fund to you.

So all the years that they didn't give COLA they allowed those dollar values to increase our levy base but they didn't actually fund those dollars to districts.

You were able to go out to your constituents and ask for that in levy dollars.

So the levy impact to Seattle in current law is a reduction from 36 to 32%.

You can see that that would equate to about a 25 $26 million reduction in the amount of our levy collections for 17-18.

And legislative action is slated to take place by April in the 2017 session.

So those are a couple of things that we are keeping our eye on closely.

They will impact how we go through the budget development process because for the 17-18 budget development we will really have to be looking at developing to an option A and an option B scenario given those policy changes in mind, keeping those in mind.

This calculates the things that I've talked about before as far as the levy cliff policy.

So we know you've seen a lot of those other slides earlier so I want to come back to this as to where do we go from here.

The calendar which is hard for me to read so I hope it's looks better on your screen than on this one it's washed out.

We're going to start with stakeholder engagement in August to look at how we receive funds.

It's important for our stakeholders and our constituents both internal and external to understand that all dollars are not flexible.

There are many requirements around the resources received both from the state and from the federal government.

that require specific spending.

That's important to know in order to understand how we can spend the dollars or not.

The next piece of that is actually more important and that is to provide those same group of stakeholders internal and external opportunity to look at how we currently spend our money and to help look at what if we changed how we spend our money in terms of school funding, in terms of major categories such as how we take care of our facilities, how do we fund operations here at the central area for food services for those kinds of things and what options exist.

So that activity noted there in the first bullet will do two things.

At the macro level it will prove a very simple thing.

We can't do everything that we want to do nor have we been able to do everything from a funding standpoint that we have sometimes promised.

It won't invent new dollars.

It will help people to understand choices that can be made in order to better use our resources or to reallocate them.

The more important thing that it will do is help us with stakeholder engagement around the legislative activity coming up this year.

Supposedly as JoLynn shared this is the year of McCleary.

We will find out if that's true and this exercise will help people understand what options do we have if we don't get a lot more dollars next year and or what can we say to the legislature in order to fully fund McCleary.

So it's completely structured around positioning ourselves with our stakeholders and with the legislature to advocate for full funding of basic education.

That then moves into a fall activity around what are we doing around school funding, otherwise known currently as WSS, how do we fund our schools, what sort of changes are necessary and what again is necessary for better state support of schools.

And then we have work sessions scheduled and community engagement times that we can build in here.

You'll note that at the September work session, excuse me at the September board retreat, that's the September 2016 line there, that's when we'll have as a part of the board retreat, I believe it's on September 15. Thank you.

10. I'm not good at reading sign language.

10. Okay thank you.

I can read fingers.

December 10 we'll talk about specifics that we've learned in that August-September community engagement process that will help inform work to engage with further activity and community throughout the rest of the year if I'm making any sense.

The other thing that we do that's very different is we do good things for our schools and we also offer opportunity to make it more difficult for our schools and that we allocate staffing in a very early time frame compared to every other district in the state.

And we need to look at that and ask ourselves if that is a productive activity or a nonproductive activity and you could easily argue either side.

By doing so it helps people understand what the future will look like.

The flip side of that is that When we make the reallocations based on enrollment adjustments in late spring at the very end of the school year it's highly disruptive because people put a lot of effort into planning and then we say oh enrollment has now changed and so we have to move staff around so we want to look at that and specifically say do we want to continue that kind of activity or not.

That is a large piece of our culture here and it's also included in our CBAs and how we work at the school level.

So I'm not suggesting that we walk away from that but I think it's important for people to understand what we do and understand the options.

Are you going to talk about one-time resources?

Director Harris.

When I hear nebulous terms like stakeholders I want to know what that means.

Thank you.

Stakeholders internal and external.

Internal stakeholders, many of our own staff do not know how our budget works.

So it's always helpful that more people understand it.

And that again comes back to how Washington funding works.

So we have our own members of our bargaining units.

We want to have them involved.

They are our key partners.

We want them to understand what the tradeoffs are.

And In many cases there are internal stakeholders, bargaining units that if we choose to spend money in one area it could negatively affect another.

So we need to bring that out and talk about it with the group because there are all of those internal folks who are our partners and we value their contribution to what we do.

External stakeholders include parent groups, they include a lot of people in our community that have been very strongly supporting fully funding education at the state level.

And there are many groups that represent them as well.

And then I want to go beyond just the identified parent groups and invite anyone who wants to attend to come.

And then finally the major stakeholder that we want to work with will be legislators.

They could come to the events if they so choose but we will certainly work with them afterwards if they do not.

Does that help answer your question?

Thank you.

Director Peters.

Along the same lines when you talk about an August September window for stakeholder input can you be a little bit more precise than that because my concern is we have people on summer break and not necessarily in town or focused on this issue yet.

Thank you.

I'm worried about the timeline if we wait too long then we lose opportunity to build the WSS.

That said, my original naive goal was to do the first stakeholder meeting in July and started looking at calendars and realized that that's probably not a good plan.

That was the understatement of the evening.

So JoLynn has kept me more realistic and is suggesting that we would have our first meeting on how we receive funds.

in August and we are looking at the third week in August for that.

And then the September meeting is how we use our funds and literally go through a budget building exercise.

Which by the way I have done before and the results are always the same.

People walk away from a long meeting and say We can't get there from here.

We literally don't have enough money to do everything that we want.

And while that's frustrating it's also very informative.

It helps people understand the parameters that we live within and or options that we may face if we make a choice.

That again isn't the only stakeholder engagement.

It sets the stage for the whole rest of the year.

What do we do about the school budgets?

What changes do we make?

And then there will be continued engagement based on discussion we have in September with you.

I appreciate the third week in August is when I think people are starting to come back and I think we have our board meeting then.

As far as September goes I would advocate for us not having it the first week in September but maybe the third week?

That makes sense.

Once people are settled into the cycle of school.

We recognize because we need school staff involved in the first couple of weeks of school are not practical for that.

Is not.

Anymore comments, questions?

Okay.

Director Peters.

Okay are we going to discuss the $11 million underspend at this point or at some point?

We, it would be at this point I think that we would discuss it.

It's in the overall budget expenditure authority that's in the resolution that you have in front of you to approve.

So the $11 million was discussed at the work session.

There was input from the board.

So at a high-level recap There was dollars for IB set aside, tier one and tier two school funding set aside.

There was some compliance dollars set aside and some dollars for smart goal to start up that work.

And there's a remainder amount of just over $4 million that's in reserve to be discussed more with the board in August.

Okay well if this is the appropriate time and it seems like it might be I'd like to put forth a couple suggestions to that in light of the fact that Our conversation last week while it was robust not everybody was there and I would like to suggest that we do find some money for the middle school math adoption and specifically I would like to suggest that we look at a $2 million item for that similar to our social studies middle school adoption which was under $2 million.

I would also like to move a little bit more money to mitigation for schools and suggest that we put another 500,000 in that particular area.

And I would like to hear from my colleagues on that.

And then as far as the board governance goals I would be interested in having a little bit more money there as well with an eye to shoring up our new goal which is focusing on the budget and with the possibility of being able to do an audit of the budget and having to allocate some funds to do that.

I know we talked about how we define our goals and we did that last week and we realized that some of our goals for the new year weren't fully fleshed out in the rubric we had.

And so in light of the way we did talk about what the goal for was on budget I'd like to put a little bit more money in that pot.

And then I'd like to hear from my colleagues.

Director Burke.

I'll bite.

Obviously I favor the idea of the middle school math adoption.

I think whether it's 2 million or 3 million sort of speaks to it would be really interesting to figure out how we bid it before we budget it.

So the idea of 2 million in seed money or enough budget to start.

would be an interesting one from my point of view.

What I had heard from staff around the budget component was that there wasn't a significant amount of additional money needed to implement the new budget you know that goal I think we even took it off the goals because it's just going to happen.

And I'm concerned that if we try to this I'd be interested to hear feedback on this but we're going from a rollover budget to in next year we're going to be looking at a different budgeting process you know more community engagement and so I'm wondering if would would the audit of the prior year budget provide us information that would help us or would it just be sort of a look backwards at something that wouldn't give us enough information for value because it doesn't have continuity.

So I guess I have a little bit of concerns about that.

I was excited to learn at the last audit and finance meeting that in addition to the $2 million reserve that we have for, I forget what we call it, the displacement, start of school mitigation fund.

There are 18 FTEs, I'm looking at Michael Tolley, 18 FTEs that are already allocated for split reduction.

And then we identified $2.3 million in tier 1 and tier 2 mitigation funds as part of the allocation work so that's in excess of $6 million of building-based funds that are above and beyond the weighted staffing standards.

That's I feel that that's a really positive thing that we can we can approve.

And I like the flexibility of having some money in there as Director Harris had mentioned an escrow account that could provide the latitude to turn it into more mitigation funds or potentially audit funds or something that has more downstream flexibility.

That's my feedback.

Director Geary.

I didn't think the vote tonight was to somehow allocate the funds at this level.

I thought we had pretty much recognized that the 11 million was something we were going to be working on coming to some consensus with later and that this vote is not hammering down those pieces.

But to that end with regard to the middle school math curriculum I would like to see that proposal run through the race and equity tool formally not just the directors taking it upon themselves perhaps to decide that that has met the qualifications of that formal structure that's something that we're holding the district to.

My concern about this is that our staff hasn't made this one of their top budget issues and they've been presenting to us all year on the work that they've been doing and have very thoughtfully tried to pared down what they think they are going to need to accomplish the work in areas of restorative justice, closing the pipeline to prison.

These types of items that are a little more nebulous and obviously don't address the needs again of people who perhaps aren't as good at advocating for themselves.

And I haven't heard from our teachers and our principals that this is something that they are ready to implement at this point along with all the other things that are going on.

And so I just, while of course having the best curriculum we can made available to our students is a great idea.

If we are failing to address that some of our kids or a large number of our kids aren't getting to middle school with the necessary math skills to be able to utilize this curriculum properly and that there is more work to do for our most vulnerable kids there before we get to this curriculum then I think we should have that identified for us and we should understand that it is a layering up to make sure that by the time our kids get to middle school they are all going to be able to benefit from this curriculum.

And going back to the teacher piece, while I understand there hasn't been an adoption in a long time, I haven't heard from staff that again that this is something that they are finding that the schools are demanding.

I think at this point they have probably put together a scope and sequence for themselves that addresses some of the holes that have been identified at least in some communities.

And to the extent that other communities haven't perhaps that's because they're just scrambling to get the kids up to where they can even begin to receive that information.

And for all those unknowns in my mind that haven't been answered by professionals who have studied in this area and know these issues on that level I'm just not comfortable making the decision or supporting the math curriculum.

I'm not saying we can't put resources towards it to help develop a good scope and sequence make sure that we are bolstering and supporting our teachers where they need to be supported.

I think that is what MTSS is in many ways.

As for you know we left the meeting I do like the reserve fund.

I don't see why as we identify money that is unspent over the course of next year it can't be put into the reserve fund and if we find that we have saved like we saved somehow about nine million this year.

If we've come up with that money over the course of next year there's nothing to prevent us looking again at a curriculum adoption.

But those are my thoughts.

Director Blanford.

I am asking for a point of order.

I am unclear as to whether or not we are discussing the budget that has been put forward before us or we are discussing the spending, the allocation of the reserve, the additional money that we have available or if those two things should be separate or what.

So I am wondering if we can get some clarification.

The amount of one-time resources is encompassed within the budget that you see in front of you.

So the motion is to approve the entire budget.

So if you were looking to have discussion and or action on other details for example the second curriculum that would require a separate motion tonight if that is something that you would want to do.

as we understand it from staff based on the meeting that we had last Thursday there's opportunity to have that discussion outside of the motion on the overall budget tonight.

You could go either direction.

Does that answer your question?

I think it does.

If I'm going to check for understanding we could go one of two ways.

We could include the one-time funds within the allocation of the current budget that we have before us or we could and it sounds like there was some conversation about having that conversation at a later point in time.

The $11 million that we talk about here is within the total expenditure authority that you hopefully will approve.

The details to how to spend that don't require a motion tonight there is a plan we talked about last week at the 30th to have a follow-up meeting in August to go further into the details as to what we wanted to do.

That said, the discussion pieces that JoLynn shared a few minutes ago staff has taken that in those areas that she repeated to you as a direction that we will be working on so we are prepared to share process and progress on those issues and then next steps in August.

We haven't chosen a specific day for that meeting but we are looking at probably the second or the last week of the month only because of scheduling.

Back to the point made earlier about stakeholder engagement.

Does that help?

So I believe that we are at a point where we either need a motion to discuss the one-time use or we need to move forward with the current motion that is before the board.

And I am not the parliamentarian but I believe based on what I heard that is where we are.

And so if I am wrong please correct me.

Can we have legal advisors?

Good evening, Noel Treat General Counsel.

Yes, so right now you've got the motion to approve the totality of the budget in front of you so you would either need some kind of motion to amend if someone wanted to propose adding this additional level of detail to what you're going to vote on tonight.

Or you're still at a time in the meeting subject to the President's direction to have continued discussion about all elements of this as to how to move forward.

So I don't think you're at a point where you have to make a decision one way or the other but those are basically your two options tonight are either vote as moved or amend adding this additional level of detail.

So, when we actually had asked earlier to see whether this was possible that we can actually discuss the $11 million with us discussing also looking at the budget as a whole, you said it was okay.

Yes, in other words by following through with the motion on the floor right now and approving the budget that sets you up for an August meeting or thereafter, as many meetings as we need or want to go into the details of the remaining dollars that are still under discussion as to how you would like to use them.

But does not limit them or set anything aside.

Director Harris.

Mr. General Counsel if I want to continue adding my thoughts in a transparent fashion about this $11 million spend do I do it then by a point of personal privilege since it appears that we are cutting off discussion?

No I don't think you have to do that.

It is subject to the president is the parliamentarian but right now you have a motion on the floor some members have had an opportunity to weigh in on that motion.

I would say what to do with the $11 million is germane to that motion because it does relate to how you are going to vote on that or seek to maybe amend it.

I wouldn't think you need personal privilege but it's rather just the normal course of directors having their say on a pending motion in which you could make those comments.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

I said last Thursday with a bit of a snark that this was the staff's effort to show us how difficult budgeting and distributing resources is.

And it really has that effect and it's a profound lesson.

I am absolutely in favor of middle school math adoption.

I am absolutely in favor of ramping up our curriculum adoptions.

Where we're going to find that money from I don't know but I find it abhorrent that we are that far behind.

with the biggest and the richest school district in the state and I hope that we make the curriculum adoption table known to every legislator not once not twice but 10 times over when we frame our legislative ask and our response to McCleary.

I'm completely and utterly uncomfortable with spending $11 million whether by by dots or whether by dividing up the smart goals by percentage and with less than a paragraph for each one of those asks and without a column that talks about measuring results.

If we recall the Wednesday meeting where we talked about smart goals that were not really fleshed out then we start talking about funding them.

without information without what is it called the theory of action behind these asks is really difficult for me to swallow.

the mitigation funds and how we do weighted staffing standards.

I'm thrilled that we're going to change the process and make it more transparent.

Instead of an audit I'd like to see us revisit the Moss Adams report from way back when we were all young and find out what kinds of thoughtful changes we as a district have made or whether we've been treading water for the last 15 years.

So if we want to talk about equity and we want to talk about the way our moving pieces work and resourcing that's a baseline.

And maybe we could find some terrific funder to pay the freight on that.

And I think we need to think out of the box and those kinds of solutions.

I would vote against an amendment tonight because I don't think we've been that transparent.

There wasn't enough room.

to hold all the people that are interested in this conversation in the committee room.

I hope that when we do set up this conversation I hope we have it in the big room and I hope we publicize the heck out of it because I think everybody here on this dais and everybody in staff is interested in that kind of transparency because money is policy.

Any comments?

Director Blanford.

Nowhere in this conversation have we had, has the word fiscal responsibility come up and I believe that it bears introduction into the conversation.

We have received a fair amount of guidance from our staff, some today, about future projections and ghosting and levee cliffs and all of that which gives me a great deal of pause that in upcoming years we will have significant budget deficits and we anticipate, we continue to anticipate unless I've heard, unless there are other enrollment figures we hear that more kids are coming to Seattle Public Schools.

And so I have a great deal of concern about us spending dollars that basically came as a result of underspend and grants that weren't sufficiently used.

Spending money and then hoping that the legislature comes to save us.

Anyone who is paying attention to the state legislature recognizes that though there are judicial mandates that require that we, that they fully fund education in Washington State, that that's not happening and anyone that's paying attention knows that that's unlikely to happen in the near future given the constitution of the legislature as it's currently configured.

And so as somewhat of a veteran who's been in this district when we've had to make significant cuts to programs, to teachers and initiatives that we've put forward, I have a lot of concern that we have a little bit of money that might help to mitigate those devastating cuts if and when they come.

And instead we are choosing pet projects that may or may not actually move our objectives forward.

I heard earlier today a conversation about the curriculum adoption being an equity issue.

and the term equity is floated around a lot to justify many things that in some cases are not equitable at all.

The idea that all kids would get a book and that leads to equity is actually counter to what equity means and so I stand in strong opposition to allocating these dollars until we have a good sense of where our legislature is because as I've said before I fear the outrage that our community would have for us knowing that we had a little bit of a surplus, a little bit of a reserve and we had prognostications about huge deficits, budget deficits coming in future years and we chose to spend that money.

Any more comments?

I would actually like to say that as we mentioned before that we cannot count on state legislative and we all know that.

That we have a budget and we really need to look at the budget that we have right now and figure out what kind of way that we can actually look at it to make it fit the needs that we have.

And the only way we are going to be able to do that is actually as we had suggested earlier that we need to hire and it's someone to come in and look at our budget piece by piece so we can really be able to look at what our pluses and our minuses and how do we bring it all together.

We can't depend on money we do not have.

We keep saying McCleary, we may never get McCleary.

So we have to depend on what we already have and be able to rationalize what we have in order for us to be able to fund all our programs that is needed funding.

The money we have right now we cannot keep because there's a lot of schools that's in need.

Resources is needed in every one of the schools and that is the reason why it's important that we mitigate some of these money so our schools can continue on to provide equity education for our kids.

We cannot provide quality education if teachers in different schools do not have the materials or whatever they need or teachers even to teach our kids because of the overcapacity that we have in each one of our schools.

So to me it is very important that we rationalize this money that we have one-time money to be able to fulfill the needs of each one of our schools that is in need right now.

And I actually would like to support Director Peters request is to add another 500K to the mitigation funds for the schools because I know for a fact that many schools are in need right now.

So is there, Director Peters?

Well having heard all of that and I appreciate the explanation on what our options are I would be supportive of us going ahead and voting on the budget as is and continuing this discussion in August.

It sounds like we do have some more thoughts we want to bring to the table since last week and I'm glad to hear everybody put forth their thoughts.

And so I certainly would be fine with that.

You know I will just say that $11 million in some respects is not a lot of money.

It's not going to solve all the problems we may be facing in 2017-18.

I remember we had that discussion before that this would be a very small band-aid on a levy cliff issue that we would be dealing with.

I respect the conservative approach to holding onto money, being fiscally responsible and we do address that with having at least the escrow account.

But I also feel that we have fundamental duties to our schools and that is to fund our schools and we are not doing it.

We simply are not doing it.

And a middle school math adoption is not a pet project it is something that has been on staff's list.

In fact the board was supposed to do it, I mean the board approved it and it was supposed to be done back in 2012. And in the meantime thankfully we updated our materials for K-5 and a little bit before that we updated the materials for high school math and what's missing is middle school.

And we are demanding more and more of our middle school students, we are demanding them to come out and be able to do algebra and pass EOC's and we are not giving them the tools to do it.

And so I ask my colleagues to go forth and talk to their communities between now and August or whenever we next have this conversation and ask them how middle school math is working for them and if they have any concerns because I have heard concerns about middle school math, about math in Seattle Public Schools for 10 years.

So this is not a pet project, this is just not an idle conversation and it is fundamental for us to provide books for our students and resources for our teachers.

And I also agree with my colleagues who want to put more money just directly into the mitigation funds for our schools because if we cannot fund our schools then what are we doing?

We are failing.

Director Harris.

I would take issue with my respected colleague that giving every student a book is math curriculum adoption.

A math curriculum adoption as I understand it includes professional development and includes a coordinated theory of action so that our kids come out of middle school with a much greater understanding and that this is not just about every kid with a book.

Thank you.

Any more questions or comments?

Ms. Pham.

I'm sorry Teresa.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Our next item is placing conditional certificate applications on board personnel report.

And A&F.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to list conditional certification applications on the human resources personnel report for approval.

This came to audit and finance on June 9 and was advanced for approval.

Any questions, comments?

Director Peters.

So I would like to thank Dr. Codd for having added to the bar.

Let's see.

We talked about Oh we had a conversation about the rubric, what the rubric would be.

And in terms of deciding what sort of hires would qualify.

Could you speak to that for a little bit?

Sure.

So one of the original questions that came up at introduction was how can we ensure that there is some level of quality with the people that we even allow to apply that you would even see on the personnel report to apply for conditional certification.

And so what we did in HR is we went back and we drafted a rubric, a conditional certification rubric which is similar to what we would do if we were going to interview teaching candidates who we were going to hand out an early hire offer to.

And so it has been posted I believe so that there is a draft of that rubric.

online for you and the public to review and so we would use this if somebody wanted to apply to receive their conditional certification we would sit down with them in HR before they even apply we would apply this rubric and then we would move their names forward to you all on the personnel report and remember you have to approve of those names before they can even actually apply to OSPI.

OSPI requires board approval for the application.

So there are several steps that we think that we will be able to ensure that we are making sure that we are having quality hires.

And just as a reminder this is a very small number of hires that we would be making.

These are, we do have a teacher shortage.

Just to reiterate to the public we are not intending to enter into any kind of contract with Teach for America.

I know that has been a public concern.

We do not have a contract with them.

We do not intend to have a contract with them.

But we do have positions that remain open all year long with no teacher and there are people that do have exceptional talent in the community example language immersion and we could have them on a conditional certification which is a two-year certification to fill those positions.

So we would not, we don't take this decision lightly.

We would not be handing out conditional certifications but we do have a need to add this to our toolkit of strategies for making sure that our classrooms are filled with quality people.

Director Blanford.

So Director Codd or Dr. Director.

I am looking at an attachment that lists a number of questions that board members had and it says that there is also a rubric that is attached but I don't see that rubric.

So I thought the rubric was attached this afternoon.

I also did send it to board directors in an earlier email a couple weeks ago I sent that rubric.

I saw that list of questions earlier but I didn't see the rubric that goes along with it.

And that could be my fault but I'm looking at the materials that are attached to this particular board meeting and there is no rubric.

Now there's a piece of paper in front of me with the rubric.

So if there are other questions.

So this is the draft rubric that human resources did put together and we sent to board directors.

I thought it was posted.

I know that we can, it's okay, we can make sure it gets posted but I do know that all directors have a copy of that rubric.

Should have a copy of that in front of you through your email.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Ms. Hill roll call.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Abstain.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed by a vote of 6-0-1.

Thank you.

Our next action item is Northwest school and innovative learning Fairfax hospital contract.

I move that the superintendent be authorized to enter into a contract with Northwest School of Innovation Innovative Learning Fairfax Hospital to provide educational services for students in private placement for the 2016-17 school year in the amount of $619,992 in the form attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

This came to the audit and finance committee and the C&I curriculum and instruction policy committee June 13 for approval.

I guess it came to both committees.

And I think C&I are the ones who made some recommendation.

The June 13 C&I meeting was where this was moved forward with a recommendation for approval.

I second the motion.

Any questions, comments?

Director Geary.

This is a policy that has raised a lot of concern in the community.

I thank Kathy George and Mary Griffin for coming and talking to us about it.

We moved it forward with approval prior to it coming to my attention that some of the language that Northwest soil uses could be in conflict with our policy.

I've talked to Wyatt Jesse about this and I want to give him an opportunity to present and allow us to ask questions because it is my understanding that the language has been of concern to him and that even within my bringing it to his attention last week there has been some movement and some agreement by Northwest soil so I think it would be fair that we hear from him further.

But from my position individually I have great concerns that some of the language in the physical management policy which I understand is a requirement for parents to sign prior to placing their students here.

could lead one to believe that they are agreeing to give up some of the protections that we have placed in the restraint and isolation policy.

I don't think this is something that we can't help to fix with notice to parents and an opportunity to let them know what their rights are which can happen through an IEP team meeting and it is my understanding from Chief Jesse that Northwest soil is still willing to look at ways to change their physical management policy prior to this contract going into effect in August.

So I'd like to hear from him so that we can ask our questions.

Chief of student sports Wyatt Jesse, good evening.

We have contracted with Northwest soil for a number of years and before that it was really just called Fairfax and they have three locations and they do contract with dozens of different school districts.

And one of the things that as public school districts and contracting for therapeutic services that are within the continuum of special education services is that they have to have an NPA status so it's a non-public agency status that is kind of co-signed between the participating school districts and also OSPI.

And so once we enter those agreements and they are recognized as a non-public agency then they do come under the same laws, regulations that all public schools would also have for the treatment and services of student special needs including isolation and restraint.

And so it doesn't mean that they can in this case Northwest soil could not follow the things listed under House Bill 1240 or Senate Bill 5850 or the new WACs that come with it.

But, and that's why we recently revised our own superintendent policy and board policies in relation to restraint isolation.

But I wanted to also to say you know this Northwest soil has undergone a lot of transformation.

Last year we did engage with them along with OSPI just about some need for some improvements.

And so those improvements came well in advance of recent legislation and they have a new director at the Redmond site which is where we primarily send our students.

Currently we are projected at nine for next year.

We had 10 last year, the 2015-16 school year.

Director Geary really called into question one of the forms they use with parents who come through the doors at Northwest soil and that physical management policy has a number of details there.

Some of the language, you know they are up front, their language at the beginning and the end is you know they want to have the least amount of physical restraint or isolation as possible.

You know that's their intent.

That they most certainly are going to follow this physical management and the physical management as it says in this form is outlined in each student's IEP and their Bay Area intervention plan.

So that's The guidance in here in this form is really geared towards de-escalation, least amount of physical restraint and also if there is a need for physical management it is in the student's I think the things that we do want to work with them on and having conversations with their director of all the sites is just to clean up some of this language.

I think there's definitely things where there could be things that are misunderstood, could even incite some folks in the community and we get that too.

And what I would do is return us back to this notion that you know, what happens if we just didn't even have this contract?

Well there's just not a lot of these placements.

These kind of placements with therapeutic services have come and gone.

There's ones that have come into the community and then they disappear.

And it does take a special skilled staff to work at these locations.

I think I've said that before at the board most recently.

And so we've decided to go on our own path is to actually work directly with Northwest oil to improve their services not just rewrite looking at policies.

Which other school districts, Fife, Olympia, and Tacoma in working with OSPI actually revised that form that I was just discussing.

Our work has been out there every week or every other week working with OSPI to change their practices.

That's ultimately what we want to inform it.

How do you work from a more preventative stance?

And Northwest soils responded.

OSPI has recently wrote a report in late April in relation to how they respond to variable incidents.

It was a positive sign to us, it was a positive sign to OSPI.

And so you know that's why I feel like today Seattle Public Schools most certainly can support this contract.

with a continued eye with OSPI on those services and being out there that we are providing students, Seattle Public students who are being placed there for therapeutic services.

So with that in mind, what is the accountability piece that actually follows through in terms of what our obligation is and what you know even though you say that they are trying to change how they do things but what is our, as a Seattle Public School District, what is, how do we keep them accountable and making sure that they follow through with what we wanted them to change.

That's a great question Board President Patu.

That's the thing about why we are out there so much is changing their practices plus we are responsible for obviously the implementation of the IEP.

whether that's on our site or there we do have to have that level of oversight and so we do do site visits, we do go through there, we are out there like I said we have somebody on our team out there at least every other week walking through, we are training staff it's not just like I'm going through we are actually engaging them and changing their practices.

So hopefully that answers that question.

Director Peters.

Okay let me just be clear about this.

Is this organization currently in alignment, compliant with state law regarding the use of restraints on students?

Based on the review by OSPI, yes.

Based on what we see, yes.

But I can't say that everybody is going to not make mistakes either.

I don't want to get up here and say hey they are not they're not 100% perfect.

There's a lot going on in these environments so I'm not going to say that that isn't but their stance, the way they're trying to operate is in conjunction with the law.

But it is my understanding from what you have said and what we heard in testimony is they have written down that they use a certain restraint policy and that parents have to sign off.

They have had a certain training in that.

So training by a vendor that could support that doesn't mean that they are actually implementing those practices.

But you have said on numerous occasions that we the district want to change their practices, we will keep an eye on them, we want to work with them, clean up their language.

It doesn't instill a lot of confidence in what they are doing.

And if we have to babysit them so much what are we getting for our $619,000?

Why don't we do it ourselves?

I'm going to start from the latter point right there, Director Peters and say actually that's one of the stances.

One of our things was to not only work directly with our providers which is only really three primary providers for therapeutic services, Overlake, hospital, this Northwest, soil, and child.

And just my own leaning in on my own expertise here everyone has room for improvement.

Dealing with challenging behaviors is very, it's a lot of work.

Constant training.

Everybody has room for improvement and in our society in general with mental health.

So it's a lot there.

What I would say is that's why also we are in the middle of an RFP process request for proposals around for working with some outside experts to start our own therapeutic services here in Seattle Public Schools for the 2016-17 school year so that we can start that work moving us forward and having an even better oversight right?

But also better services.

There's going to be challenges along the way.

But I think we think we can do it better.

Director Harris.

Could I ask some questions of Mr. General Counsel please?

A hypothetical.

Yes.

If the most terrifying thing happens that a child is injured by prone restraint wouldn't it suggest that the Seattle Public Schools would be on the wrong side of the versus line?

I'm we would probably yes be a defendant in a case like that and I can't say at this point how ultimate liability might be allocated but what I will say is you know the contract provides that they are an independent contractor in providing the service they are required to have certain levels of insurance so we would have some things to look to but certainly when we are contracting out for special education services and mental health services there is some potential liability to the district if that provider perform some kind of misconduct towards a student.

And aren't we by asking our parents to sign this release form or this agreement aren't we in some fashion violating their civil rights

I don't believe that the district is violating parents' civil rights in asking for this form to be signed and I don't know that parents are signing a form based on my little read of it in which they are waiving any rights or any requirement for the provider to comply with law.

I mean I think what the parents are recognizing and signing that form and it's not as has been referenced it's not the best written form but they are essentially agreeing that yes there may be restraints imposed on my student at this facility of different types depending on the type of situation and type of behavior involved.

But I don't see the form itself as crossing into a civil rights violation.

No I don't and they wouldn't be allowed to do that and what I would say is even if a provider said parents had to sign a form like that courts will often invalidate a form of that nature because you can't waive certain inalienable civil rights and so I don't think the form rises to that level.

Okay now if we are negotiating with a vendor then aren't we the ones sitting in a catbird seat that says No we don't like your form we are not prepared to contract with you until you change your form.

And I appreciate very much Chief Jesse's comments but it's not in writing and the video of this meeting will be exhibit 1A.

in a deposition if the worst happens and it feels ugly to me.

I would like to see OSPI reports.

I would just because Fife and Olympia and Tacoma have agreed with this poorly written form I would suggest does not follow that the Seattle Public Schools needs to adopt this form.

Is that a fair comment?

Is there a question there?

Exhibit 1A the video of this meeting.

Potentially yes.

Yeah and then just to jump back to I think your original question was about what leverage do we have in the negotiations and certainly we have some assuming they want to contract with us which I assume they do but also as you know in a contract negotiation leverage can turn on any number of factors including you know whether we have other providers to go to and all those other sorts of things that could come into play that so how you know I don't have a real sense of the strength of our leverage here other than you know these services are difficult to find so that that is a factor.

So then my next question would be to Chief Jessee if I might.

If we delay this until August I think we talked in the back of the room that this would give you five days to make these critical nine placements otherwise and would have to pass it then hopefully with more background and changes on this I can't even call it an agreement because it just feels so wrong.

What happens if we don't pass this tonight?

Give us your parade of horribles.

As a public school district we are responsible for the services that are listed on the student's IEPs.

In this case they are therapeutic services and so that level of intensity is usually sought in a day treatment facility.

And so there are very few of those locations here just right in the Puget Sound area.

And so if we were to wait until the end of August to no longer continue this contract I would have nine placements to look for.

We are usually in a waiting list anyway at Child or Overlake.

Sometimes they won't take students.

And so I don't know where, I don't really today know where we would go.

Director Blanford.

So it seems to me that you may have inadvertently caused a little bit more energy and oversight of this particular issue so I'm going to give you the opportunity to respond to a couple of questions.

The first, your recommendation is that we do what?

pass this resolution.

And you've heard the concerns that have been voiced?

Yes I have.

And you feel some level of confidence that the concerns that have been raised about us being in trouble being parties in a litigation that those can be alleviated through the conversations that you're having with the vendor at this point?

Yes and just like every one of these they all require consistent oversight.

And maybe I misheard you but do you have any concerns that this vendor is in a different category than other vendors that we have used for these types of contracts?

in terms of I'm just trying to understand is this an outlier compared to other providers that we have?

I would, I think that there has been a spectrum of services provided over the course of history.

I would say Northwest soil did not have the best reputation.

I would, I'm going to agree with that.

But I'm going to say they've changed things most certainly recently based on the observations of OSPI and the staff within Seattle Public Schools.

So I mean I think it's, they have a new director.

I mean it's a lot of change lately for them and I think the new law around isolation restraint is most certainly helps and aids them and us and our students most certainly.

And so your rubric for having heard their history and making a shift in saying let's give them a try is based on the fact that they've received the blessing of OSPI or there are other factors that you would articulate that you can share with us?

Yeah and the training and the response by staff to training under new leadership, the change in the form, I think it needs work most certainly it is well discussed and we are going back and we are going to work with them to change the form.

They want to work with us, they have, they have demonstrated that.

Those are all the positive signs.

I think today Director Blanford I would say They are right there with our other therapeutic service providers we contract with.

Right there about the same level.

Thank you.

Director Geary.

One of my biggest concerns about this again is that there is the idea that placement in these schools is conditioned upon the parents signing this physical agreement form.

And that while our policy and the law have tightened up restraint and isolation within our policy and the law there is this idea that parents can agree to something else.

And so they are inadvertently being forced to agree to have their child placed without necessarily understanding that they're buying into a waiver within our policy and the law.

And so would it be possible and I think we discussed this before there's two things I would like to see done.

One you pointed out to me that on the form they currently are proposing that it does mention that physical management will be as set forth in the IEP but that is at the bottom of the form.

And the physical management and restraint parts as outlined up at top don't seem to be conditioned upon the IEP it is as if the IEP is an afterthought.

So I would like to see the IEP be referenced earlier and it's already in the form so I think that that's a reasonable request of us on them it's in their form.

But it would put the parents on notice as they read it.

that there should have been a team process to define those following terms.

One.

And two could we as policy within the special ed department whenever we are placing a student in a situation like this where the parents are being asked to sign a form that the parents and the IEP team are discussing the restraint and isolation policy and carefully discussing what that will look like in the context of their students plan.

as it sits within these facilities.

Can we work towards those goals if we approve the contract now?

Could you help me clarify the latter part of what you said there Director Geary?

I would like our IEP teams because we are in control of the IEP team.

That doesn't depend upon Northwest soil.

It doesn't depend upon their contract necessarily.

But if I could be assured that when an IEP team is discussing placement at Northwest soil that they are sitting and talking with the parent about what that placement means, what that physical management policy means, and what the IEP's role and making sure that even if it's mentioned in the form that the parents are very clear that the physical managements to be used with their student are outlined in that IEP so that if something different happens the parents understand that that's outside of the norm of what was supposed to happen pursuant to that physical management agreement even as it exists today.

Yes we can review both of those.

Director Burke.

A couple of clarifications for me.

The physical management policy reform that's been discussed, where does that exist?

I have not seen that particular thing as I understand it.

That's not part of our board action report is it?

It's not our form, it's their form that's being referred to.

They have a lot of materials, this is one of the materials that they use.

So a lot of the concerns that we have is about a form that they have which what gives me pause is that I haven't seen it.

So I can't speak to it personally.

I have a question on our personal services contract, there's a line 4, maybe this is for general counsel.

compliance with laws the contractor shall comply and be certain that its services comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions and licenses and so on and so forth.

Does that provide both I would say legal justification for us to mandate that they follow state policy?

Does it provide leverage for them for us to require that they follow our district policy?

Yeah it will definitely require it definitely provides leverage for us to require that they follow state law and federal law and civil rights laws as it pertains to working with students and families.

So it does provide that leverage whether it means that they have to follow our exact restraint policy when they are providing some services that we don't directly provide I don't know that it goes to that level but the contract does require them to comply with state and federal law and I don't see the form that parents have to sign as waiving those ultimate rights that students and families have.

And to maintain their accreditation to be able to provide these types of services they have to comply with those laws as well.

So the fundamental point that I don't have the information on is whether this form explicitly allows or misleads or makes it easy for parents to sign away their rights under state law without understanding the ramifications of that.

That's the piece that's missing in my brain for this discussion.

Can anyone speak to that?

It's not a great form and it's not written in a way I think it would be better and then we are going to work with them to help change this form.

I think the thing that it doesn't have them waive their rights.

They are not, they have to follow and be in compliance with the rules, the state law around isolation and restraint.

Other districts have their own policies though within that and some of those do change.

Ours are not always the same as some of our other surrounding districts.

There are always slight nuances to it.

But I just wanted to make sure that this forum does where our request is to work with them to get these changes so we can do that.

We can most certainly get some of those things changed so it reflects better.

I think just even the word physical management would be actually my recommendation just behavior management instead of physical management because physical seems to lead on to more aggressive actions.

Director Pinkham.

So my question is then what if a parent refuses to sign that form do you then seek out to put them at Childhaven or these other places?

And then what are their practices?

Do they then also have this, is this something standard for other IEPs that they may include physical restraint in it?

How rare is this?

There's a lot of things of why a particular placement would work or not work.

I'm not familiar with a particular situation of someone not willing to sign this and not being followed through the business so I can't comment to that.

But there are times where it doesn't work out on both sides or they are disagreeing about that placement.

It could be some of the reading of the policy, the reputation, then they end up, we do look at those other providers.

I would like to remind directors to please speak directly into the mics.

They can't hear you.

Director Peters.

Well I'm sort of channeling my colleague Director Harris who has indicated that all this conversation we've had right now is not anywhere in this motion.

So, all the stipulations everyone is placing now on leading to this vote is not codified anywhere.

So, we don't, we just have a verbal promise.

Unless somebody heard differently, perhaps Director Geary did, but just to finish, unless we have it written in here that all these things are going to be done, I don't know what assurances we have.

Would this be the appropriate time then to make an amendment that approval of the contract means that Seattle Public Schools will engage in a process whereby the IEP team prior to placement will review the rights of the parents with regard to the form and make sure that the physical management plan is part of the IEP as well as continue to work with Northwest soil to amend the contract so as at a minimum to give prominence to the idea that any physical restraints or physical management that is being used shall be in accordance with the IEP developed by the IEP team.

that would be a motion that I would make to put some accountability into the points that Chief Jesse has said that the district would be willing to do.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

So what Director Blanford?

I think this one goes for Chief Jessee.

Having heard the amendment I'm wondering if you can speak to the operational challenges if any that are associated with implementing the amendment.

It's not our form.

I mean that's why it's not part of this package.

There's a lot of things that we do in contact with the folks that use things that probably need a lot of revision.

I think in this one can go back and work with them I cannot make them do that they work with dozens of other districts it's not.

I don't know if I can necessarily get them to agree to do that.

I think we can get them to make changes.

I don't know if it's necessarily to what level right?

I mean I think that's moving and moving the language from the bottom line as Director Geary says to the top so it implements that.

I'm sure they would be willing to do that.

How much further some of those revisions go I'm not quite so sure.

I would like to change some things myself.

I think they will work with us.

I'm pretty sure that we will be able to get that done but to what degree to everybody's appeasement I think that's a good question.

I as part of my motion it wasn't that you would achieve that because certainly you have no control over that entity nor do we but that you will work towards that end.

As you told me you would be willing to and you think they are also willing to.

It's good to get, I'm sorry, it's good to get clarity.

There's a lot there and I just want to make sure that we were clear about that because I feel like at some point in this conversation it was about change the form period.

I didn't know to what degree but we most certainly can work with them and already have and I've already got correspondence that says yeah we would most certainly look at revisions if you gave it to us.

From my perspective the conversation is both about doing what we can to make sure that that form is fair but also doing what we can as the contracting party and the IEP team coordinators let's say in making sure that the IEP team process is transparent and fair and that our parents understand their rights as they go into this process with this entity.

we could make up our own communication to attach to it so it does provide that clarity.

We could do that so that it does come with every time the parent has that so they can have that information.

We can do that.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Yes just to remind you now you have an amendment on the table so you would vote first on the amendment and then you would after that vote on the motion as amended assuming the amendment passes.

Okay.

So on this amendment do we need roll calls on the amendment or can we just say all those in favor?

This would normally be a roll call vote.

Okay let's do a roll call vote.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

No.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

No.

Director Patu.

No.

This motion is passed by a vote of 4-3.

That was just the amendment.

So now we need to reread the original motion with as amended at the end.

Actually I don't think you need to reread it you can just now call for the vote on the motion as amended and then we do a roll call on that.

Okay.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Director Harris.

No.

Director Peters.

No.

Director Pinkham.

No.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Patu.

No.

This motion did not pass by a vote of three to four.

Okay let's move on to the next one.

Authorizing a one-year additional agreement with Power School for Enterprise Management Services.

Now this one is actually intro and action.

I'll still read the motion.

I move that the Board of Directors authorize the superintendent to execute a one-year additional agreement with Power School to provide enterprise management support services from July 7, 2016 to July 6, 2017. In the amount of $50,000 in the form of a purchase order dated July 6, 2016 and presented to the school board with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

As far as the recommendation goes this motion was discussed at the Audit and Finance Committee of the whole meeting on June 30, 2016. The committee reviewed the item and the majority of the committee approved it for intro and action on the July 6 board meeting with start date revisions.

Second the motion.

Good evening members of the board, Stephen Nielsen, Deputy.

This item and the following item on the agenda number six are both brought to you for intro and action as a result of work by staff to align purchasing and contracting across the district in a singular manner.

And we appreciate the fact that this is a quick turnaround on all of this.

Considerable discussion took place at the community of the whole last week.

Staff understands boards concerns about intro and action and also appreciates in this case in the following item that approval would allow us to have technology operational for students and staff in the fall.

Thank you for your consideration and Nancy can answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions or comments from directors?

I see none.

Director Peters.

The comment I'll make for this one and also for the following one is that doing things as intro action is obviously not ideal and it doesn't allow us proper oversight, doesn't allow community review at all and so I'm not happy with this practice and therefore I will not be able to support this tonight.

Director Harris.

You referred to a rather painful meeting on Thursday evening and when I chose to vote for it.

I thought that one of the things we could do is get a lessons learned from the internal auditor whose plate is very full and who will take some 25 to 30 years at the current rate that we are going to go through all the schools.

And it was pointed out to me appropriately so that my ask to refer it to the internal auditor and put it on the top of the list was overreaching by a mile and that that needs to go to the audit and finance committee as well as to the chair of the audit and finance committee and discuss with the internal auditor where it belongs or if that's the best use of our bandwidth which is very narrow.

But if we don't have lessons learned then it is extraordinarily painful.

I am angry and disappointed about these two motions.

This was pointed out in April in an A&F committee meeting and it wasn't discovered and vetted and put back on our calendar.

we have a duty for oversight.

I'm not willing to have schools open without computers.

And frankly I think there's been some overreach from DOTS with respect to whether or not we're changing how we deliver services and the numbers of those computers and I'm very concerned about that.

So if you think that our oversight is high scrutiny now it will be even more so because frankly some of us feel very burned.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

To clarify the first bar there are two cost components.

One of them is $241,961 which covers normal annual licensing and support.

And the second component is a $50,000 additional payment for enterprise management support.

And that's what puts this bar over the $250,000 approval amount.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

I'm Nancy Peterson, the Director of Enterprise Applications.

Thank you.

My concern is that we already have essentially a quarter million dollars invested in support for this vendor and the incremental cost, this is a point I brought up at the audit and finance meeting, the additional cost for the The extended support which I believe they should be offering on their product anyways seems somewhat egregious to me and so that's why I will not be supporting this motion.

Any other comments?

I too am very disappointed that these items are actually coming and not giving us enough time to be able to vent through what is going on with both of these vendors and as I mentioned beforehand that It was found out way back in April and here we're into July and here it's just coming in and I realized that the person that actually was over this department is no longer here.

it still does not give an excuse in terms of bringing these authorized contracts later in the year and not giving board enough time to oversee the information and process.

So I too will not support this.

Might I respond to Director Burke's points?

Go ahead.

and the boards.

Thank you.

The overall support contract that we have for 241961 covers basic support which is offered to all of this vendors schools and school districts that have their product.

And so it includes very generic call-in support, online support and certainly escalation of support to higher levels of expertise when we need that.

This $50,000 extended or actually it is a bumped up level of support is the first time that we have ever considered this with this vendor.

In previous years we have done our own upgrades with the regular level of support from the vendor.

and we have managed that by putting off those upgrades for a year.

And so the version of the software that we have had has been a year in arrears.

That has created problems in terms of needing to escalate every time we need something fixed with the vendor to an older version of software.

It has also created problems with our getting current support for bug fixes and state reports.

We've had to make separate escalations and separate agreements with the vendor to have those covered on an older level of support.

What we tried to do this year is to look at the amount of work that we have to do this summer and we considered very carefully whether to wait for again being one year in arrears on the version of software that we have and in fact after an onsite meeting with the vendor at the end of May and a number of other school districts in the state and in the area that have this software and also with our clients present we felt that the new features for this software and the support for it really warranted trying to do this upgrade in the summer.

We are crunched for time and I am very cognizant that this makes it a difficult decision for the board and I do believe this is the right thing that will put our schools in good stead to have more features available to have current state reporting and for the DOTS department to be able to complete the other critical projects that we have that also require being done by the start of school.

This is something that is new for us and we would like to try this support.

One of the things that I did not call out in the committee meeting and I should have is the part in the contract that says that after I believe it is 60 days we can get a refund for a portion of that $50,000 if we are not satisfied with the service and that is something that we arranged up front with the vendor so we figured it was mitigating the risk in case this extra level of service was not adequate to what we needed.

We have the option for that.

We also have the option of continuing this higher level of support through the year to see what tradeoffs that gives us in terms of our own staff time.

And so we could again go make this part of our ongoing support in the future if we wish.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

Can you speak to the implications of this board today not approving this bar for schools?

Yes, if we do not approve this BAR then we in the department will need to work with the vendor and we will have to make a choice of whether we need to negotiate a different level of support from them on the older version.

and wait until later in the year to do this upgrade.

Drawbacks for that include what I've already mentioned about current state reporting and features.

Also the possibility that we would then be upgrading in the middle of the year which could negatively impact our teachers, our students and our families in getting new software in the middle of the year.

Optionally, we would also look at the other projects that we have on our plate for this summer and decide if some of those needed to be put off if we're not able to complete the upgrades ourselves.

So those are our choices.

Just for clarification this is the first time I've heard the information where you said the $50,000 actually if you're not satisfied you can actually take it back or there's a warranty or can you explain that a little bit?

That is in the terms of service that are attached to the quote that we have from the vendor and it is something that we had quite a bit of discussion with the vendor on because we were hoping to try their extra service at no cost as a trial.

They originally had said yes we could trial it.

What they came back though with was the contract that says that I'm going to have to put on my peripheral here in a moment that after a set period of time if we are not satisfied with their service we can get up to $37,500 back.

I was remiss in calling that out at the committee meeting and I should have.

Well thank you.

In that case I've actually changed my vote.

I'm going to actually vote for it.

Director Burke.

I want to also say that I appreciate that clarification and indicate that my hope would be that this is something that could be upgraded during the summer because a mid academic year is never an optimum situation.

One of the points you brought up in audit and finance was that there are potentially about 15 FTEs available to do the support work in power school.

And previously our own team had done our own upgrades and so my The way I'm internalizing that, the way I had internalized that was that we have the expertise in-house and so the additional funding for the additional level of support is more of an insurance policy.

And I'm not sure if that's an accurate assessment or not.

I think I would not characterize it that way.

What I would say is that the additional support is actually to guarantee us a higher level of support.

So for example in the past when we have done upgrades we have if we run into a problem we go through our normal support channels.

If they can't fix the problem we escalate and escalate and escalate until we get to a point where they can to a level in their company where they have a technical expertise that can help us.

What I have found over the life of working with this vendor is that our staff is extremely competent and that when we run into a problem it's truly a problem.

In fact one of the things we saw just a few days ago that they had to help us work through was a bug in their software that we found in the new upgrade version.

So, what this level of service does is to take out that need to continue to escalate.

The way we found that was we found it, we replicated it, we got their support folks on the phone and they immediately escalated themselves through their levels to find the technical support person that we needed.

So, we are concerned about our time crunch.

and that we cannot manage on our own with the normal level of support.

And that is why we were asking for this $50,000 to be able to have a higher level of support during this time.

Thank you.

Any more comments?

Questions?

Ms. Hill the roll call please.

Director Geary.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

No.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

No.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed by a vote of 5-2.

Okay the next one is purchase of technology for new BEX IV schools, capacity classrooms, K-3 class size reduction classrooms and special education classrooms.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute purchase orders through bid number B09510 with Dell and Apple for a total amount of not to exceed $2 million plus Washington State sales tax over fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17 In the form of the draft purchase orders attached to the board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the purchase orders.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

This motion was discussed at the audit and finance committee of the whole meeting on June 30, 2016. Let's see the majority of the committee move this item forward for intro and action to the full board with a recommendation for approval as amended.

Second the motion.

Comments?

Director Peters.

As we discussed with the previous item this one is actually the bigger one this is the $2 million item and I want to appreciate the fact that staff is bringing this to us as a bar for our oversight and because when it was first brought to us as an informational item in April that wasn't the case and that's when questions first arose.

So, you know I'm perplexed and frustrated because I did bring up some questions in April and was told how things were being handled was just fine and it turns out no this is the way we need to handle it.

So because things were not handled in the appropriate time sequence it's being brought to us as an intro action item.

And I don't believe that I can do my job well under these circumstances.

To me this is not a good definition of good governance.

and I did ask for this to be separated as an intro and action item.

If it were intro tonight and action next month it would be a different matter but because it's intro action because it's $2 million again I don't feel we are able to do our proper oversight the public is not able to weigh in therefore I cannot support this tonight.

Director Burke.

I have a question for staff regarding the quantities on these purchase orders.

When I look at the number of computers that are being purchased by school and the division between the McIntosh products and the Dell products my question is what is the allocation basis for these for the different schools?

Yes sir, so how the allocations are made per school is there's machines set aside for the office staff and then in the classrooms there's a teacher presentation station and a teacher workstation for doing the grades and that type of thing.

And then it's also based on a certain quantity of machines per classroom which is typically six.

But there is some variances for special rooms you know whether that be special ed or you other types of unusual classrooms, labs, those types of things.

They also have some carts.

And the choice at this time with some being choosing Apple and some choosing Dell Windows was a campus choice at this time.

We are wanting to future wise work more towards a better standardization based on usage cases like we have talked about in the past and we will be discussing more later with one of our other motions.

I guess to be more specific the district allocation target is like 3.5 to 1 or something like that?

The current ratio we are working toward this year with our refreshes is 2.7 to 1. 2.7 to 1 so I see like just for example at Arbor Heights there are 72 Macs and 269 Dell computers.

And so is that targeting that 2.7 to 1 or does that exceed the 2.7 to 1 ratio?

I will have to ask our coordinator who had worked on those exact numbers.

Sorry about that.

Putting her on the spot.

Crystal project coordinator with thoughts sorry I wasn't expecting to talk.

I was given the direction that it was six student devices per classroom and then in addition computer labs also.

So those numbers include the computer labs as well as library devices.

Okay so the math on that is basically classrooms times six plus computer labs plus.

libraries or specials and then the teacher stations are additional.

Correct.

But they are for the schools that chose Dell desktops because the Dell desktops are the standard for teacher stations and presentation stations and so those numbers are clumped into that big number.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Any more questions?

Comments?

I so because this item also came to us in an interim action at the same time which does not give us time to actually to read over the whole process and making good choices in terms of moving us forward.

$2 million is a lot of money and bringing it at the last minute and not having enough time to vent through it.

is not the way I would like to do business.

So I will vote against this, vote no on this one.

Ms. Hale roll call.

Director Peters.

No.

Director Pinkham.

Reluctant yes.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Harris.

Yes.

Director Patu.

No.

This motion is passed by a vote of 5-2.

Our next item is we are not actually we removed number 7 so we are going to go on down to number 8. BTA IV award contract P1461 for architecture engineering services to TCF architecture for the Daniel Webster modernization project.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract P1461 for architectural and engineering services with TCF architecture for the modernization and addition at Daniel Webster elementary school project in the amount of $2,938,704 plus $19,690 reimbursable expenses in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Second the motion.

Ops chair.

This item was heard before the ops committee on May 19 and moved forward for consideration.

It was moved forward for consideration so is it complete?

It is complete at this time.

There have been some changes included.

Sorry this is Eric Becker with senior project manager with Capital Projects.

And I have Connie Myers here as the project manager with Capital Projects just in case we have some detailed questions.

The changes include the fee amount which is correct and that's been included.

And then also there's been some contractors, the contract included is no longer a draft.

And then the shortlisting of the architects has been included at the request of the directors.

Director Harris.

When this came up before we asked questions about what the specific planned use of Webster site would be.

And I think I'm referencing it correctly is we don't know.

It could be a small alternative school it could be a K through 5. What additional costs or impediments could we run into downstream that would be difficult to reel back and what additional costs are we going to undertake because we don't have the focus of the school determined.

If that makes sense.

There could be cost impacts to the later it gets in the process of course the more impact it will have but if we do our due diligence up front and early in this project which fortunately we have a little bit of time on this project to do those types of studies and discussions I think we can get off on the right foot without any substantial costs.

Do you have a date certain on that or an estimated date where we have to make those choices?

I will ask Connie just to let me know if she thinks she has a date.

So before early next year we will definitely, I think that is schematic design complete.

So schematic design complete in the early spring.

We will definitely have to have our decisions made within two to three months prior to that.

So about the end of the year.

So does that then come back to the board for a vote?

Well the educational, well this is not a state funded assistance project we do not have OSPI dollars going to this so the educational specifications will not specifically come to the board for approval.

But that's a great question on what the next step will be in the approval of this, of the program.

So we can respond to that at another time or with additional information.

In response to the board's program placement, yes it will come back to the board.

But that's not the capital spending based on what we decide.

Well, true.

It seems to me that there's two parts to that question.

One is what are we going to put in the building?

And then the other part is how are we going to design the building and how are we going to pay for it?

So, and you've made it very clear that you want to know about site-specific programs.

This would be a site-specific program, school, whatever we want to call it.

Director Burke.

My understanding around the conversation last time was that we are uncertain whether this will be a K-5, a K-8 or a middle school.

Is that correct?

Or is there more clarity on what grade bands?

I could not clarify that except that I know that this has started out to be a K-5 in the descriptions in the contract so it's an elementary school.

And then perhaps as an alternative type school.

And I don't know the specifics on that at this time.

Okay thank you.

I guess my current feeling is that given the lead time that we have and some of the uncertainty around what's going here that we are better served with our money.

identifying what the use is and then providing that guidance to the architect before we launch them on a conceptual design.

Is that?

Well I would ask that you consider that the architects can help us with that decision also.

They can provide us with alternatives in the design and the impact on the design.

So having this architect on board and them knowing the facility inside and out which they will need to do in order to keep our costs in line and to understand the impacts on the site and such.

So we actually really need them to help us make this decision.

Would there be an adverse impact or could you speak to the adverse effects if this were approved rather than at this meeting at the subsequent meeting to provide time to better understand the capacity or assignment plan ramifications for this site?

It will just delay our start of the project which of course this contract is the first execution of the start of the project.

It will delay our SEPA, our environmental studies.

So having that process started certainly puts us in a position of greater efficiency in timelines.

Having an early start certainly makes it much better for us during the SEPA process to get our master use permit approved early enough for construction so we have a good substantial amount of construction period.

So the longer we delay that There will be a greater risk for risk during construction if we squeeze the construction time down and the design time.

Sorry last question, target open date.

This target open date is 2020.

2020. Thank you.

My personal feeling is that we will be better served by waiting until the next meeting so I will not be supporting this motion.

Any questions, comments?

Director Pinkham.

Looking at the scope of the project again you're not sure what kind of school it's going to be but you are saying enrollment capacity of 450?

That's correct yes 450. Okay.

So in previous conversations I had with operations and new buildings for any elementary schools they are saying the target was 660. Is this going to be another one or hopefully another Lowell Heights situation where we say 450 then oh no we have to jump up to 660?

No sir this site is actually much smaller and more restrictive than Lowell Heights and plus the opportunities with the existing building are not.

available as they were with Lowell Heights.

So this is a different type of model when it comes to the student count.

And also see that it has some landmark designations as well that you'll have to work with.

That's correct yes there are two portions of the building.

One portion of the building is done by Sexton an architect when the building was incorporated in Ballard.

So it's a historic structure, the original building 1904 I believe or 8. And then there's a narrow more addition to that.

And both of those have been designated a landmark.

Director Peters.

I actually have a question for my colleague Director Burke.

What information do you think we would have in August that we don't have now?

More enrollment information?

I would hope that we would be able to provide some clarity on the use of the building and perhaps that's not a realistic timeline so maybe that's more of a question for staff is what would be a realistic timeline for identifying the use of the building and what drives that?

Is it capacity driven?

Sorry to answer your question with a question but that's my uncertainty that makes me feel I cannot move forward with this decision.

Just not knowing what the actual purpose is going to be on the building.

Okay any more questions comments?

All right Ms. Hale.

Director Peters.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

Nay.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

No.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion has passed by a vote of 5 to 2.

Thank you.

Number 9 BTA III award construction contract K5071, bed number 04671, 2 for the Ingram high school waterline upgrades project.

This action item has been delayed to the August 24 board meeting as approved by the executive committee on June 30. So this is our last action item.

We are now going into our introduction item.

We are done with that.

So our first introduction items approval to amend policy number 2255 and allow Nova high school in all locations of Middle College to operate using the alternative learning experience ALE model.

This motion was discussed at C&I on June 13 and was moved forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Michael Tolley associate superintendent for teaching and learning.

With this board action item we are requesting that the school board revise school board policy 2255 alternative learning experience schools and programs to include middle college high school and Nova alternative high school within the policy.

State regulations require that the school board on an annual basis review schools and programs that are implementing the alternative learning experience model as well as their annual reports.

The regulation also requires that the school board policy that authorizes alternative learning experience model be reviewed on an annual basis.

The school board did approve the alternative learning experience annual reports and model for two schools currently in policy, interagency academy and cascade parent partner program on December 2, 2015. This action item does not change that approval but it does allow for the approval of the plans for implementing the alternative learning experience model for Nova alternative high school as well as middle college high school.

Additionally school board approval is required for the addition of those two schools, Middle College and Nova to be added to the policy itself.

We do list the names of the schools within policy.

Upon approval we would of course begin reporting to the state the enrollment and attendance information for our students at Nova and Middle College within the alternative learning experience model.

And make sure that all the required documentation for students associated with that model would be implemented.

Any questions?

Director Blanford.

Can you speak to who initiated this idea?

Both schools have requested that they return, both of these schools have been alternative learning experience model schools in the past.

The administration and staff of those two schools have requested that we return to this model recently so that you, additional information to ensure that we are in compliance with all the requirements that go along with the alternative learning experience.

We did require that staff participate in training.

relative to implementing this model to ensure that they fully understood the requirements prior to moving forward with this request.

And is there a community engagement component I see under in the bar that There is some language under the section on community engagement but it doesn't indicate outreach to various constituencies other than what you just shared in your question.

These are primarily school-based conversations.

So as a final question, do you believe that there is necessity for deeper engagement with other stakeholders?

Or is that community engagement sufficient?

I believe the amount of community engagement that occurred at the school base basically meets the requirements and needs of that piece primarily because what we are wanting to do is provide flexibility within the schools to better serve the students and that is the target of the community specifically that is going to be benefiting from this flexibility.

So, is there, I promised that was going to be my last question and then it prompted me to ask another one.

Is there an opportunity cost associated with moving from one model of school to a different model of school?

No this is primarily a funding model.

There is traditional model which requires the way in which we take enrollment, I'm sorry take attendance and enroll students.

The alternative learning experience model provides for more flexibility around how we are able to basically count the student as an attendance and allow for flexibility in the way services are provided to the students.

And if I remember correctly we got ourselves in trouble with one of the schools because of that attendance policy when we were audited they weren't able to identify students because that school had not moved to the ALE model is that correct?

There are two different situations here so we have a recent, well I should say recent, interagency academy actually was audited for the 2012-2013 school year and all of the documentation did not meet the requirements of the audit.

And so we are currently not able to, well we are having to work with currently the state auditor's office has completed their audit.

It's being turned over to OSPI at this point for review.

And so we are still working through those details.

At the same time that same year NOVA had been audited.

NOVA at the time they were an alternative learning experience and they met all the requirements of that audit.

Any comments?

Director Harris.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Just for clarity does this mean that Middle College is now an ALE no longer a site school?

Again the distinction here is the funding model.

What we are saying is that middle college would become alternative learning experience programming so that they would have the flexibility to basically count the students through that model rather than a traditional model.

But middle college would continue to maintain the three current locations.

That would not change.

You lost me there.

So Miller College is a high school.

It currently consists of three locations and that would not change.

They would still be considered a high school.

The way in which we are able to count students would change.

The traditional model we have to of course the students have to be in attendance for a certain number of hours per week and in order for them to be counted as a full-time FTE that's about 25 hours a week.

We are an alternative learning experience model we have to have individualized written student learning plans and those plans have to allow for the student to be required to attend at least one hour a week and meet with a teacher of record who is monitoring that student's progress.

But that gives a lot of flexibility to the school as to how best to serve the students and their needs.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Thank you.

Next item is award of RFP 03662 and approval of maximum expenditure for cloud book student use laptops.

Ops recommendation.

This item was considered by the ops committee on the 16th of July and was moved forward for consideration.

Thank you.

Good evening, David Ostreicher, Director in DOTS over the infrastructure area.

I am pleased to be here to share more information about this RFP and what we're asking for your approval this evening.

What we're looking for is we did an RFP for a cloud book type of device which is a lower cost Windows laptop.

And why we're doing this, our goal in DOTS is how How do we as DOTS match the right tools for the right job?

And what we have learned is that students largely nowadays are working on web-based resources.

They are working on tools online, they are using office tools, Microsoft office, those type of tools and they also do lots of testing online unfortunately still.

And these type of activities are a lower resource use use on computers.

So what we want to do is match the right device by getting one that allows us to use our funds in a wiser manner.

Secondly, schools have been asking us and DOTS for a lower cost option so that they can stretch their funds whether it's PTA funds or local school funds.

So we have done a bid through the purchasing department contracts to find out of these different type of offers of cloudbooks what is the best value for us as SPS.

during this process we had teachers look at these devices and students as well so that we could get their input on the feel, look and speed of these devices.

So after carefully looking at all of our model and vendor choices we have decided on a Dell branded cloud book at the best value through Thornburg services as the awarded vendor.

This bid is for an initial term of three years with the optional fourth and fifth year.

And what we are bringing in August for your approval at that time is a not to exceed amount of $6 million over the up to five-year term of that contract RFP.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

So I wanted to find out so how many laptops are we talking about and how many schools are actually getting laptops?

That's a great question so currently we are looking at using this laptop in many different cases.

So this laptop, just to clarify one thing also, isn't our only laptop model we're buying, but it puts one more tool into our tool belt to choose from.

So currently what our initial plans are is we are using this as part of our refresh in the fall of computers.

And we also are putting some out there for some greater feedback on this type of device in the fall.

And we also have some other groups outside of DOTS interested in buying some of these on their own.

So in the longer term we would use this as part of our refresh, use this as part of grants and meeting school needs in a more effective manner.

I know I just asked how many laptops are we looking at for this month.

At the, over the term if we spent all of this allotted money that would be about roughly 18,000 laptops over the five-year term if we went up to the $6 million.

And how many schools are we looking at serving only high schools or is this for all the schools?

Oh great question.

This is for all schools.

We want to give all schools the same opportunities.

Thank you.

Director Peters.

An observation and then a question.

So here we are talking about spending $6 million on some computers in addition to some $2 million on computers that were just approved and yet we are struggling with putting aside $2 or $3 million just for some math textbooks.

It seems like we find endless funds for our technology and we just scramble and scramble to find funds for our curricular materials.

I know the two items are interrelated but I can't help but make this observation especially tonight.

And allow me to respond to your observation, Stephen Nielsen, Deputy.

That's because the funds for the computers are coming from the generous votes of our citizens in BTA and there are specific rules around what you can use BTA levies to do compared to some other things.

So it is because of the support that we receive here differentiated from some of the supports that we receive from the state.

So that's a part of the answer.

I appreciate that and I understand that distinction.

I do think though it is also a matter of will.

It seems like there is a lot more enthusiasm around here about technology than there is about curriculum.

And that is not a comment on you David.

So David I do have a question for you and that is do we have an inventory of all the computers and devices that we purchase because tonight you're talking about a cloud book, I'll admit to being a bit of, I won't quite say Luddite but I've not heard of cloud books before.

We've got cloud books, earlier we had Dell and Apple computers.

Do we have a sense of our total inventory of what we're purchasing, when they will be outmoded, it just seems like we keep on getting more and more contracts and I'm losing track, I'm wondering if anyone is keeping track.

Yes ma'am.

We do have inventory information on what we have out there.

In the past actually SPS has not really done the best job always on taking out old machines and replacing them in a timely manner.

and which has led to schools not being always happy with what machines they do have because of their age and becoming slower.

So we are wanting to get on a regular refresh cycle where we are now with our levy funds increasing with the BTA IV, get on that kind of schedule where we are taking out the old stuff and keeping up with that.

So you had mentioned Dells and Apples and really what we have right now is a list of supported devices.

We have a desktop type of device which is great for offices, labs, those kind of things.

We have a midsize laptop that is a Dell currently and then this would be a right under that as a lower cost to give us different options based on the needs.

Okay and do you have like a quantity of each?

Do we know how many we have and where they are and all of that?

Yes.

So I'm just going to have a request for you and then a comment and then I'll be done.

Sure.

And my request is to help me support these purchases I really need to have a deeper sense of the value.

What value are we getting out of these?

What value are our students getting out of these?

And so I don't know that you can answer this on the spot I don't want to put you on the spot but when you come back to us In August I would like to understand why we need to spend $6 million on these items when we are struggling to spend, I know it's a different pot of money but I want to know the value of this, I want to have a better sense of that.

And then I just want to say my concern about technology is it's reminding me of painting the Golden Gate Bridge.

The minute you start You stop, you have to start all over again.

And it's a constant cycle because the items keep on becoming outmoded and we're on a treadmill and I'm sure these technology companies are just so thrilled to have school districts buy their products because there's no end to the costs keeping up with the technology.

And so that concerns me.

I think we have to have some parameters around how often we're going to refresh things.

Otherwise, you know, we're just going to be a piggy bank for Dell and Apple and the rest of them.

Definitely.

And we can bring you more information on the usage with our instructional side in August.

I'd love to bring them so they can tell you a little more about it.

But I would just say to briefly answer that question that really it's not about a device, it's not about a computer or a brand.

What it's about is what are students and teachers doing with it.

You know that's where it makes in the classroom a difference.

Throwing us, we spend $100 million and if it's not being used right it's a waste of money.

I agree with that.

But what's important is that we get it out there and that the teachers and the students are using it in a way that engages students which will lead to them wanting to be at school, give them real-world work that helps them learn real world skills, working in teams, working with each other, more you know creative type of work and those type of things rather than just say here is a PC go have fun with it.

It is really about that outcome in the classroom.

I agree.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

Thank you.

I feel like I missed the memo in how this interlaces with how we deliver instruction.

There's movements out there and I'm sure I'm not going to get the labeling correct but Carmen Rahm and I used to have these fabulous arguments about whether or not a one-to-one ratio for our students was appropriate if the board and the staff didn't work together to define what direction we're going in.

and I don't feel that kind of rich discussion about supplementing instruction on computers and I don't recall being asked about that.

The other question I have for you is what sorts of theft devices do we have and what is our either loss rate I don't know what you call it in techie land but You know how many of these are going to walk out the door or be left on buses or at Starbucks or what all?

Sure and I would like to point out this is strictly for at school use.

This is not an issuing a laptop to a student program.

That was not clear.

Thank you.

Yes that would be a huge discussion we would definitely have with you and instruction and a lot of planning because that is not an overnight type of thing.

initiative.

This is strictly for use at school, in classrooms, supplementing other machines and helping us stretch our funds so that classes could have access more often to a machine in their classroom.

Any more comments or questions?

Director Burke.

So my colleagues have done a nice job of raising some of the similar concerns I have about a one-to-one program without a clear educational vision for what that is.

What What content are we delivering?

What is the academic purpose or use case?

The educational advantage you know I don't think we've created that evidence of efficacy maybe is a good way to put it.

Is it new and cool and therefore we should do it?

Or is it the right thing to do for our students?

Does working on computers actually improve group learning?

Or does it reduce it?

If telephones, cell phones are an example, I would say that personal interactions go down when you give students electronic devices.

I have some concern, you mentioned all schools, these would be going to all schools.

That would be really interesting to learn more about between now and the next discussion around this about How how we would ratio that because 18000 laptops you know are we dividing evenly by students or do high schools have a higher ratio because of a particular type of academic delivery?

Has that been determined?

Okay question is good and really what we are looking for with this is, this is a five year term keep in mind also up to a five year term that we are talking about spending this over.

We are not going out this fall and spending six million dollars.

We are looking at this over a longer term and where I would see it kind of use case isn't hey we are running it right now and giving every student a laptop, you know that might happen in the future, I don't know that's up to the board and instructional slide more.

But what I could see as an example of a great use for it, say we are going to school A and doing a refresh of their old machines and the classroom in the past, say that classroom has six six computers in it currently.

For the same funds that I would have bought a more expensive machine that would be a little more overkill so to speak I can now maybe buy 8 of them or 9 of them for that same price and give the students in that class more access to work in groups or to use stations or whatever.

Okay one other question that I have around that.

Thank you for, I really appreciate the five-year clarification because that was helpful for me.

Are we increasing the net number of hardware devices in our district with this work or are we just replacing things that are obsolescing?

I would say some of both.

Our plan is as an example we had This winter we are doing a refresh of machines at schools and the schools currently have options with a calculator spreadsheet of their choices and this was one of the choices that was added onto their options as the schools asking us.

asking us knowing we were doing this and for instance those schools who chose this are able to get more machines for the refresh than others who didn't.

Okay thank you.

Where I was going with that is are we increasing our support exposure where as we get more hardware in the buildings the requirement for either building-based or centralized tech support increases?

Well more machines naturally has a tendency to cause more support but two things that we are doing this year help alleviate that.

One is our support staff is increasing right now and it's doubling almost for our field support which was very low in the past which will help us with that customer service level.

The second thing we've been starting for the last about 6 or 8 months or so, we're really ramping up now, is our automation processes of how do we how do we make it where the field people are focusing on fixing things and not that busy work of installing software and this and that by automating those processes and on the back end so we're able to work smarter.

Thank you.

I guess I have two questions.

One of them is quick and one of them is maybe more complicated.

The five-year term, is this approval actually stretched over five years or is this an approval for just the current year and there will be subsequent ones for additional years?

Yes, this is for the whole term, five-year term.

Okay so really we are approving something that will potentially outlast us as directors.

Possibly.

So the difficult question then maybe might be for Stephen Nielsen is the dollars that are allocated for this and the way they are earmarked are they hardware designated only or can they be applied as software or training or professional development around the technology pieces.

So Stephen Nielsen, Deputy, I'd like to defer an answer to your question and then suggest a different solution.

And I will apologize for this.

I was not paying heavy attention to this particular bar because of some earlier items that were on the agenda today.

And based on the questions that I'm hearing and some of the concerns that I have, I suggest that we pull this from the action items for the next meeting and that we instead go back and do our homework and come to you with a more cohesive and long-term plan.

Thank you.

Superintendent Nyland.

I concur.

I just want to remind directors it is after 9 o'clock and we have nine more items to go.

Thank you.

BEX IV and PTA IV award contract P1459 for construction management services to Sheels, Oplitz, Johnson and property for the Daniel Backley Elementary school classroom addition project.

Good evening this is Eric Becker senior project manager.

Excuse me can I get the recommendation from ops please.

Operations committee heard this on June 16 and moved it forward for consideration.

Thank you.

I'm sorry I was encouraged to move along.

I have the next six items.

This item is for construction management services for the Daniel Bagley elementary school modernization addition project.

And of course it exceeds $250,000 so it's being brought forward to the board.

It's the fiscal impact of this is $1,160,992 with reimbursable expenses of $16,165.

The revenue source for this is two funds, it's BEX IV and BTA IV capital levy funds.

Just a quick bit of background, enrollment planning section of capital projects and the planning department has identified the need for additional capacity in North Seattle and they have recommended an addition and modernization of Daniel Bagley elementary school to accommodate the projected capacity needs.

The district advertised for the services in August of 2015. Four firms submitted and four firms were interviewed.

The firms have been listed here, all the firms that have been submitted and were interviewed.

The review panel found that I'll use SOJ was the most qualified firm for the Daniel Bagley elementary school project.

May I answer any questions?

There is a draft contract attached and also I should mention that there is an interim contract in place for preplanning services.

And that interim contract is for $59,810.

And that was initiated this spring.

So to take us through to the end of the summer.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Director Blanford.

Can you speak to the source of that interim contact, the source of funding for the interim contact?

I know we had contract, I'm sorry I said that twice.

I know we had some conversation in the ops committee about that issue.

I believe the funds, that funds would be probably from, well it would be from either capital fund, either BTA IV or BEX IV, but the BEX IV dollars are more readily available at this point.

Any more comments or questions?

Okay thank you.

Next one is BEX IV and PTA IV award contract PE 1453 for architecture engineering AE services to Miller Havasi for the Daniel Bagley elementary school classroom addition project.

Yes that is for the architectural and engineering services for Miller Havasi for the Daniel Bagley elementary school project.

The fiscal impact of this is $2,265,526 plus $25,000 for possible reimbursables.

Also the funding sources for this is BTA IV and BEX IV.

This item was also heard by the Ops Committee on June 16. Thank you.

Move forward for consideration.

And there is also, I should let you know that there is an interim contract for preplanning services for this project for $115,000, $199,000.

And there was also a listing of the architects that submitted for this and there were 19, I'm sorry 13 submittals by architects.

Three firms were selected for shortlisting and interviews and of the three Miller Hayashi was selected because of their qualifications for the specific project.

The draft of the contract is attached and also the interim contract is attached.

May I answer any questions?

Any comments or questions on this item?

Thank you.

Moving on to the next one.

BEX III final acceptance of public works contract P5039 Pioneer Masonry Restoration Company incorporated for the Franklin High School phase 1 facade restoration project.

This item was heard by the Ops Committee on June 16 and moved forward for approval.

Thank you.

Yes, this is a final acceptance for the contract for Pioneer Masonry Company on the Franklin high school phase 1 facade restoration project.

All payments have been made to the contractor from the BEX III capital levy.

No outstanding invoices remain.

I just wanted to note that the approved budget for this was $1.6 million and the expenditures was lower than that at $1.468 million.

And may I answer any questions?

All the attachments are included.

There is detail on the change orders involved with this.

I should just briefly say what the change orders included.

The change orders included additional hazardous materials abatement, additional terracotta replacement beyond that was originally identified in the contract and there was also emergency repairs to the Juliet balconies and construction safety canopies built during the project.

And also additional work was done to the cupola on the building.

Any questions, comments?

Thank you.

Next one is BEX IV final acceptance of public works contract P5063 to Western Ventures Construction Incorporated for the Franklin High School phase II roof and seismic work project ops.

I will save a little bit of time.

The ops committee heard the next four items at its June 16 meeting and moved them all forward for approval.

Thank you.

Any questions?

All payments have been made to the contractor and no outstanding invoices remain.

Also the approved budget for this was $5.157 million and the total expenditures was $2.7 million.

And the change order on this is just slightly less than 4% on this portion of the project.

So does that mean we saved money on this project?

We did save money, yes.

But there certainly is more work to do on the building of course.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Moving right along.

PTA and BEX resolution number 2015 slash 16-22 signatures of authorized district personnel for state aid programs.

Ops, never mind you already said it.

Go ahead.

Per WAC 392344120 Seattle Public Schools must provide the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction with certified signatures of district personnel and authorize a resolution for the use of state funding items that require district authorization.

This resolution does not change the current or future district procedures of authorization requirements.

Are there any questions related to this?

Any questions, comments?

Director Burke.

This looks to me like essentially a designation of authority approving signatures for use sort of for downstream approval.

Is that a correct interpretation?

It's more of a designation of who, I may just be saying the same thing you said, but it's more of a designation of who is authorized to sign the OSPI forms for our state assistance funding.

So it designates those individuals so that OSPI is looking for those at different levels.

So the signature authority or approval is linked to funding acceptance or funding authorization.

But then downstream we would be from an oversight point of view we would still be looking at the same $250,000 limit at the board level.

I'm just trying to understand how the relationship works.

I'm sorry this is for OSPI to obtain our assistance funding this is to sign a D form to satisfy OSPI's requirements for state assistance funding so it has no authorization for any funding.

It changes no processes that the school district has in place for signatures.

Let me do an understanding check then.

Funding is already set.

This is sign off essentially for release of essentially project conclusion or?

Correct funding is already set this is for release of funds back to the district for state assistance.

Great sorry about my kind of ambiguity on the question I'm trying to get my head in that game.

If I might the deform process goes back and forth between OSPI and the district.

And it's basically due diligence that gets more cumbersome every year because wherever some district screws up somewhere they add it to the D process so in the beginning it would be approval for the architect.

Have you gone through the right motions to get the architect?

Then have you gone through the right motions to do the ed specs?

Then have you gone through the right motions to send it out for bid?

And somewhere in there you may get authorization.

We don't get a lot of authorization for any money.

We just have to go through the paperwork to satisfy the state that we are in fact building good buildings that meet safety inspections and do all of those other kinds of things.

So they want to know that the person signing on our end is the right person that has the authority to do that.

Any questions comments?

Thank you.

Moving to the next one BEX IV slash PTA III resolution 2002. PTA 4 approval of the elementary school educational specification for the ECU's modernization project.

Yes this is the educational specification to provide the design team with information about the project space required to support the educational program.

Board approval of this educational specification fulfills the requirements of OSPI for the form D5 and state funding assistance.

The school board approval of the elementary specifications helped secure funding for this project of up to $2.3 million for state funding assistance.

The EC Hughes project is funded by the BTA IV levy.

Once approved, once these educational specifications are approved it will provide a basis of design for the upcoming E.C.

Hughes modularization and it will also satisfy the state funding request for the project.

Attachments include the 500 student model educational specifications, the standard specifications for the district and then it also provides the model specifications for a 350 student area summary for the EC Hughes.

How the educational specification will be adopted for that facility.

May I answer any questions?

Questions comments?

Can you go over the last part again on that I didn't catch it.

500 and 300.

Yes the last part I would clarify is that the attachment that's included, the school district only has two model specifications at this point for elementary schools.

One is the 500 student model and then well now it's 650 I believe but it's in that range 650 to 660, 670. In some cases it's being modified just slightly But so there are two versions of what we used to call the generic educational specifications but there are standard specifications that are modified per project.

Site specific.

So what we call the next reiteration of that is a site specific ed spec.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters.

So the document that is attached to this is called the ed specs dated from 2015. Are these the specs that are often referred to when we talk about like for example the Loyal Heights building and the 660?

Is this the source of all of that information?

That's correct.

These are the educational specifications that are followed for all the new BEX IV projects.

And how often do we create ed specs or modify them?

When I first came to the school district in 2013 there was a set from 2012. There was probably a set prior to that but now there has been a revision for 2015.

Okay, so every three years or so?

Probably three to four years, yes.

And I notice this document says that these specs were created by a bunch of people including teachers and stakeholders.

Is that correct?

That there was a group of people who contributed to this?

That is correct, yes.

So when our community comes to us and asks us questions about how did we come up with the specs for something like Loyal Heights can we point to this document?

Yes you can point to this document and it's also good to point to the meetings that are involved and the timeframes that are involved in it.

A good example of this is the revision to the high school educational specifications at this point which is in draft form and the extensive amount of meetings and stakeholders that are involved in that process.

Okay and then I guess that question that perhaps could be answered later is why is there such a disconnect between the community stakeholders who participated in these specs and the community who comes to us and disagrees with what we are doing?

Is it different kinds of communities that we are hearing from?

Okay that's probably a bigger question.

I'd like to better understand how we got these specs and who contributed to them.

And I don't think, I don't expect you to answer that right now.

Perhaps in the Friday memo somebody could give us more details on how we arrived at these ed specs, how much community involvement we have in them.

Because this is the foundation to what we're doing.

And I'd like to better understand.

That's correct.

It is the foundation.

Okay.

Thank you.

It is getting late so I won't go too long.

I think part of the challenge is trying to figure out what a standard is that you apply districtwide.

So part of that standard is for example how many square feet are you going to spend per child?

Even that's a challenge in Seattle because we have old buildings and the old buildings were built under different standards.

We may or may not be able to do much about the square footage.

But you want some standard of equity so that every time you go out to a new school community you don't.

I mean some of us have done this for houses.

It's always the same.

You sit with the architect and you make a list that would cost three or four times any amount of money that we have.

So the educational specifications when we go through that then.

does try to answer some of the questions that you asked earlier about computers.

Can we sustain this over the long haul?

Is this a good standard that we could apply for this school and the next school and the next school so that we're fair, we're consistent, we're equitable.

As we found out then we run into difficulties with that.

Our school sites, every one of them is a postage stamp compared with what the state asked us to have.

The state asked us to have 10 acres for an elementary school, 20 acres for a middle school, 40 acres for a high school.

We might have one somewhere in the district that meets that standard.

I doubt it.

So then we're faced with how do we squeeze in no more land so we can either spend tons of money to go buy lots more land and have smaller schools or we go forward with a model that says we're short on space we only have so many properties.

We want to maximize every property that we have.

And then we run into landmarks and we run into other things.

So I guess it's this delicate balance or not so delicate not so graceful sometimes between what's a standard that we can apply and say to the next generation we were thoughtful, we maximized the spaces that we had, we planned for the enrollment growth that we saw coming.

than wherever possible try to listen to local community.

One of the ones that I hope that we can work through with facilities as we work with the task force is to try somehow to document what that looks like.

We keep saying it we're out of space we're out of space we're out of space and I think nobody hears that because it's not a problem in my school until it's a problem in my school and then we hear from people.

I don't want that partition down the middle of my classroom.

I don't want you to take the daycare.

I don't want you to take the playfield.

Every one of them is a little bit different but they're all the same in that we're out of space.

So we're trying to do the best we can with an educational specification to figure out how we can chart a course going forward.

Sorry I wouldn't.

Director Burke.

The education spec, it's like the pirate code, it's sort of a guideline right?

Yes.

So there are some things in this that relate to a couple of what I would consider the site specific customizations section 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 that relate to enrollment projections, educational plan and project rationale.

And those are the things which provide a mechanism to customize to suit the needs of a specific site as I interpret it.

Will those be completed as part of the approval process or does that get completed downstream or is that just a placeholder?

Or something else?

I think it, well with enrollment projections that is part of the need.

That creates the need and that is the backup for the need.

and educational plans are what the district has in place for the educational plans.

This is and project rationale and such and the goals can be established for specific projects but we have our overall goals of course.

I guess more specifically my question is does that detail get fleshed out before this goes to approval?

This sort of follows up some of my previous comments.

I think it has the detail of that section, that general information section probably gets more vetted with the revision from the 2011 to the 2015. And it would have some customization for a site specific educational specification if there are anything that applies to that specifically.

Does that answer your question Director Burke?

Not completely but we can work on that for a while.

My main ask is just that capital and teaching and learning work in a close coupled manner so that when we are doing work on buildings and we are setting educational specs we are also getting as far out ahead of our educational program needs.

as we can and we are actually documenting that so that our architects and our educational staff are working together because ultimate flexibility costs more than a little bit more focus in a building.

So I'd like to see a little bit more focus in our planning, our enrollment, our project rationale because I think that will help improve the efficiency of our design process and potentially reduce the overall cost of a project.

Director Blanford.

My question or comment is for the superintendent.

As you were describing the allocation of space for using the ed specs you used the term equity but what you described sounded more like an equal allocation of space rather than an equitable allocation of space.

Okay I just wanted to be sure that we understand the difference between equity and equality.

Any more questions or comments?

Okay moving to the next one.

BEX IV PTA 3 resolution 2015 16-24 accepting the building commissioning report for the Horace Mann school addition and renovation project.

Good evening Lucy Muello senior project manager and I have the last three intro items for tonight.

Item number nine and number 10 have to do with the closeout of the construction project at Horace Mann.

Item number nine, board acceptance of the Horace Mann final building commissioning report is a requirement for state assistance from OSPI.

So this is part of the final closeout.

one of the items for the final closeout for Horace Mann.

Board approval helps secure up to 1.4 in state funding assistance.

The intent of the commissioning report process is to verify that the mechanical systems are properly operating and functioning and conform to the intent of the design and construction documents.

During the process any issues identified during the commissioning process were resolved and corrected.

Also as part of the process a training session for the maintenance and operations staff was held at the Horace Mann site on February 17, 2015. The commissioning consultant engineering economics Inc.

Their contract amount was $50,260.

Is there any questions?

Any questions, comments?

Okay, we're going to put a hold on this because we're going to have to take a break because they have to change the tapes.

We can do it?

Okay.

All right, go ahead.

BEX III and BEX IV final acceptance of contract K5049 construction services incorporated for the historic, was that the Horace Mann school addition and renovation project?

Was that the one that we just did?

No actually there is two for Horace Mann item number one was to.

I will go to the board to accept the commissioning report.

Before you continue I actually need to ask Ops.

Item number 10 is for final acceptance of the construction project.

Thank you.

Okay.

The Horace Mann school addition.

Can we hold on for a minute I have to get the recommendation from the chair.

Okay.

For item 10 the Ops committee heard the item on May 19 and moved it forward to the board for approval.

You want to do 11 also?

Sure I will do 11 as well.

The ops committee heard this item on the 16th of June and moved it forward for approval as well.

Thank you.

Go ahead Lucy you are on.

Thank you.

The Horace Mann school addition and renovation relocated the Nova program into the Horace Mann building with a capacity of 365 student seat school.

This was approved under the BEX IV levy.

The project has now been completed in accordance with the construction documents.

The project scope included 10 classroom addition which was about 15,000 square feet.

It also included in addition in the main building a music room, modernization of the kitchen and commons and also quite a bit of infrastructure improvements such as life safety, mechanical electrical improvements, ADA accessibility, technology upgrades, finishes upgrades.

and building envelope improvements.

Board approval is a requirement for the closeout of the project and also releases the contractors retainage.

The contractor was construction services Contract amount was approximately $8 million.

Change orders were approximately $1.3 million.

Total contract with the change orders is approximately $10.2 million.

And the budget is $13,041,000.

Sir, any questions?

Director Blanford.

Not a question just a comment.

I have been in that building and it is a wonderful building as a result of the renovations that have been done.

I encourage all of my colleagues on the board if they have the opportunity to visit it, it will be worth your time.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

What was the cost of delay of starting construction when the building was occupied?

The delay claim because the contractor was delayed for two months was approximately $82,000.

Any more questions comments?

Okay the last one.

BTA III final acceptance of public works contract K5057 McGilvra elementary school emergency lighting fire sprinkler system seismic upgrades and partial re-roofing project with Bayley construction.

Go ahead.

This is a typical BTA summer construction project.

McGilvray elementary school infrastructure work included life safety improvements and partial re-roofing project.

The project has now been completed in accordance with the construction documents.

Board approval is required for closeout and to release the contractor's retainage.

The contractor is Bailey Construction, contract amount was $605,000.

Change orders were approximately $84,000.

Total with change orders is $755,197.

This school, this is a summer project, next summer we would actually start the addition of the lunchroom.

So this is part of a total budget of $3.3 million that includes the lunchroom addition that will be done in the future.

Any comments, questions?

I'm going to hand it over to Sue.

10 seconds.

Thank you.

Point of personal privilege before we adjourn, I will be here on the 7th, the 11th, and the 12th.

I will be gone the rest of July.

I've notified cabinet, Steven will be here and then chain of command if he does feel the need to take a day of vacation in there somewhere.

is that it would go to Michael and then Flip.

So the Friday memos may be, there probably will be a few over the summer but they won't be on a regular every Friday basis over the summer.

So I hope you get away and have some vacation time.

I'll be in Cuba for part of that time.

There being no further business to come before the board the regular board meeting is now adjourned and it is 9.41 PM.

Thank you.

Is that your first time going to Cuba?

Is that going to be your first time going to Cuba?

Oh that's interesting.

$1 billion.