School Board Meeting November 6, 2019 Part 3

Stephanie does yeoman's work over the last several months.

She stepped in to provide additional support in the board office as well.

And we've been short staffed.

We have hired a board office administrator Tina Loeffelman but she's already left this evening.

We'll do a proper introduction of her in the next legislative meeting.

But I got to tell you.

Between Ellie Wilson Jones who's not here so she can't get mad at me.

Tina and Stephanie.

They do a heck of a job and we hugely appreciate them.

Thank you again.

OK.

We are on C action items.

We have moved.

The legislative agenda which is number three on the consent calendar to the action item agenda.

This came before executive committee October 10 for approval.

Motion please.

Mr. Burke.

I move that the school board adopt the 2019 dash 20 legislative agenda as attached to the board action report.

Second.

Director Mack you removed it.

I suspect that you would like to speak to same.

Yes thank you.

Actually I think I'm getting a hard copy so I can actually read it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So I pulled it because.

There it is.

It's not in color but I pulled it because it had been altered between intro and action.

Our staff actually reformatted it made it look a lot nicer which I'm appreciative of and just wanted to clarify that the language is the same as before.

So that didn't get changed.

But that it looks a lot nicer.

But in public testimony we had two people bring up a very good point that there is a bit of a conflict in the way that this is framed.

on the first point provide services supports and staffing for the whole child to eliminate the opportunity gap.

But it also speaks to the whole child in terms of all of the services and not just the opportunity gap.

So I'd like to make a motion to correct that conflict in the way that it's framed and I think the best way to do that might be to just.

take out the to eliminate the opportunity gap because it isn't it is included in the other language but it doesn't need to be in that top level.

Second the motion second the motion for the amendment.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues please.

I think this just and thank you for the folks that brought this up I don't actually think they're in the audience anymore but thank you for speaking to this tonight.

You know I actually think often we lean on process as preventing us from doing anything.

And I I get concerned when we pick and choose how and when that process needs to be followed and when we can circumvent or forgo that process.

And I think for me my big concern is on one hand it is true we did not have any community engagement around this.

And as a district that is just from Director Mack earlier mentioning lack of process around things.

This is an example of when we did lack community engagement process.

So I think we have to be really thoughtful about when we choose when community engagement is a part of our work.

and not when it is convenient.

So I think either we need to slow down and actually do some community engagement around this or we can't use that rule for to pick and choose when we lean on process as preventing us from moving forward on something.

So in my opinion we failed in this regard using the logic of earlier that we need to make sure we're doing community engagement and processes so we could do better.

Director Geary please.

I appreciate both of the comments.

I think they're both they're both good.

I am concerned that the idea of stacking more and more process on what we do.

will unless we are going to commit to really reducing the amount of work that we're going to do as a board at all because already it is my experience recently we are having a difficulty.

We're having difficulty getting things finalized.

We are pushing things out because we realize here that We've been called out on community process.

And so we do have a tool a community engagement tool that is that we don't we haven't been following it.

It's included in the bar in terms of that analysis whether you're going to inform consult collaborate.

So perhaps we need to have a discussion about how within when bars are being brought we're going to do that.

But I don't want us to just be calling each other out based upon the whether or not community engagement has been done.

And my other the only other point I want to make on that is one of the things that we did is we started talking about our committee reports.

And we have our board reports and we are the representatives and we engage several times a week I mean several times a month by coming forward and being the representatives of the people.

And now we all talk about what we're doing in committee so that if it gets out into the public sphere that work that's on our table.

And so Eden and I have been talking about the legislative agenda since summertime.

every time we come up here.

There's two of us.

So I just raise that, that it is hard to make sure that you're getting the right piece of information to the right person at the exact right time on the way they want it.

It's really really hard.

So let's be mindful that we're doing the best we can to come up with processes and when we can go back and say we have as a board been talking about this legislative agenda for about three months to say that we haven't allowed people to engage with us.

But no we haven't done the full blown engagement and we need to be clear that that full blown engagement is really expensive.

So we can't do it for every issue that perhaps merits it because we need to put the money towards the substantive work as well.

Director Mack.

Yeah I appreciate that because having community members come out and say that they hadn't been engaged in this this is one of the challenging aspects of the work that we do.

Finding how do we engage and we we have been talking about this publicly.

It's been introed.

We also on top of that.

In our work together in the work that I do on WSSDA I we in in developing this consult with the other legislative agendas including PTA's agenda and that voice is incorporated.

So to say that we haven't actually had process and engagement we may not have reached some folks and they may not have intersected at the time and maybe we could do better.

And I think watching this process and being a part of this and having seen them in past years that this legislative agenda process was more engaging than maybe it has been in the past.

So I think there's room for improvement.

But on the point of the amendment I'm wondering if anyone has any questions about that.

Director DeWolf.

Thanks Director Mack and I think just to follow up I'm actually willing to forgo that it wasn't perfect.

in the support of the good.

I think you could really take that argument and transfer it to a lot of the other conversations we're going to have tonight.

So I recognize that we did have informal opportunities where we were doing community engagement and you can be damn sure excuse me I know that's going to be FCC violation.

You can be dang sure that we.

We've been talking about TAF probably since February.

We visited TAF in February and we've been talking about this so I will I am willing to forgo that it was not a perfect community engagement process and to recognize that we actually have done that community engagement.

It just may not be the perfect community engagement that the community wants but it actually has been pretty good.

And I would say that in a lot of our other processes that's exactly how it is.

Not perfect but it is in the support of the good.

Any other comments questions concerns for the amendment.

Director Burke Seeing none.

Roll call vote on the amendment please.

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

This amendment has passed unanimously.

OK let's go back then to the amended motion.

Director Burke please.

I move that the school board adopt the legislative the 2019 legislative agenda as amended per.

Let me back up.

I move that the school board adopt the 2019 20 legislative agenda as attached to the board action report with the amendment approved.

Second.

Roll call please.

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

This motion has passed unanimously.

OK we're at C action item number one requests by staff 2019 20 compensation bulletin for non-represented staff.

This came before executive committee October 10 for approval.

Motion please.

I move that the 2019 20 compensation bulletin for non-represented staff be approved by the board as attached to the school board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the document.

Second.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director DeWolf.

Thanks President Harris.

I just want to.

I think one thing that I've noticed particularly about this BAR and what the BAR is intending to do is.

First of all thank you to the staff and for not only working on this but bringing us forward to bring some more equity to how we're supporting our staff.

But I haven't heard anybody really mention this.

So I would imagine that our community is OK with this.

I'm supporting it tonight.

So I'm just again just to reiterate thank you for all the work that you've done to put this together.

I know that this is a really important for our staff here.

So thanks JoLynn.

I just have a question to be educated because I don't I don't know where this information lies or when it comes to us or where it is publicly available.

And I should.

So I apologize.

Yeah I think maybe Ms. Berge you'll help answer this question.

I feel silly for asking it but where do we have posted the all of the roles and the compensation and the in central office the what do you call this when you've got the org chart.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So where does that information come annually to us or is it posted.

Where is that information found.

So there is an overarching org chart that we've posted.

I'm not sure.

It's on the superintendent's page.

It's on the superintendent's page.

Sorry.

I knew that we had one that we just updated recently.

So there's an org chart posted somewhere is there a regular part in part of our policy or is there an A02 policy that kind of governs this.

I'm just wondering if is there anything like a regular process for reporting to the board and the public.

This is the org chart.

This is how we're structured or is it something that we just do periodically.

I'm wondering if there's a policy that governs it or if it's just.

We're just doing things in practice.

To my knowledge there's not one specifically that requires the org chart.

Oftentimes what you'll see is when we do each of the oversight work sessions we give very detailed org charts at that point starting from the top and working down.

So there are components of detailed org charts that are provided.

Usually we have five ten depends on the year but those oversight work sessions are providing those detailed org charts.

Director Burke.

Just point of clarification since you brought it up policy A02 is around performance management and it does provide kind of a high level overarching structure or framework but it doesn't go into specific organizational charts.

It just indicates that there should be cascading goals and provide some of those policy level things.

But it would be something that if the if the board would like to look at that in the future that would be a place to put something like that potentially.

And new board members like Director Hersey were just provided work charts as well as part of their onboarding.

Other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Well then there's me.

CFO Berge you had to know that was coming because we've had some thoughtful robust conversations about this.

As part of the BAR you put.

the lesser paid non representative staff in as examples and an executive committee and also I believe in an executive session we've had some conversations about our higher higher paid staff.

Some of the folks here are making really good money.

And there is no question whatsoever in my mind that they are working extraordinarily hard for same salaries.

But the level of disparity between the lowest paid and the highest paid income disparity is a concern not just for me for this building and non-represented staff but in this city as we are seeing.

that income disparity.

Can you talk about some of the things that we talked about that there'll be a class and comp study done that this was amended to address that and about whether or not we are losing staff because of salary and benefit inequality because indeed I haven't gotten the 250 emails on this that I have other items on the agenda tonight.

But I will bet you real money that we do hear later on about that and I want to create a good clear record.

Thank you.

Sure.

So we provided a chart in the back.

I think that really speaks to.

The structure.

And one of the things.

That.

You have bargaining for other units.

That drives compression.

That also impacts what happens at central office because.

Explain what compression means.

That's one of those words that.

Channel 26 may not have.

Yeah it means that when we have central office positions and they're over a whole division like let's say the library manager we recruit out of the teacher core or out of the principal core when those salaries surpass what we're paying a central office so you're trying to get the best of the best to come and lead the program district wide.

What happens is as you raise salaries and other collective bargaining agreements The salaries that we're paying at central office are lower or very little.

So compression is the amount of space or differential there is between each step of salary.

And it's a critical component of how you structure a whole organization.

There's a whole architecture for salaries.

that happens and grading positions and that sort of thing.

So one of the things that we recognized is that we have given the inflationary increase or lower to our non-rep staff over the past several years and that we needed to make an additional move to catch up.

and that we think that that's step one.

One of the things that you asked us to do is a complete market study.

It'll be about five years since we did the last market study, and it just compares us to other districts, other governmental entities.

So we do those market studies as part of bargaining.

That market study then will cover non-reps in the same way, and we'll make other adjustments based on that market study.

The other component that we look at is turnover.

So we measure turnover.

We were retaining about 90 percent of our teachers so 10 percent turnover for an urban district is really good.

In central office that percentage of turnover is 25 percent.

So it's significantly higher than it is for our leaders our principals or our other staff.

So all of those things factored together we felt like we had a very compelling case to bring forward.

Thank you for that.

Any other questions comments concerns seeing none roll call please.

Director Geary aye Director Hersey aye Director Mack aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye Director DeWolf aye Director Harris aye this motion is passed unanimously.

Number two annual approval of programs for schools using the alternative learning experience.

A L E model and review of policy 2 2 5 5 alternative learning experience schools or programs.

This came before C&I October 8 for approval.

Motion please.

I move that the board approve the alternative learning experience of the Cascade parent partnership program interagency academy school Nova high school and middle college school in the form of the plans and annual reports for each school attached to the board action report with such minor additions deletions and modifications as the superintendent deems necessary and directs the superintendent to implement such plans and pursuant to the school board review conducted We agree to make no changes to policy number 2 2 5 5 alternative learning experience schools or programs.

Second.

Chief academic officer Diane DeBacker please speak to this if you would.

There were two questions that came up during introduction.

The first question was from Director Pinkham about us using numbers that were fewer than 10 as we looked at the student numbers.

We have checked that we do not believe that that is a violation of FERPA because if you go on to the OSPI website and you look at report cards and you go down drill down into a specific school for example Nova It will actually show two Native American students enrolled just like our report.

So we believe that we have answered that and we're confident that we have not violated any FERPA violations there.

The second question was from Director DeWolf and it was around the health clinic.

So it wasn't quite related to this but that is in progress.

Data's on that progress.

They have they contracted Health has contracted with a company to do community engagement.

They have done many different community engagement events and they will be making a recommendation sending out an RFP for a request for proposals to host a clinic within Nova High School and they hope to have that up and running by spring.

Director Mack.

Just so I'm understanding what this motion is in fact these are the approval of the alternative learning plans for each school not necessarily the individual student plans.

Correct.

Correct.

The four schools that are identified as ALE programs in Seattle Public Schools.

This is the annual report that we have to send in.

And so this is the response to that.

And alternative learning experiences even though the word says alternative the actual learning experience requires each student to have a personalized plan.

That is the major component to an ALA program.

And that's what and that's done at the school level but this plan is what kind of approves the whole reporting of that.

OK.

Excellent.

I just wanted to clarify that because I find that interesting because the world alternative doesn't recognize that these are in these are individualized plans for students and that's what this learning environment provides.

The other thing is that the motion says that we agree to make no changes to the policy.

I'm wondering if that's just at this time.

It's it's kind of curious to me to have a statement saying that we agree to make no changes to the policy that seems like a very underscored period kind of statement to be putting in a motion.

I believe that was probably taking taken from last year's report.

I have not seen any.

You can add to this conversation.

Thank you.

Sherry Cox senior advisor to the superintendent.

It's required Director Mack per policy every year for the board to reapprove the current schools listed.

And I think that's what that statement is trying to capture is that you are reapproving Nova Middle College Cascade parent partnership.

I think that's all of them and interagency as ALEs for the upcoming year because this policy comes back to you every year.

But the statement about no changes to policy number 2 2 5 5 is one of my questions about.

And I just want clarification that we're not making a grand statement that we're never changing that policy.

It's renewed year to year.

OK.

Thank you.

And I can tell you that five or six years ago we got in trouble with an audit from OSPI.

We fixed it.

We moved on.

We also changed student assignment transition plan to talk about rolling enrollment and we got rid of the dreaded footnote number four for middle college and being a believer in alternative education and continuous enrollment and that kind of flexibility for our different learners.

Did you have something director DeWolf.

Oh.

It looks good.

Other comments questions concerns roll call please.

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

This motion is passed unanimously.

Number three.

6 through 12 Spanish instructional materials adoption.

This came before C&I October 8th for approval motion please.

I move that the school board approve the recommendation of the instructional materials committee to adopt Vista higher learning series of products for all Spanish world language classrooms in grades 6 through 12. The middle and high school Spanish adoption committee's unanimous selection.

This action will provide materials for more than 7000 students per year for nine years.

The specific materials to be approved are.

1. Senderos 1, 2, and 3 for Spanish 1, 2, and 3. Imaginus for Spanish 4 and also IB Spanish 4. AP Temas for AP Spanish 5. I further move that the school board authorize the superintendent to purchase Vista higher learning series as the core instructional material for all Seattle Public Schools middle and high school Spanish 1 through AP 5 world language classrooms for a multi-year purchase in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars in year one school year 2019 20. with the balance of adoption purchases to occur in future years contingent on legislative funding.

Second point of clarification.

Have we approved the instructional materials committee for this adoption?

We use the same IMC that we use for science same members.

We notified the board of that on May 3rd in a Friday memo.

We were following the former policy of 2015 that said that the board had to be informed of IMC not approve IMC.

You will remember that when you pass the revised 2015 a month ago that we have corrected that and now the IMC members will come to you for approval in future adoptions.

Chief Narver can we get you up here to the podium.

Thank you sir.

Greg Narver, Chief Legal Counsel.

So as Chief DeBacker was saying, the prior version of 2015 was in place when these materials were before the Instructional Materials Committee, I believe in June.

It was the same process used for adoption of the science curriculum as well.

That process is currently the subject of an administrative appeal.

So this issue of whether the old policy which had approval I believe by the curriculum committee and notice to the board was sufficiently out of line enough with state law to be grounds for reversal.

That's something that's being litigated now and we're defending of course the district's position on that.

Going forward we've got a policy that is unambiguously in line with state law.

This is an open issue that's being litigated now.

But the this is the same same thing that was done for science was done here in accordance with the old policy.

Thank you so much for the clarification.

Other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

I guess my fundamental question is whether or not we have the possibility of if we adopt this and say yes tonight that it may be under the same legal challenge that the science adoption is experiencing now.

I don't want to invite litigation against the district.

It's certainly a possibility.

At this point, what was done was in compliance with the old policy and we are seeking to vindicate that position in a currently pending appeal with respect to science.

I don't the alternative tonight is not to not to approve this at all and we kind of reform the IMC under the new policy but I think we have a good faith position that the old policy was sufficiently in line with state law that that's not a reason to either reject this tonight or restart the process.

Director Geary please.

Well there's the third there's the alternative possibility of waiting to see the outcome of the administrative action.

Do we have a time frame for that?

I'm not the person handling it.

I don't I can find that out and get back to you.

We have outside counsel handling the.

I believe it was continued for about 25 days or some such.

So we're looking at December.

OK that may be.

I wonder if there's another alternative at this point that the IMC that was used could be brought forward for approval to the board as it existed in terms of a retroactive approval process.

I don't know that.

Could we ratify.

I think I'd need to look into that.

I'm not don't know I can give you off the top of my head opinion on that but it's certainly certainly something to look into.

Director DeWolf please and then Director Geary.

Yes thanks President Harris.

I was just on the instructional materials office page on our website and I guess my understanding of the kind of the nuance here is the IMC approves the membership of the adoption committee and I think the conversation here but.

that there's a difference between the IMC which is the Instructional Materials Committee and the Adoption Committee.

So my understanding is the Adoption Committee has membership approved by the IMC not necessarily the.

Yes I'm trying to say is I don't see the same issue because it seems like the adoption committee was approved by the IMC which we approve.

The issue is the membership whether the membership of the IMC was approved by the board or approved by a board committee with notice given to the board.

The issue is the approval of the IMC not the adoption committee is my understanding.

Director Geary.

And that's required by law.

So that's the difference.

Is there so is there a way we could get an answer on the ratification and move this for approval at our next board meeting before the current board changes.

Got to tell you that would be my preference.

It's cleaner it's more elegant and I will feel comfortable not inviting litigation.

Okay so I think I heard a motion to move this.

To date certain to the next legislative meeting motions to table to a time certain or not debatable.

I will make that motion to table this to the November 20th legislative meeting.

Second that.

Roll call please.

Director Burke.

aye Director DeWolf aye Director Geary aye Director Hersey aye Director Mack aye Director Pinkham aye Director Harris aye this motion is passed unanimously.

Thank you for the clarification.

Much appreciate.

Number four revisions to board policy number 2 0 2 2 electronic resources and use of the Internet.

This came before C&I October 8 for consideration.

Motion please.

I move that the school board approve the revisions to policy number 2 0 2 2 electronic resources and the use of the Internet as attached to the board action report.

Second.

Who from staff is presenting.

I believe there is an amendment to this.

There is.

Are we going to talk about the main motion before we talk about the amendment.

I think we talked to I was not here I was in the little box last time and I think there was a good conversation around this that was had.

And I think we had some public testimony around it.

OK the main motion's been moved.

Do you want to move the amendment.

Oh please do.

Again, Greg Narver, Chief Legal Counsel.

I think you need to actually move the, actually offer the motion at this point, and then at that point, the Chair can recognize Director Geary to offer an amendment to that.

Yes, the motion has been moved and seconded.

Oh, it has?

It has.

All right, good.

We move quick.

Not necessarily correctly, but quickly.

Really fast, all right.

Director Geary please make your amendment madam.

I move that the school board approve amendment one to the board action report titled revisions to board policy 2022 electronic resources and use of the Internet and substitute board policy number 2022 as attached to the amendment.

To the extent the attached substitute policy conflicts with the information presented in the underlying board action report entitled revisions to board policy number 2022 electronic resources and use of the Internet.

The substitute policy shall control.

Immediate adoption is in the best interest of the district.

Second.

OK.

How are you going to document that.

Director Geary would you like to speak to your amendment or would Director Burke like to do that.

Who's up on first?

I will speak to my amendment and my amendment and we talked about this before.

The amendment originates out of my concern that we heard different responses.

We don't seem to have any type of unified response to the idea of a prohibition of cell phones K through 8 which was proposed.

In our discussions I did hear a lot of consensus around the good work done in schools that had gone through the process of creating a policy.

I believe it was Hamilton that had brought its community together, engaged in discussion And I think that that is a process that when a school goes through it around devices there's a much better chance that you will end up with a device policy that fits the environment culturally because there could be very a lot of differences in how different people use personal electronic devices.

And that those are very unique to different communities and you should allow the communities to engage in that conversation.

In the alternative to just put a blanket prohibition from top down I think we invite school communities not implementing the policy because they believe it presents problems that are worse than violating the policy.

And I think for a lot of communities the conflict that could happen between students and teachers over these devices include you know creating a discipline problem or issue within the classroom has is far more grave and disturbing to those communities.

So I think this allows the communities to have conversations around what's appropriate for them.

The amendment itself.

talks about looking at factors of disruption educational benefit and the special needs I was and emergencies.

I was clear not to define special needs as anything tied to the law around IDEA or 504 because I think we need to recognize that students' families come with special needs that should be recognized in a building.

If a student is responsible for younger siblings, has parents that work a lot, there's a lot of reasons a student would be required to have a phone and be nimble.

So those should be special needs that are allowed.

One person during the break did come to me and say that the amendment itself does not require the idea of a process.

And so it would be my direction that in terms of the superintendent's procedures that discussion around a process that should be held in a school so that you don't end up with a top down policy would be good.

Then my final comment is that I believe the policy continues to have a review mechanism and that would allow schools and the board to once policies were implemented district wide then you could do the idea of lessons learned sharing information across buildings school buildings and then we might be in a position to come up with some consensus about what is best procedure and practice educationally.

So that was the motivation behind my amendment.

Sebastian our student representative from Lincoln High School please weigh in.

I really would like to agree with Director Geary because I think that there are some negative consequences to the top down approach on the regulation of electronics among other things and I think that like this example I attended Garfield High School last year and one of the things that happened is midway through the year the principal decided to impose a blanket ban on cell phones and electronic devices if they were not being used.

Like if they were not school property and there was it caused divisions between the students and the teachers it caused divisions even between the teachers and the administration when the teachers decided that they thought that the regulation that was imposed was unhealthy for the school and did not work for some of the people in their classes.

And I think that.

There is a major case for school by school discussions on use of electronics because like at Lincoln now with our one to one laptop policy it's a completely different ballgame and there are benefits and there are different challenges and I think that this not only applies the high school level but also to the middle school level where you're discussing and I think that At least in the beginning if there is the opportunity for schools to on an individual basis evaluate like how they are doing as a culture and what their situation is with respect to the use of electronics.

There is an opportunity for a very healthy dialogue and it can yield some results that will allow for a much more comprehensive and a much better educated district wide implementation of electronics policy.

Thank you.

I did raise my hand.

I'm sorry I did.

I know I thank you so much for your very eloquent comments and for sticking around.

Normally the student tends to leave after.

So yes.

Thank you for staying with us.

I.

I appreciate how this amendment moves this issue forward gets us towards a district wide policy around a number of things around the use but also provides that engagement on the school level and that you know that it's a it's a building of the policy at the school level that you have the community buy in.

I think that is actually going to be really helpful to moving it forward so.

I and I also feel that the rest of this in spite of the language that's being changed is really important because we need to be we need to be ensuring that we're educating our students around appropriate online behavior how to interact on social and these are things that we need to be doing because it it's impacting our students and it you know It goes into safety issues.

So I really feel strongly that it's important to move this forward and I feel like this amendment is very helpful to kind of splitting the challenge around the engagement that needs to be done on a school by school basis.

Director Harris please.

Before I begin I had a question.

I guess it would be a point of clarification.

Are we only speaking to the amendment or can we also speak to the full piece.

Open it all up darling.

Right on.

OK.

So a piece of this conversation that I think is really poignant and timely at this phase is thinking about the use of cell phones especially for communities of color especially for the African-American community.

There was an incident this that was brought up actually during public testimony where a video was shared.

I won't go into the details of what that video was but it really.

It really challenged me to think about when we are looking at policies like this and understanding that cell phones are not just devices for learning but they're also devices for accountability especially when there are instances of force used against black and brown people.

And so for me I'm thinking about this not from a perspective of how is this affecting learning but rather are we taking a useful tool of accountability away from our students.

And I know that you know when videos are being shared context can be lost but it is also on the flip side an opportunity for us to really look at our policy and reevaluate and look at instances in their own sections.

and thinking about are we actually potentially especially for our black students making them less safe by removing a camera from their pocket.

And that is a piece of the discussion that we have not had yet.

And I think that it deserves space in this conversation.

Other comments questions concerns.

Director Burke please.

I want to acknowledge the process that this BAR came through to get here and thank my colleagues in the community for helping it get to where it is.

I think Director Hersey has brought up another another dimension another layer of why the work that we do of getting these issues out into the public you know we We talked earlier about public engagement and Director DeWolf you said we had failed and this is another case whether we failed or whether we succeeded by getting something out so that we could discuss it.

It's it's hard to it's hard to really say what is perfect.

But the the intent of bringing forward something that provides a mechanism.

For schools to operationalize or to to do something to scale was what was behind it.

The earlier discussions in curriculum instruction policy committee meeting or the policy committee.

Included outreach to ITAC.

And so I was actually a little bit surprised when I saw the feedback that ITAC had not been consulted on this because of the fact that there was previously outreach but the mechanism of that outreach was not well articulated.

So bring it to the fold.

Having the conversation around it building the amendment on top of it I think provides a level of individualized community engagement.

but also the opportunity to to be really thoughtful about what is the place for electronics or you know are they a disruptive element or are they a supporting element.

And I recognize that this is not necessarily going to make the procedure work easy for the superintendent because we're kind of putting these different elements on it around.

You know we want to we don't want it to impact disproportionate discipline.

We want to consider the you know the ramifications to student safety.

The testimony that we heard today around.

you know informal use of accommodations.

So should this pass the procedure is going to be really important to address that and provide some some guidance for schools as they develop their individual procedures.

Director DeWolf please.

Thanks President Harris to Director Hersey's comment.

Thank you.

That's a really great finer point to this and so I'm curious to Director Geary given that for example that specific example was not within the classroom.

Do you get a sense that particularly on page three of the revised.

Policy it says make allowances for emergencies or special needs.

Do you think that that both Director Hersey and Gary does that get to.

I don't see anything in the policy that actually prohibit.

I mean the way I've done it that will be a discussion that it won't have a pro if a community doesn't want a prohibition or doesn't I could see a community not wanting to remove a valuable piece of property.

and force classrooms to take responsibility for those pieces of property that I could see a community like that's we paid good money.

My student that's his phone.

He's going to keep it with him.

He's not going to trust somebody else to take it because what happens if he comes the end of the day and it's gone.

Who's accountable then.

Because in the policy it says that Seattle Public Schools won't be held responsible.

So I could see a community coming at it that way.

I was definitely looking at it from the lens not of the recording device for safety but from the setting.

I would like us to minimize setting up disciplinary situations period.

I am concerned that if buildings don't go through these this discussion though what you end up is individual teachers creating their classroom policies that haven't been vetted in a larger context haven't been put through the community eye haven't had the benefit of hearing somebody else's perspective.

And then you have conflicts that are there are being escalated into power struggles within the classroom because there is no clear discussion or guidelines for that building on what to do.

These can be disruptive.

And and we have to figure out a way to give our buildings our teachers tools or at least the opportunity for them to come up with some guidelines.

I don't think at this point it can be top down from us but I really would mandate I would like to mandate that conversation in every building because it's it's one that just puts a lot of power struggle into our schools.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you President Harris and I think to that to that point too is the concern that comes up for me and particularly about any of these things where we add an additional layer of whether it's discipline to not further criminalize students because obviously both parents and teachers and school leaders have an implicit bias.

And punishment and discipline tends to be disproportionate on our black and brown students.

And so yeah definitely.

Yeah.

Thanks for bringing that up.

Perhaps superintendent procedure could talk about things like restorative justice minimizing conflict what community engagement should look like to provide instruction to the schools as because we're requiring that they go through a process.

I think it'd be appropriate for superintendent procedure to give outlines as to how to do that in a good way.

Director Mack and then Director Hersey.

Director Hersey I really appreciate how you framed the issue that you still see with this because it is you know when you're in a situation where you need to be able to hold people to account and the best way to do that is to actually do it with a camera.

Many apologies Scott.

Yes.

Can you hear me better now.

Maybe.

OK great.

And I. I hope that the way that this amendment is written can provide for the thoughtful conversations in the schools and in the superintendent procedures going forward that it doesn't.

This is not a prohibition on.

It's not saying that we're prohibiting personal devices across the district.

That's what I said before but this does not do that.

This is actually allowing for that conversation that the kind of mirror image to what you brought up is what happened at Hamilton last year where it was a student who videoed a teacher in his instruction time took it out of context posted it to uber conservative.

alt right.

And in it, you know, and then there was there were death threats and that you know, the whole thing blew up in a really just challenging manner.

So it's you know it's a challenging issue but I really respect the fact that we don't want to reduce students access to accountability and you know something that helps them feel safe.

So I you know I support that and I hope that this amendment actually helps address that and that those those conversations can happen.

as these policies get worked out and we continue to to do the work.

Director Hersey.

Yes I suppose.

Thank you for all of that.

And so I suppose my follow up question would be so say we're in a school community and the community decides that we're going to adopt away for the day.

Right.

Students choose not to bring their cell phones to school because whether it's away for the day in a backpack they choose not to bring it because they don't want to deal with it or even have the potential because they're building has decided that this is the policy that we're going to enact.

Then that tool for them is still not present.

Am I missing something?

Nope.

I don't think you're missing something.

I think I think it really really frightens me if we are in situations where students are so unsafe that they need to be filming things at school like this that that is a really — is that the environment that we are in?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes it is.

And it's a shame because.

Not everything gets to us and not everything gets on video.

And so we should be appreciative when those opportunities present themselves to review and to be thoughtful about this process because the alternative is a student getting hurt.

And I don't know if this specific issue and the disruption that it might be causing in the classroom is enough to weigh against the potential for a student getting hurt or anyone getting hurt and us not having a tool or some device that would make our students especially those furthest away from educational justice feel safer in their environment because so many of our black and brown students right now for a myriad of reasons do not feel safe in their learning environment.

And that's a reality that we really need to that we really need to accept.

Director DeWolf.

Thanks President Harris and maybe you could answer this too Sebastian.

I'm under the impression that some schools Lincoln and Roosevelt have little almost those shoe I think there were shoes but in classrooms you stick it in and that's where your electronic device goes for the class and then you leave with it.

So just as an example of I'm not sure how it is at Lincoln if that's something you're experiencing but I was under the impression that some the way it works potentially is teachers have a place where you put it for the class but not necessarily that's you know gone out of your hands for your entire school day.

And that's a teacher by teacher thing and then it becomes OK if different teachers have different policies that allows for that power struggle that Director Hersey was talking about in terms of there's a teacher who is implementing a policy that that was because of that.

And what this amendment is trying to advocate for is a school wide conversation and we're not sure how to have that.

I would like to wrap this up or did you have something else to say Director Burke.

I just want to acknowledge that what Director Hersey brought up is is precisely the challenge that that has to be taken on at a school administrative level of what is creating that safe environment for students.

And is there a disruption risk.

Is there a student safety risk.

I think that's what I what I heard loud and clear from the feedback is that's not something that we can call from the dais here and that it is school by school.

I want to acknowledge that we need to be strong in creating culture of culture of accountability so that our students feel safe reporting and don't feel like they need video.

The video is a great thing to have to help build that.

But also for us to have you know we have video systems in many of our schools and maybe that's a way to tie in as well.

I have no idea what that works.

You know if that's a viable thing and that's why school by school conversations can be so powerful.

OK.

My comments last but hopefully not least.

My understanding is that the principles that were polled were about 50 50 down the middle as to whether or not we should have this.

My understanding is that we were advised that ITAC was community engagement.

We were further advised by ITAC that maybe not so much.

I will stand by community engagement in most of my votes and I've been darn consistent about it for four years and I gave a year and a half of my life to the community engagement task force.

I would liken this issue to the student dress policy if we have one hundred and two different policies and if we leave it in the hands of already over burdened school leaders and principals to do community engagement when they haven't necessarily had a whole lot of training on some of that and we may not be reaching those that we don't get to see that often.

So the majority will be the tyranny of the minority and it's going to need to be community engagement that is done thoughtfully and consistently across all 102 schools.

I think this is an incredibly valuable conversation to have.

I do not think it's fully baked.

I think this is an opportunity for us to talk about all of these issues.

And I think unfortunately this board has run out of time to do it right.

And I think that needs to be sent to the next board.

I will be voting no based on the lack of community engagement because.

For all the reasons we've just talked about the reasons that we talked about during intro roll call please.

On the amendment.

Director Burke aye Director DeWolf no Director Geary aye Director Hersey nay Director Mack aye Director Pinkham Harris.

Nay.

This amendment has not passed with a vote of 4 to 3.

Back to the original motion.

Roll call please.

Director Burke.

Nay.

Director DeWolf.

No.

Director Geary.

No.

Director Hersey.

No.

Director Mack.

No.

Director Pinkham.

Director Harris.

No.

This motion has not passed unanimously.

Can I just also elevate.

Thank you Director Geary for trying to pivot quickly around how to make this work.

And so I just want to really share gratitude for you doing that.

And I share gratitude for everybody that is lifting up looking at really difficult issues.

Director Geary.

I'm I'm going to second what director Mack said in that there are there are parts of this policy around educating students.

and protecting them and instructing them on how to report.

That was something that came out directly of a conversation that Director Mack and I had had that we can train them up on how to recognize bullying and predatory behavior.

But we what I tried to include in that amendment as well was was direct instruction on what they should do because once they recognize it they may think oh I shouldn't engage in it and they don't take that next step to report it.

And we haven't really talked about that either.

And so that was another piece of the amendment.

I don't think it would have saved based upon people's concerns but.

Personal electronic devices are causing a lot of grief in our schools.

And whether it's one hundred and two conversations I don't know how we get community engagement without one hundred and two conversations.

But that's just my final thing.

I'm very much concerned about leaving.

Our kids with so little instruction around the dangers and our buildings not necessarily setting up the good processes or good pathways or good instruction on what they're supposed to do when they're confronted with it.

Director Mack.

Yeah my question is procedurally since this just got voted down.

Can I make a motion to send it back to committee so that it actually gets onto the committee calendar.

Is that something that I can do.

Chief Narver is nodding his head in the affirmative.

I just I just want to just want to somehow know that it goes back to committee.

I think that the superintendent the CAO and a great deal of senior staff has been listening to this and and have also been learning me up on some of these issues that I don't think that is lost.

And whoever is the chair of C&I needs to put it on the work plan and the agenda and watch the video.

Terrific.

OK here we go.

Number five approval of the student assignment transition plan for 2021. This came before Ops October 3rd for consideration.

Motion please.

I move that the board approve the student assignment transition plan for 2020 — 21 as attached to the board action report.

Director Geary Director DeWolf stepped out.

Could you second please.

Motion.

OK.

Would you like to make the amendment.

Oh sure.

I move Amendment 1 to the board action report approval of the student assignment transition plan for the 2021 school year I think which substitutes the attached revised student assignment transition plan for 2020 2020 dash 21.

We need a second to put it before the board.

Seconds up.

OK.

Director Geary would you like to address your amendment.

OK.

I I get that this is highly controversial and I'm going to apologize in terms of the public engagement because it hasn't been sufficient.

But we are also faced with a situation we have we have an intersection of a lot of situations coming upon us and that is that.

We have an opportunity to create something akin to Cleveland at the middle school level by bringing TAF in.

And TAF is something that has.

Experience with providing high quality STEM education that has resulted in great results for students.

Without.

Having cohorts within the program.

So that's one piece of it.

The second piece is that in maintaining the cohort in the south if we were to say TAF was going to go into Washington Middle School.

And that has to do with some of the property availability around that building that could be made available across the street.

So TAF is interested in being a Washington Middle School.

So then there'd be the potential alternative of moving the cohort except I don't I don't believe that would create another huge public engagement process in terms of which middle school wants the cohort.

Because they don't.

Nobody wants to bring in something that is going to create a racially segregated environment in their school.

Nobody.

Nobody is going to want that right now.

So what we can do is we can maintain the cohort which maintains a group of kids of color within Washington Middle School who we've had their parents come and say my kids come home complaining they're not the smart kids.

The smart kids are over there.

So there's a lot of unacceptables and a lot of bads.

in terms of how this has come out that I don't see a good clear line through a good clean line.

But when I look what I said earlier was when I see a Cleveland and I see how it can work for a lot of different schools it would it's my fundamental belief based upon the people that are involved with TAF and TAF's history that it could it could bring that kind of powerful education into Washington Middle School.

Then there's the other piece that I talked about and that is by maintaining a cohort you are maintaining a powerful group of students and parents around education into one school.

And I think the perfect consequence of how that plays out comes in the form of the parents who came and testified about needing a more fully developed dual language line in Southeast.

And the thing is it's a lot of your kids that would benefit from going into a dual language immersion school.

that that aren't there because we've given you the option of a HCC cohort and then they don't go.

It's not for every kid.

It's not for every kid but it is for it is it would help bolster.

So we cannot have we cannot run all of these programs that take the kids that we are pulling out of schools and putting in a specific cohort.

We can't do it as a system and the way we've done that is toxic for a certain group of kids and unacceptable in any way from my perspective.

Now again that is why I brought this amendment because I I want TAF at Washington Middle School.

I apologize at how we've gotten here.

But this is important to me to offer this educational opportunity within our school district.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Hersey.

So I.

I don't know how many of y'all know this but I'm a teacher a proud one in a federal way where TAF exists at Sahale Middle School and I work very closely with those educators.

I've been doing it for the past going on four years in different capacities.

Nothing but positive things to say.

Again this process predates me.

And as an outsider looking in on how this is rolled out the lack of communication around certain parts the untimely communication around certain parts and the public's and the community's perception that and really in a lot of ways conspiracy theories that this in some way is being utilized to dismantle HCC.

comes from so much trauma that exists in this district for so many varying parties.

And the fact it's no coincidence that this conversation is happening in the South End.

We are one of the most fortunate cities in this country.

Coming from Hattiesburg, Mississippi, we are one, if not probably top, fortunate cities in this country, yet we are having a conversation of scarcity and not one of abundance.

That confuses me.

As a 27-year-old educator, it confuses me why we are at this point.

All that being said, I know the work that TAF is capable of.

I've seen it firsthand.

Work in a place like Federal Way that's very different from Seattle with very different resources.

Now when we have the strategic plan again that centers black and brown boys and those furthest from educational justice at the center of who we're trying to aim and we have these conversations over and over again about building black excellence.

TAF is black excellence.

And it's one of the best examples of black excellence that we have in this state.

Bar none.

And it's a shame that this conversation has gotten to the point to where it is because of process.

It's a shame.

And that's where we get to the idea are we really talking about kids and what's best for them.

Or are we talking past each other and we're losing the kids and what's best for them in the process.

Because I see kids every day.

Everybody in this room sees kids every day but I see them in a different perspective.

I see them in my classroom.

I know firsthand what a blended model looks like.

Whether you want to accept it or not it's happening in most classrooms.

I have kids in my classroom that are reading at a kindergarten level I have kids in my classroom that are reading on a fourth grade level for context I teach second grade and the way that TAF does it and the support that they provide in those classrooms is exceptional and we are losing so much of what this program could bring to this district in direct alignment with our strategic plan and we frankly should be ashamed of ourselves for how this has gotten to this point.

Because if TAF walks away from Seattle Public Schools we will have missed a grand opportunity to stand by our strategic plan.

And I sincerely hope that that does not happen.

Because our kids deserve better.

And we have to give them better.

I'm serious.

I cannot express that enough.

Director Mack and then Director Burke.

I am really excited about the opportunity to partner with TAF and I want this to happen.

It's incredibly challenging to be sitting here right now in November when we were supposed to have the joint operating agreement in September and.

the actual explanation of like what is what's the plan for student assignment over time.

What's the budget.

How do we have this agreement.

How is this all going to roll out.

And that's not in place yet.

We don't have that negotiated.

We don't know what that is.

I don't I don't know what any of that is.

So the the and that the first time that the community hears about the blended model was two weeks ago.

So we don't have the engagement with with the community that I think it's highly possible and probable that TAF can do this really effectively and that that you we could have all of the families.

the highly capable families in support of the blended model if we weren't so late in the process now and they didn't feel so kind of blindsided by the conversation and not having all of this put together.

And I don't know if I want to be able to recover from that.

And I think we have the possibility to do that but I think the way that we need to do it is actually.

Do the work of let's get the whole plan together.

Here's how we're proposing this.

This is what the JOE is going to be.

This is how the whole thing's going to happen and we do that in a bar.

We bring it as soon as possible and if we can get that before open enrollment then we can make changes and we can amend the student assignment.

We could have that conversation if there was a need to potentially If it does make sense to move the cohort to Meany that could happen in that bar.

We can still do all of this but just doing this one fix in this document to me is the cart before the horse.

We need all of the rest of that to come together in the package so that we can can make that comprehensive decision.

Up until last week.

I was being told that we weren't actually supposed to be approving the joint operating agreement and as a board that's our fiscal responsibility.

There's a whole bunch of pieces here to this puzzle that we have to put together.

And I think that we can do that by.

Getting that bar together getting the work done having the plan put together explaining how we're going to roll it out over this time because there's a lot of conflicting information that the draft joint operating agreement that I've looked at in one place says that there'll be 25 kids per class and that's a guarantee and another says no we can't do that.

So there's there's some fundamental questions about what exactly are we doing.

Are we going to have small class sizes and are how many how many additional staff are going to be funded.

What is what is this model.

How much PD is there going to be.

There's there's all of that just needs to be defined and clarified so we know what the what it is.

There's a lot of talk and there's a lot of it's just not.

solidified enough and I'm deeply uncomfortable with making a change the student assignment plan based on a plan that's not solidified and we don't have that agreement.

And when I first when we went and visited TAF I I very specifically said multiple times I said I think this is possible and I think that this can happen.

But the timeline of trying to make it happen in 2020 has me worried that.

In terms of Seattle process and the district process and actually like the things we have to do to get it in line is it has me concerned that it's rushed because we have to have these conversations.

We need to bring people along and I think that it can work.

But at this stage putting this amendment language just in the student assignment transition plan it's the cart before the horse.

It's not a no to TAF at all.

It's not in my mind it's not a no to TAF.

We need to get that bar moving and have the joint operating agreement and all of the details put together and the conversation about exactly what does that mean for the highly capable students.

Have that all clarified and bring that forward to the board and let's move that.

That's how we actually move this forward.

And we can still amend the student assignment transition plan in that document.

There's a bunch of intersecting policies here that I mean I wrote down a whole bunch of points because y'all know me I'm I'm wonky and pedantic and policy language matters.

The way that this is written too unfortunately is not in alignment with our student assignment plan that it misses the whole Highly capable students are identified and then they have a guarantee to their pathway school and in their pathway school the highly capable cohort is defined by policy 21 90. It's not defined in student assignments student assignment only deals with student assignment.

So changing how the services happen in student assignment is not the right place that belongs in 21 90. The second part is that the way that this is written it says that specifically only those who have been receiving HC services in the cohort model in fifth grade would be impacted except that the pathway to Washington for highly capable students is all highly capable identified students in the pathway which is the entire southeast.

So when we put this language in here you're actually missing a third of the students that come in at sixth grade that they were in their neighborhood schools and then they decide to go to Washington highly capable or they joined Rainer scholars in fifth grade and are identified and move in sixth grade.

So there's a there's a number of challenges with the existing language in this amendment that don't align with our student assignment plan.

So my.

I'm rambling I know I'm going long here because I actually have a bunch of other points but my main point is here.

First this isn't the place to make the change to the highly capable cohort and commit to TAF because we're not even addressing the student assignment issues about TAF in here.

What about in the future years we're starting with sixth grade what's happening next year.

The way that TAF started in federal way was an option school so.

This this amendment doesn't it doesn't commit us to TAF it doesn't fix all these questions.

It is not the right place for the services to be changed.

This is not the document that this happens.

So I can't support this amendment because of that because this is not where the document happens.

But that statement of support is not a rejection of TAF at all.

We need to bring that bar forward and in that bar we need to clarify what all of those pieces are and that if we can get that done prior to open enrollment then everyone knows TAF's going to be there in sixth grade.

And if we can't do that then I would hope that we would have the grace the grace to continue to have a conversation and make it happen for 2021. Because we have certain deadlines on you know getting start of school started.

So that's that's where that's where I'm standing.

OK.

Mr. Burke Sebastian then Director Geary and then Director DeWolf.

OK so this this discussion in my mind it's really the intersection of three distinct governance topics.

It's just happening to happening to converge here on the student assignment plan.

And each of these things are critically important in their own right.

So really by by conflating them in some ways we're fostering mistrust from the community and we're diminishing the importance that each topic is worthy of.

So I'm going to just address them individually.

The first one the student assignment transition plan which there's a lot of work that has gone into that around aligning geo zones with walk zones.

Our superintendent has done extensive outreach with the Licton Springs community and we've talked about Licton Springs for since I got on the board.

This is the document that is codifying that work in this current version and.

As somebody who was on a couple of years ago when the student assignment transition plan did not pass and it just we just carried forward the previous one for a year.

That cannot happen.

We have to pass a student assignment transition plan and it has to happen.

So I intend to support this BAR without the proposed amendment because I think that takes care of the first and primary topic.

The second one which intersects with that is how to or whether to alter the self-contained cohort model at Washington.

So I've heard myself my colleagues the community talking about the imperative to increase advanced learning services for our underrepresented students.

And we have to do a district wide and we have to do it at a system level.

And so we heard that loud and clear and.

The majority of the board in January 2018 approved resolution 20 17 slash 18 dash 10 to be wonky that included forming the advanced learning task force.

So almost two years ago we had extensive conversations in the curriculum instruction policy committee about this.

And when we talked about it we said wow this is going to be a big lift.

Can you complete it in 12 months?

And staff said we're going to try.

We should probably think more like 18 plus.

And that's where we are today is we're looking at about a year and a half from when they started on their work.

They're almost done.

And honestly the advanced learning task force is like a microcosm of Seattle.

They have their diverse perspectives.

They have internal dissent.

It bubbles out into the public space on on blogs and Facebook and things like that.

So.

My perspective is that if if they can come together around a family of solutions so can the city of Seattle because they are a microcosm of our city.

They're a diverse group and I truly believe that that was why we chose those people to do that work.

So I'm asking that we honor their commitment their investment of time their heart and soul and let them finish it.

Encourage them and let them reach common recommendations about HC services about student access about policy implications and then to develop a district wide plan so that we're not doing something that's incremental and may not be aligned with a district wide strategic initiative.

should not be approached ad hoc.

So I look to our superintendent to translate that thoughtful work their recommendation in a tangible action.

In contrast stark contrast to the inaction which we've heard about from community that has followed the previous task force recommendations and it's partly why we're having these conversations.

Task forces.

So third and final.

So we've got student assignment transition plan.

Advanced learning highly capable.

Third and final is the exciting possibility of a STEM by TAF model.

I believe also I've heard from my colleagues I concur a great opportunity.

It does intersect our policies in a bunch of ways.

The joint operating agreement student assignment instructional materials budget.

And I think that there's been a lot of conversations.

But there hasn't been a systematic way to disseminate that information.

And that is ultimately what our board action resolution is about.

It includes a budget section.

It includes an equity analysis.

It includes a community engagement component.

So all of those things.

Building the joint operating agreement into a bar.

would clarify the work that's done to date but also put the pieces in place that the community is asking for in a public way.

So I would ask that that be something that staff put together to support TAF and to do that as quickly as possible.

Director Harris.

You're up.

The quick question just for the people like say we go through with the whole thing with the amendment and adopt TAF and that mixed that mixed methodology where Washington there is no designated cohort.

Once a student graduates from Washington Middle School out of that TAF cohort.

How would they be placed into a high school class like it's like the level math that currently exists or like the AP tracks and whatnot.

How how would that work.

I really appreciate that you're asking that question because that's one of the questions that I don't have an answer to.

We don't have a full answer to you without all of that day lit and having these questions and having these conversations.

The MOU first of all to clarify this amendment here does not actually adopt TAF.

It just says that the student assignment for highly capable if TAF were adopted would change.

So this is not a motion to adopt TAF on the table right now.

That's why we need the motion to adopt TAF on the table to have all these really important conversations.

The memorandum of under understanding and the proposals that have been put forth talk about TAF as a 6 to 12. And so.

If we are if we are actually going that direction for Washington Middle School to actually become a 6 to 12 model and not a middle school we need to have those conversations around what that future assignment is in the future.

And your question around whether or not say a student who's highly capable identified.

And what do they do they maintain that status and then have that same pathway status moving forward.

Those are all student assignment questions we have to have conversations around.

It's part of the 21 90 and.

Can I just ask for a quick clarification of some questions.

So I just actually have Trish here to answer some questions.

The other thing I just wanted to talk about just really briefly about 21 90. That would require us if we did get approved a waiver, a waiver and then eventually down the road it would be possibly an amendment to the policy just in full transparency.

And I'm getting sick so excuse me I'm Constable Joe's the chief of student support services so I'm just trying to hang on here.

Finally also I just wanted to make sure that we also acknowledge that there are many times in cases in schools we've redesigned schools we've designed programs and usually that work doesn't start until January anyway.

Having done a full remodel I didn't start coming downtown to do all that planning with facilities and operations and everything until probably we did some discussion plannings but the real work starts around January onto June.

So I just want to that's like just sort of a.

a common thing that happens with school structures.

And I just wanted to also answer the question about engagement.

There was five engagement sessions that happened June 12th August 3rd June 25th August 19th and August 22nd.

And in fact we have been in conversations with all the feeder elementary schools and those principals are planning community engagement sessions with the Department of Equity partnerships and engagement because we wanted to make sure that we hear from general education families ELL families and students of color regarding any shifts to TAFT.

And in terms of programmatic I know that in terms of the middle school we are only looking at right now six through eight model.

That's all that we've we've been talking about.

So that is a point of clarification and I just want to know if Trish did you want to ask answer any questions about specifics around.

Do you have a question.

Yeah.

Good evening.

Yeah I just I don't disagree with the things that Director Mack is saying.

But I don't see at all.

Especially when you say something like moving the cohort to Meany how that could possibly happen before February.

Meany isn't doesn't even know that's.

No I'm just saying so to put those two I just don't don't put those two concepts together because we know that's impossible.

That is why I'm saying that's why my comments were worded intersectionality of some bad things and some impossibilities.

And so you have to make a decision about which bad things you're going to elevate and which things you're going to perpetuate and which things you're going to maintain.

And where's this what's the first vote that's going to start the cascade that's going to get the ball rolling that's going to force us into that work as opposed to the perpetual community engagement because.

If we if we go through a couple months of community engagement or we go through the community engagement and it's decided to move the cohort who engages with that new community and how long do they get to process what it would mean for their community to have the cohort move in to southeast.

I'm just saying it's yes there are a lot of problems but the idea that TAF will come out If you start talking about moving the cohort and we're going to properly engage people that and we're going to do it by open enrollment is it's just we can't do it.

We cannot we cannot do it.

So I just I just wanted to make that clarification that we I don't want anybody to think like leave and go well they could have done this and looked about moving cohort.

We can't we can't do it.

I want to just dispel that we can't.

Director DeWolf do you have questions for.

I have lots actually.

Thank you President Harris.

I think partially to just to.

from Director Geary's point Principal Otis at Meany would not want a program that is segregated that segregates her school.

So I think you would have a very difficult time finding a school leader across the district who would raise their hand and say can you can I have this program because it is very segregated and it is not about.

I think we need to be really thoughtful because HC and HCC are two different things.

Highly capable are the services the HCC which is the cohort is the thing that is controversial and Azure has collected quotes from hundreds of students that illustrate the negative impact of a segregate of segregation.

So the cohort thing is the is the controversial part it is not highly capable.

We certainly legally need to provide highly capable service.

The other thing I think that continues to come up and Director Geary and I full transparency we we tried to bring something to this board.

In December 2017 and January 2018 that was it was nobody wanted.

And it was again about how we make sure that our schools are equitable by bringing our highly capable service to our neighborhood schools.

And the thing we heard was let's you know let's wait let's wait.

And I and I just want to reiterate that Martin Luther King in a letter from a Birmingham jail said I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was well timed in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.

For years now I have heard the word wait.

It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity.

This wait has always meant never.

And we do not have the time to allow a graduation rate for our black and brown students that is below 40 percent compared to the students that are not black or brown.

That is problematic and harmful to me.

I think the questions I have particularly for Trish are some of the things that came up in testimony so I just want to ask some some things here just to get some clarification on the facts.

People are concerned about the model but I think there's a difference between the model which is maybe how you teach and engage with students and the curriculum.

The curriculum is the same or it is different.

The curriculum will be the same whatever the district and the state require.

And what we do like we would do like we do in federal way is essentially change how we deliver the content.

So excuse me I have a bit of a cold.

I talked a lot in the engagement around project-based learning.

I talked about student voice and differentiation and kids working in groups, and that's how we deliver.

But we do not change the curriculum itself.

The law says what you have to teach.

The law says what the standards are.

We just believe that there's a better way to deliver them.

And my other question, I have a few here.

Some folks are saying that families were not engaged.

What was some of the level of engagement you've had?

And have any of our highly capable families come and visited you to understand the work that you're doing and the success of your program?

So we constantly listed the dates of engagement.

They weren't well attended.

And I'm not sure why.

And I've heard things like families of color don't want to come out because they haven't been heard.

We tried to have them on the weekend, had some in the evening.

The largest turnout we had was October 19th, where we opened it up to everyone.

So our initial engagement was to families of color.

they got the flyers to come to those meetings and then we opened it up to everyone.

And I would say probably about 90-95% were highly capable at that October 19th.

At each and every meeting there's been someone from the highly capable cohort at the meetings.

And then we've invited them to come and we haven't had anybody come.

I've heard a couple of people say that they sent me emails to come out, but we haven't had anybody come visit.

and have Washington Middle School teachers visited TAF and what was their response?

Yeah so the first visit from anybody from Washington Middle School was from the principal.

She came out on October 23rd to meet with our principal and to meet with the teachers and talk about the nuts and bolts.

She also met with our director if we came to Seattle we would have a director on the Washington Middle School campus.

So she came to me to figure out how all that works.

Spent about a half a day and then on the 29th of October 6th grade to 6th grade Washington teachers 1 8th grade 1 special ed.

And one counselor came out and spent the whole day at the campus.

They started out with a tour a typical tour we would give everyone which is student led.

And then they spent the rest of the day with our teachers.

And then we had all had lunch together where they got a chance to ask the deep dive around what they saw and all the workings behind that.

They also met with some of our students.

They met with seniors who had the same sixth grade teachers that the Washington teachers met with so they can see the trajectory of what happens when you stay in the STEM by TAF model.

They started out pretty icy which I understand but they left very excited about the possibility and I think the thing that made the difference for them was they saw kids that were at a variety of levels they saw they heard from our teachers about the extensive training that we provide and the collaboration so they're not wouldn't be left alone to do this work that our teachers collaborate together on a cohort basis.

And my other question is somebody during public comment brought up this.

I think it was meant to be criticism but if you can clarify this thing about students being teachers can you clarify the importance of that in your model because as I understand it that's actually a really great way to kind of get kids more deeply understanding the topic they're describing.

I'll let you explain it but can you tell me a little bit more about that.

I think some of it was around how we teach math that has been the biggest concern with the HCC families that we engage with how are we going to differentiate and I wrote up a one pager that came from part of the information came from Washington in terms of what they teach now and the other part came from our sixth grade teachers on how they differentiate.

And one of the things that we do, not just math, but with all classes and all kids, is eventually through your career in a STEM by TAF model, as a student, you're going to teach.

You're going to either teach kids that are at your grade level, below your grade level, or above your grade level.

It's all about the subject.

And what we're trying to do is to get kids to understand that you have to be prepared to present, you have to be prepared to share your ideas and also have an appreciation for what teachers go through.

It also gives them a deep dive into the content deeper than they normally would in a sit and get model.

We also have them do, they do them in math, science, humanities, as well as art and engineering.

All the teachers also have an opportunity for kids to do projects that they choose and they take a skill that they want to share with everybody else and they go through that same methodology of planning, gathering information, making sure that the people who are receiving the information is engaging and that they actually learned it.

And somebody brought up about screen time.

Can you share more about as I understand it there's and I visited the classroom.

Yeah.

We went to TAF.

Can you share a little bit more about something that made it seem like there's a lot of screen time?

Yeah, I think the comment was about us being a STEM school and people not understanding what a STEM school, how it works.

We use technology as a tool.

We don't just use laptops.

We use video cameras and VR equipment and laser cutters.

every kind of technology you can think of, and the idea is to use it as a tool to either ideate or to share data or to present.

We're not a traditional STEM model in that we're not trying to create a bunch of engineers and a bunch of programmers.

We use STEM as a way to ideate, a way to solve problems, a way to communicate and use 21st century skills along with the arts and the humanities to make sure that our kids have what they need going to the next level.

Thank you.

Director Hersey.

Thank you very much Director DeWolf for those questions.

Those are a lot of what's coming to my inbox as well and to my phone.

I wanted to double back on this notion of kids teaching right other kids.

As again as a teacher I guarantee you is going on in your kids classrooms.

It's already happening in a big way and it's one of the best tools we can use.

And I think where people are afraid is that there was this ideology or this understanding.

And please correct me in my email if I'm wrong later that folks did not want their HCC students to be burdened with teaching other people in their classroom.

And I get that concern, but from what I heard from what you're saying, that is not it at all.

And what I heard is that it doesn't matter what grade level or what content level you're at, whether you are identified as an HCC student or a general education student, In this model everybody is teaching everyone at some capacity and it's presented more of or excuse me it's presented more as a system of understanding what it's like to teach and what it's like to share information and knowledge with your peers.

And it's not something that happens every day.

Exactly.

Right.

Exactly.

Most of the time they're working together on their own anyway but it's not something that happens every day.

That's already happening in schools.

The next question that I had was concerning you know I'm going to save that one.

I want to flesh that out a little bit more.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you President Harris to make sure that we're staying germane to the conversation about the JOA.

The analogy I've been using in my head is if some if I was a baker and somebody puts out a really specific detailed plan spends a lot of time baking a perfect cake for their party but then says actually you know what doesn't work.

Don't need it.

Not going to pay for it.

And similar to this process we're almost asking you to spend time resources energy to create a cake and at which point we could still say no.

So can you describe a the just the overall joint operating agreement process but then also the burden that creating some sort of a bigger more specific thing for people because again My fear is we will see that plan and we will still say we need more time.

So there are actually two documents, there's a proposal and there's a joint operating agreement.

And the proposal lays out more specifics, what kind of classes could be taught, not definitely, the class size, the class configuration, the resources that TAF will bring, the resources that the district will bring, and it's the overall idea of how the implementation could happen.

It can be, and you can make it super specific, and take an extra long time, and then as you say, turn around and then the kids come, and it doesn't work for the kids that are there.

So what we try to do is get the skeleton and the framework, and then the joint operating agreement is the actual legal document that says that the district and TAF for the next 10 years will work together to implement this model in the school and make adjustments as necessary.

The thing about our model is it has a frame but it can work in any school because it requires teachers and staff to understand the kids in the school to understand them not just by reading data but actually getting to know them and making adjustments along the way.

You know we have the curriculum we have to follow the curriculum.

But having a dynamic classroom where you can adjust for kids is the skill that we help teachers develop.

So anyway, so in terms of timeline, one of the things that's really important is TAF is making a huge financial investment and an investment in people.

And we can't wait until we have a perfect model, because that means I'm committing time for my staff, et cetera, then for you all to vote no.

That doesn't make any sense.

So the way it went, for instance, with Federal Way is I met with Tom Murphy in 2006, late 2006. And in November 2007, we had a joint operating agreement signed.

And then we moved into the school in 2008. We didn't even have a school.

We had portables.

Right.

So there's this process.

But before that I had the commitment and I was able to put the time and the money into it because the board had voted yes we're going to do this.

And then we did the work and then the joint operating agreement was signed.

And let me clarify there if I might.

So Holly Federal Way didn't have a highly capable cohort pathway.

as part of policy when you went through that process is that.

So the first process we were TAF Academy and we were in portables and Federal Way does have the Cambridge program and a couple of other programs they have a school.

called the Federal Way I can't remember the name of it it's not coming to me right now but it's essentially it's a high school for highly capable kids although they try not to call it that.

So when we moved in we moved in as priority for neighborhood kids.

And then kids in the district and kids out of the district, which is what the enrollment process is for Federal Way.

When we moved to Sahale, it was the same thing.

So we merged with a community.

We became the only middle school for that community.

So the kids that live there, we are their middle school.

They can choice out, and we have people choicing in.

But but for lack of — I'm not sure what he asked me.

I'm sorry for lack of a better term there wasn't an intersection.

Oh tension.

Highly.

Tension.

Like the word.

True that.

And there's not potential quote displacement is another word I've been hearing.

No.

OK.

Director Burke Sebastian and then Director Mack.

Thank you.

So I guess, Mike, we had an opportunity to have a conversation, which I really appreciated.

I want to thank you for that.

You know, I was standing on the street in D.C.

I know it.

You said it was warmer, though.

It was warmer.

Yes.

I heard people walking by.

So stories are super, super powerful.

And I think that what what I haven't heard in all of this conversation is You know there's is a story that recognizes the kind of the aspirations that many of our families have for their students.

That says this is what the trajectory looks like in TAF Academy.

You know through the TAF program through our expertise and this is what it can look like beyond in a way that that honors some of their some of some of our families.

aspirations for their kids and we all everyone is guilty.

I've got aspirations for my kids we all.

Set expectations some of them real some of them not.

We bring our biases all of those things but without having the conversation that acknowledges what do you really want for your kid.

And what we're talking about offering.

Does it not align.

How does it not align.

Help us understand that because that's really the intersection that I don't think we've been able to to pop open.

So if we could figure out what that story is and then you've got the track record to back it up.

And I would love to figure out how to how to articulate that and communicate it.

And there are folks that will say no this won't work.

And you know that's that's everybody's prerogative.

But we want to be able to to to shout from the mountaintops that which how this does work for many families and how it is working for many families that people can see their own experiences in.

I don't know if I'm being clear.

I feel like I'm kind of rambling.

I think I understand what you're saying.

I think one of the challenges for me, as we're talking about the bar and all that, is who are you trying to convince?

Because all I have talked to, for the most part, are HCC families.

We haven't talked really to any general ed families.

And the question is, how many, I don't have anything against HCC families.

I have a kid that qualified for HCC.

And everybody wants to advocate for their own kid.

I get it.

But when people come to listen, not for understanding, but listen to answer and rebut, it makes it really hard to think about the possibility of going forward with this.

If we go forward with this through a bar and we start thinking about stories and all that stuff, I need to know what is the line for you.

as a board, right?

Because I can pretty much guarantee that people like keeping things the way they are.

And if we're going to sit down at the table and work together and involve parents and everybody else so they can hear and see their stories in there, I'm not going to fight.

I can't come to fight.

I've been fighting for the last five months, and I can't ask my team to come to fight.

At the October 19th meeting that we had, it was open house.

My team, who had not been exposed to this, was traumatized because they spent more time fighting than they did explaining.

And we just can't do that again.

So if we're going to move forward with this, and we're going to have true conversations like people keep saying they want to have, then we have to have conversations about how we move forward.

How does the model support everyone that is coming to the school?

We have ACC level kids at Taffess and Hawley.

We have had ACC kids come from Seattle when we had openings and head down.

Right?

So we can accommodate that.

The thing is that you have families that don't believe that we can.

And I don't know what to do to convince people and I'm not sure how much work we're supposed to do to convince people.

We have a model that is proven.

It's been running for 12 years.

It's working great.

This district has a challenge with a lot of different things.

The process is the biggest thing.

The process is huge.

And if you let so many things drop because of opportunities go away because of process, you're not really serving anybody.

So I just need to know, you know, what does the district want to do going forward from here?

I'm fine with the idea of the bar.

I don't want to hold up the student assignment plan.

They've been working way, way too hard.

I don't want to be the one that says TAF was the one that held everybody up, but I definitely want to have the conversation to see if we can make 2020, not 2021. But it has to be with people who want to do this.

Bringing people to the table who want to do this and who are willing to tell the truth, listen, learn, contribute together with my team.

I'm all for it then.

I'm absolutely all for it, but we won't fight anymore.

Sebastian.

So TAF is creating more diverse classrooms and more inclusive classrooms.

How does the curriculum and how does the management of the classroom, how does it promote the sharing of those perspectives from differing backgrounds and how does it make it a truly inclusive classroom?

Most of the content and the approach is centered on student voice and what students are interested in.

And we also teach social studies from the viewpoint of a lot of different cultures so that kids can see themselves in their culture.

But the biggest thing is really having students choose what they want the subject of their mini projects or big projects.

It doesn't matter what they want to choose to produce.

Right.

It comes from them.

The teacher is there to provide instruction and frame and the kids provide the content in many ways in terms of what they're interested in staying in line with the standards.

So give you an example.

Instead of creating a project.

that says, we're going to hit these 20 standards.

Oh, great.

This is good.

Let's pull this out.

Now let's give it to the kids.

It goes the other way around.

We know what kids have to learn, right?

And then we ask the kids in terms of, you know, what's interesting to you in the environment?

if they're studying the environment.

What's interesting to you?

What are you seeing?

Conversations come up, the teachers work together to pull together the frame of the project, and then they look at it to see what standards is it hitting?

What are we missing?

What do we have to do to augment it?

It's presented to the students and then the students start working on the guiding question, the product they're going to produce, etc.

That's in the larger, the larger projects.

But teachers are using the PBL, project-based learning methods during direct instruction as well.

So it's really about knowing your students, not just about delivering content and making sure there is content that is relevant to them.

One more question really quick.

How does TAF and that framework how does it empower teachers to provide learning experiences that meet every student where they're at?

So one of the things well back to knowing your students understanding what your trajectory is.

We divide families or kids into houses.

Right.

So there are 80 to 90 kids per house and each house has one math one science and one humanities teacher for the core subjects.

So you have three teachers who are responsible for that set of kids and getting to know them and who they are and how to push them.

We have one bar.

There's not a oh if you make this bar you're good.

This is the bar up here and our goal is to get every kid as high as close to that bar or over that bar as possible.

So we don't categorize kids and limit them based off of their test scores and things like that.

What we look at is where are you and how do we get you to the place that you need to be.

Our goal is for kids who are in eighth grade to really really at a minimum.

I'm saying minimum, and I don't want this to get confused.

At a minimum, to be ready for high school, like truly ready for high school.

One of the challenges with being a high school teacher is that they're at the end of the whole pathway, regardless of what you're talking about, and they end up with kids that just are not ready.

and it makes it really difficult.

We want kids to be on that trajectory so that by the time they get to 12th grade they can choose where they want to go.

That we have not chosen on them before them because we have put them on a particular path because of their initial assessment.

Mack.

I feel deeply saddened that you feel like you've been fighting for five months.

I mean hearing you say that is distressing to me and I'm not sure I understand why you're having that experience because we haven't what I would have liked to have seen from the process around TAF is we I had an amazing time visiting the school when I came out and visited.

I know you did.

Everybody does.

I and I actually believe that TAF.

Yeah.

TAF is a.

I was I was deeply impressed and from my board policy head said OK what are the things that are going on here that are critical that you're you're you're what is this model that is that that allows this to be so amazing and it's a bunch of things.

But some of the important details that we can't forget about are the class size the number of instructors the project project project based curriculum which is different curriculum and instructional materials than what we do.

So there's a bunch of things that are different than what exists in our schools in order to have that transition.

We just need to have that conversation about what all that is and get clarity on it.

So.

I am deeply saddened that you feel like you've been fighting for five months because what I would have liked for us to do as a district is for four or five months ago have a full work session for the board that said here's the whole thing.

This is what we're proposing and this is how we expect to roll it out and this is what we think the JOA will look like.

It's the high level policy stuff.

I don't want to be in a position of feeling like I'm micromanaging but we didn't have any of that big high level conversation and here we are without you even being close to having a JOA agreed upon and a whole bunch of details and wanting to have a commitment that when we have a major conflict with the highly capable services that are provided now in a cohort model without clarifying how we're doing that we just we have this this tension that we don't I don't know how to resolve and we're so late in the time frame that I just I don't know how to resolve that.

So I yeah I want to see like the commitment to how can we make TAF happen?

I think one of the challenges that we have to resolve is how do we resolve the highly capable services at Washington?

That's the pathway now.

How do we resolve that and what's the plan for that?

Is there a way for the first year to say We're not dissolving the cohort.

We're allowing you know we do some sort of mixed assignment that because the 7th and 8th grade is still going to be a cohort.

You're only having 6th grade that's starting off as TAF and you still have 7th and 8th grade in gen ed.

I mean I think there's options for how to negotiate the transition and have those conversations but we haven't had those conversations of how to find where that compromise is.

Yeah.

I think some of the challenges is are that.

You have a process here, and I've been a part of it over the years, where every one of your parents thinks that they should know everything either before you do or when you do.

And so this whole engagement thing was about let's get out to the parents first.

But you know getting pushback on well the district is meeting in secret and they're not telling us anything.

Right.

And we should know.

And so it's that tension I think that that I see and feel around just the process about why we're not sitting with you.

every day to work out details where you can't because you have the expectation that every single person who goes to whatever school needs to have input before you even open your mouth.

I'm just being truthful here.

I've been a part of this process.

I moved here in 1985. Things haven't changed that much.

In fact, they've gotten a lot worse.

So that's created some tension.

So we've just been working around, how do we get families to look at the model, understand the model, and then throwing the JOA over the wall a couple of times to see if we can get something going?

But then hearing, well, this JOA is happening, and nobody told me anything.

You know, I mean, this is really, this is very difficult, this process that you've set up to make sure that every, not you in particular, but to make sure that every single person has a say.

And if they don't have a say, or if they haven't heard about it, then it's like, well, there's no community engagement.

How can they do this stuff without engagement?

So I don't know how to play in this space.

I really don't know how to play in this space.

So I would love to have sat down back in May and work through all of this stuff, and then come to the community, but that's not how it plays out here.

No, I understand that, but I'm saying, I understand that process.

Sorry.

I'm Director Hersey I believe that's on us as a district.

And I think we need to embrace that.

And I think we need to embrace the radio silence this summer.

And I think we need to embrace and own the lack of communication between the board and senior staff.

And it breaks my heart because I want so very badly for us to take that leap.

I have a question for you if I might.

And this is this is the one that then I need your help with.

You are the director for the southeast quadrant.

If the southeast quadrant highly capable cohort is dissolved.

How do you address the equity issue there for the loss of potential.

And again please don't put me in a position of defending the highly capable cohort program when we haven't listened to task force fizz and experts for 20 years.

on issues like identification coaching wraparound et cetera.

OK.

I cannot and I will not defend that.

But it's what we have now.

So how do you weigh sift filter if the highly capable cohort is dissolved at Washington Middle School when you have a pathway in West Seattle.

So.

South Park, Madison, West Seattle and three in the north end.

That is an incredibly good question.

I don't I am speaking from the perspective and I think that we need to know exactly how and in what way we can work to figure out and to come to a joint understanding of how those students are getting served by TAF.

And I think that that's a fair question because it's less about the cohort and more about what are they learning for me.

Now I'm not speaking for every family on the south end but as a teacher and having seen what goes on in federal way I appreciate that the situation is different here and I Really it's a bigger conversation about how equity plays out in my and our district specifically.

But it's unfortunate because I believe in this and I think a lot of families and especially when we're thinking about how are we looking at it from the strategic plan standpoint.

TAP aligns closely with our strategic plan more so than the highly capable cohort.

And so if we're talking about priorities and who we're really trying to help.

My bet's on TAF.

Director Harris.

I'm sorry.

Director DeWolf I promise the superintendent a moment.

Just a moment.

And since she's going to be the one that has to answer and since she's the one that has put herself out there.

The floor is yours.

I think my opinion is known broadly across the city.

And I just want to remind that everybody that I just really want to thank Trish DeZico for hanging with us like this is her second bite at the apple in Seattle Public Schools.

And you know she attempted bringing TAF here once got processed out.

and just a lot of controversy around it.

She's committed to being in Seattle Public Schools.

This is what she's wanted from the beginning.

We now have an opportunity to bring TAF here.

I just really appreciate getting to know you and your model and your passion for education and students over the last few months.

I've also been asked a lot by my board directors to get my arms around career connected learning.

There's been travel to New York City around Maritime Academy a lot of meetings with the port about creating a maritime high school when we have eight students in the maritime pathway and I think a stem.

by TAF model that is career connected to the actual tech community math community things like that that we have going on in the city is very viable.

She's left and proven herself in Federal Way.

It's a growing program there from 200 students to 800 students.

So growing so it's been effective enough for parents in Federal Way to continue choosing to go to TAF.

We have that opportunity right in front of us like right in front of us.

Executive committee heard from SCA there's been a lot of talk around well teachers can't do that you know only my highly capable teacher can provide the education my highly capable student needs but we've heard from SCA that Teachers are professionals and they are ready to grasp this differentiation and to learn and do professional development around this activity.

And again just a reminder you know there was 21 90 the task force is going to continue finishing its work.

That was made clear.

And this opportunity provides us.

I mean there's also been a lot of talk from directors about let's try things out and find out what's promising and see what can work in our school system.

And we're asking for one grade in one school next year.

One grade one school in all of Seattle Public Schools to try out a proven program that's been going for years in a different district and try it out and then roll it up over time.

And right now I think there's been a lot of talk.

We are in a chicken and egg sort of situation you know and what this amendment allows us to do and I will just remind there was a work session around the student assignment transition plan a few weeks ago.

This was brought up during that work plan work session.

We walked out and basically was like wow that's pretty good.

Like there weren't questions and left.

Couple of weeks later this portion got pulled out during operations committee and so that set us back timeline as well because then we had to figure out how are we going to move this forward if it was going to move forward.

And so I think what this amendment is is replacing the language that was originally in there that there were opportunities for conversation around that didn't happen.

And what it allows us to do is just open the door.

or lay the groundwork or lay the pathway lay the runway so that we can actually start doing robust engagement with the feeder schools.

There's a plan that Dr. Pedroza is putting in place with her team and our team to make sure we're going out to the feeder schools and making sure that we're pulling parents along.

But it is sort of like.

What Trish said is if we're going to move this forward we need some sort of effort.

We need some sort of recognition that it's possible and without that it's really hard to go out and say let's put all this work in and maybe.

So I know there's a lot in there.

Well I think we're asking tonight with this amendment is let's lay the runway then we can start our public work sessions on the joint operating agreement where all this conversation can happen in a very robust manner with a lot of people at the table.

But we do have a lot to do.

And without laying this runway down it's going to be pretty difficult to get there.

I'd like to respond to a couple of things if I might.

We're talking about one sixth grade class but we're talking about signing a joint operating agreement for 10 years.

So that doesn't that doesn't match up for me.

OK so are we just doing a one year pilot project TAF is going to put in all this effort for a one year pilot project.

You know that's I'm saying next year there will be we are going to be able to try to see how we navigate the one grade in one school knowing that there's going to be roll up seventh grade eighth grade.

And I think it's also important to know that the current students who are in highly capable cohort in Washington Middle School this year will continue that cohort.

So the sixth graders will be highly capable cohort seventh grade and they'll continue as we start figuring out how this working with the staff to make sure that it rolls up in an appropriate slow roll kind of way.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

Director DeWolf.

Director DeWolf.

Yeah I just want to reiterate the question we posed to Director Hersey which is that the highly capable services are not going away.

But in fact people are are not interested in maintaining the way in which we're delivering them which is to the cohort.

The thing that came up at Rick and I Director Burke and I's community meeting up in Greenwood was at the Greenwood library.

It was this really important distinction which was that the place where the tension lies is we are delivering highly capable through a cohort which is.

I mean let's be real.

At Washington Middle School there are overall.

Now we're repeating ourselves.

Overall the students that identify as white at Washington Middle School are 36 percent.

They're disproportionately within the highly capable program at 58 percent.

So they want to maintain a hold on a program that might be segregated but it is because that is all they have.

Whereas you have stories from folks like Azure who are saying this is really problematic and it's segregated and it feels racist.

So I think that the tension lies in this way that we're delivering it.

But the other thing too that I really want to make sure we underline from Superintendent Juneau is that and I think Director Hersey could probably speak to this too.

Teachers every day are differentiating and if what I am sort of hearing in all of these conversations in between the lines is that we somehow don't trust our teachers to differentiate in their classrooms because they are doing it every day.

Exactly.

And so I think again SEA came to the executive committee and they said we are willing we are we are able and we are eager to do the work of differentiating in our classrooms.

We need to trust our teachers.

This is the work that they do and I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that this happens every day.

I think it's.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

So we're having a lot of conversations and I think they're rich conversations but what we're not really getting to still is outcome expectations.

And if we can't have a conversation about outcome expectations then we're not going to be able to really align our different families.

Can you tell me what you mean by that phrase please.

I don't get that at all.

What what what does what do what do I as a parent.

expect for my students outcome when I send them to Seattle Public Schools.

I am I have an expectation of the public school system to deliver something fill in the blank here that many of those expectations are unrealistic.

I have unrealistic expectations and until we can say there's our box of expectations.

And we can acknowledge them.

I mean this is one of the things that I I learned from my my colleague director Blanford actually told me that you never question somebody else's truth.

And it was around our our families farthest from educational justice.

But it is something that I internalize for for my role.

All of our families have truths and they come with their biases and they come with.

their experiences but until we acknowledge them and talk about how we're aligning to them or not we can't get to the bottom of this this conversation.

And so this is rooted in trust.

And I think Director DeWolf was was was spot on with that what we had heard at our our community meeting was families saying well we have we don't see the district delivering the services that we're getting in this cohort model in other places.

Help us understand how this is going to happen in a neighborhood school when.

The the promise for spectrum which became ALO evaporated and did not provide those services for what was formerly one year accelerated so that we don't have a track record of delivering for our advanced learning students or highly capable students in all cases.

We have some schools that do it really really well.

But some schools isn't enough to do this system wide and I think that's the work of the advanced learning task force is to define that.

And the last thing that I want to speak to something that Superintendent Juneau had mentioned as far as how to move this forward there's a conversation around well we can't we don't want to do something that we don't have support for.

I heard every single person on the board excited about this and I heard many of us asking for a plan.

So I don't believe that this is Trisha's responsibility.

She has submit her team have submitted a proposal and I believe it's the district's responsibility to say this is your model.

This is your proposal.

This is the intersection with our policy and that is what should be done at a work session.

with district staff for the board and could be supported by the TAF team but should not be developed or run by the TAF team because they've got their model they've shared it with us.

This is on us.

And that's my ask.

Can I just say that.

Can I just say that the support I was talking about is actually from the families.

because they need to be a part of this too.

And that's mostly who have been in the fight, right?

Or the families that don't want this.

So if you decide as a body to move forward with the conversation, I need to make sure that we have families that wanna actually do it and not spend their time fighting it because nobody gets served at that point and the kids are the ones who lose the most over adult issues.

Director Geary then Director Mack.

Just a couple a couple of things.

I think where what we as public educators are to provide is a basic floor of educational opportunity for our students and that's what we tell our special ed families every day.

And for our highly capable cohort that is or highly capable services are part of basic ed.

They are.

And therefore I would expect that we should be guaranteeing an education that will prepare a highly capable student for a four year university to be able to do that.

That is a reasonable public school basic floor of educational opportunity for a highly capable student.

That is not the basic floor that we offer or expect of every single student though we do want them to be college and career ready and we want to prepare them to be good citizens.

That's what our charge is.

So in terms of realistic or unrealistic expectations I would say that we bring TAF in and TAF's record says we're going to prepare them for high school.

and we know that our high schools the pathway for our highly capable kids in terms of high school we know that's going to get them to the college applications that most of these parents want for them.

So I'm not as concerned about that basic floor of educational opportunity it is defined by standards that are provided to us by the state and we have a person here who has a model That is good and has shown great success for a group of kids that we have really bad track record in terms of providing them the basic floor of educational opportunity.

And I'm going to say this because I've heard it a lot in this conversation and I'm not going to attribute it to any one family and I know it's where people go and I've heard it over the years and I've heard it even before I was on board.

Well you're forcing me into considering private education.

but I can't afford private education or, you know, something along those lines.

And you heard it.

It was part of testimony tonight.

And we have a lot of families aren't here because really they're they're actually am I more worried about losing a student to a private school or am I more worried about losing handfuls of students to the pipeline to prison.

That's what I'm that's what I'm working with.

So I'm sorry if our basic floor of educational opportunity as a public school system doesn't comport with your vision for your student.

I have also very high expectations and visions for all of my five children and they're there.

They have gotten it from Seattle Public Schools every single one of them.

And I'm pretty sure most of your kids are going to get it too because you're living in the same very difficult.

You know it's not like I was living in a much easier school district than you are.

I live through the same broken miscommunication move the kids around school district.

They're doing great.

But the kids that go into the pipeline they're not and their families that that's really all they see.

They just see a wall.

They don't see a basic floor.

They just see a wall every time they think about what Seattle Public Schools is doing.

And this for me is a big big doorway for a lot of families that we could open up.

that they're not even they don't even show up to the meetings because they're like I don't want to look at the wall again.

So I share that perspective.

That is why I'm coming.

It is so little to do with my taking away any opportunity from your kids.

It has everything with creating a message for those kids that we are losing to prisons not the kids that we're losing to private schools.

Again Trish I really appreciate what you said about the fact that you need to have the families at the table that are engaged and excited about this.

And so I'm concerned about that in our current environment that if we haven't actually engaged the families of the gen ed population yet that need that work still needs to be done and we need to have those folks at the table.

What we have on the table today is a vote in the student assignment plan.

that is premature because all of this isn't figured out.

It's not a vote against if we if we vote against this amendment today that does not preclude us from having the JOA and having these things mapped out and having the student assignment transition plan altered.

in all of that together.

It just is not putting the cart before the horse.

So from a policy perspective I'm not comfortable putting this in here in this form because it's just it's a cart before the horse.

When we talk about equity and whether or not highly capable services are equitable or they are equity the testimony that we had earlier today from the truancy officer and the testimony we've had from the African-American male who said his his son you know was acting out and he knew he was going to be misidentified as a behavior problem but he's actually gifted and he needs that support.

The conversations that I heard and have been hearing in the task force about What is this service and how do we model this.

What do we do for these kids because we want to actually it is about equity and it's how do we give access and the cohort is currently racially segregated and that's very problematic and how do we.

Fix that.

And what I've heard from the task force members over and over in the meetings that I sat in is that the trust has been broken in terms of like in their neighborhood schools they weren't getting those services.

So there is a big concern from those families of color that the trust is broken.

And you've talked about trust and I think that's part of what we're dealing with here.

And I can't we need to do we need to work to get that trust back in order to have families be engaged in supporting this going forward.

So a vote on this tonight does not preclude it from happening.

It just doesn't put the cart before the horse and the student assignment plan where it doesn't belong.

I hear that and I think one thing I'm I'm thinking about is our our commitment to equity now in HC for example and I'm not trying to belabor this point 58 percent of the students in our HC program are white 3 percent are black.

So if we are committed to equity then in my head we should make sure that the proportion of the number of students whatever race they identify as in our general and our overall population mirrors the population in HC population.

So my question would be.

What families 20 percent of those families in HC that are identified as white which ones are going to give 20 percent more for our black students.

That's okay.

Excuse me.

That is off topic presently.

That is the HC's fully on topic.

I respectfully disagree with you.

Last words folks before we bring this to a vote.

If you go.

Yes real quick.

So I appreciate everything that you're sharing.

My question is when have we from my experience talking with the community in District 7 when have we ever done a good job of bringing them to the table.

What makes us think that we're going to be able to do that now.

Yet we have a program that works directly with those communities and has a proven track record of serving similar communities that are in District 7. Similar communities that are furthest away from educational justice.

To me it feels as though it's not a conversation of the cart or the horse.

At this point it feels like we're just pushing it.

And I know and I appreciate the policy coming from the U.S.

Department.

I understand that there are levels to this but at the same time This district, and this issue, and these students, this whole thing is on fire in a big way.

It is.

And we're sitting here, and we're all wanting the same thing.

But who's going to throw the first bucket of water?

Who's going to do something about it?

Needs to be us.

I got put in this position to do something about it.

And it might not be perfect.

Oh, we know it's not perfect.

This process hasn't been far from it.

But we have an opportunity in front of us to do something about it.

Just like those kids at the NAACP Youth Coalition asked me the other day, what are we actually doing?

Here is an opportunity to actually do something.

Let's get it done.

Roll call please on the amendment.

Director Burke.

No.

Director DeWolf.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Hersey.

Yes.

Director Mack.

No.

Director Harris.

No.

This motion is not passed with a vote of 3 to 3.

He left the meeting about 40 minutes ago on the phone.

OK let's do any conversation about the underlying student assignment transition plan.

Comments questions concerns.

Director Geary.

It's not sour grapes that I'm voting no for this.

I'm going to reiterate again I'm voting no because I think when this student assignment transition plan created the pathway for Decatur in District 3 it did a disservice to my elementary schools and then to direct that pathway up to Jane Addams middle school and away from Eckstein middle school did a disservice to my district's middle school.

It took unnecessarily took students out of elementary schools that are able to serve their needs by and large and created a cohort that has funneled resources that are important to my district's elementary schools away from them and away from their middle school.

And so I didn't vote for it before and I won't vote for it now.

Thank you for your candor and no one would suggest the sour grapes.

So you didn't have to ramp that up.

Director Burke.

I have a question for staff that I had shared earlier today.

We had some communication from the community.

This is around our dual language immersion and our proportion of heritage speakers.

I'm proud to say that you know which currently the policy indicates 15 percent of the student assignment transition plan indicates the 15 percent set aside.

It has been requested through the dual language immersion task forces to that it's in our our equity commitment that the higher we get that the better.

And there is a target of 30 percent.

When we were conversing about impacts specifically to the Green Lake Elementary assignment there was concern that going as high as 30 percent could have adverse impacts on Green Lake.

Since that time my understanding is that researching the John Sanford elementary school is currently composed of 38.3 percent heritage speakers and so I just wanted to acknowledge and also confirm if that is a legitimate number.

Not so much because I want to try to create another amendment but I just want to have as part of the record an acknowledgement that we should be able to increase that number in subsequent years.

And you know potentially even as high as 30 40 50 percent.

And you speak to that.

So our dual language program manager has gone out to visit with all the principals to sort of assess where they all are in terms of language and heritage language.

And so he's gathering all that data.

I don't believe we have all that data with us right now.

We don't have it.

So he's actually going out.

And I think, to be honest, the state of Washington, actually, the ideal model is 50-50, just to state that out there as a gap-closing measure for ELs and bilingual students.

However, the goal for now is to raise it up to 20% is what we have written in the plan.

I don't have the exact number for John Stanford's, so.

Thank you.

Well just as part of the record and for future board directors when this comes up next year and I guess also as a request to staff to take a really good look at our student assignment and how we can optimize these models to run at a 50 50 ratio and what's our pathway to get there.

Thank you.

Other comments questions concerns Director Hersey.

Quick question.

So this is me learning this process.

If this were to pass and I'm speaking specifically from the dual language immersion piece that I've raised questions for before.

If this were to pass tonight is there still the opportunity to amendment.

or to amend it just in case there is some type of change that gets brought forward because I know those conversations are still in play and I'm still learning some pieces about that and another person brought it up tonight.

Which conversations are you referring to I'm trying to get context.

Sorry sorry sorry sorry.

So maybe this is out of place now that I'm thinking about it but I'm talking about the dual language immersion program that is placed at Beach.

This is within the student assignment transition plan.

Correct.

That is correct.

I have questions out that are still being answered about that program from the district.

I'm wondering if I get that information back.

Is there still an opportunity to change it after we approve this now if we were to approve this now rather.

Ms. Davies the timeline on when the student assignment transition plan for being adopted before the open enrollment happens is it it needs to be passed by January.

Is that right?

That is correct.

So by January or in January.

Can we be specific.

So it would need to be Ashley Davies director of enrollment planning.

It would need to be approved by January.

Last year we ended up approving the plan.

It was probably January 31st.

I think it was happened to fall that are.

I know at least one of the more recent years it fell that late and part of the reason why We've been looking to these dates for operations committee as well as intro and action is so that we could have this board determine any changes to our student assignment transition plan.

If you are talking about potential changes to a pathway even if we did recommend something that would go forward to the board in January we would have to think about is now to January sufficient engagement to make any changes.

that we haven't been discussing.

So the timeline just I mean to kind of pile on to that so thank you for that and clarifying that part the timeline for The conversations around some of these really big things is a is a it's a long runway because for example the conversation about Licton Springs and moving it that had to get delayed.

You know we delayed Maple and all of that by a year.

So we actually had the engagement and had the conversations that needed to be had because we can't just it's really it doesn't work well when we slam things through.

So as operations chair and with staff really tried hard with the student assignment plan to get clarity on what the recommendations were going to be early on so that we have.

OK.

This is what staff thinks can happen this year.

We you know we had multiple early on conversations.

We had work session.

So when we are here at this stage of voting on it it does make it difficult if we wanted to revisit the conversation about the pathway this year.

The alternative is potentially we could send it back to committee have further conversation it leaves the entire thing open still.

might answer the question from the constituents that posed it to me.

So my perspective was just trying to create a record in my own understanding of what does this look like especially going forward.

So I appreciate that.

I appreciate that clarification.

I have a question which may be applicable for for Council Narver around if this if should this go to a vote and not pass.

Could it be revisited at a subsequent meeting, or once something is not passed, it has to come back to a committee and see substantial revisions?

I'm speaking from this mindset of, it's very important that we pass the student assignment transition plan.

And I want to understand the ramifications of that.

If if this plan doesn't pass tonight then what we have in place is the unamended one from last year correct?

Yeah.

So in turn we've already spoken of the possible need since the amendment on since amendment number one failed we've still talked about the possibility if we can get the JOA in place needing to move quickly there would be an opportunity then to revisit the student assignment transition plan so that the board can make that decision then presumably the cart would be behind the horse at that point so that that could be revisited.

So I think voting no tonight although it puts us in the position of having no changed plan for next year doesn't preclude further board action on it.

And I would remind directors of our ill-fated history of co-locating Licton Springs with a comprehensive middle school.

And how that worked out and how that happened from this dais at this late date.

And we have paid for it ever since.

And it's embarrassing and it's painful.

Director Mack.

To that point two years ago when we didn't pass the student assignment transition plan there were a couple of things that kind of needed to happen and didn't happen that we had put in there.

Fundamental as what we've got in the student assignment transition plan now I mean we are literally moving Licton Springs to another building.

That's a you know the geo zones and there's quite a bit of stuff in here that we've already had lots of conversations staff is recommending the board agrees the community agrees we need to move on it.

So if we didn't pass a student assignment transition plan we have major problems around those issues and so I'd really encourage that we not.

vote it down tonight.

If folks feel like they need to keep it open and that there's a chance that something needs to happen that I would recommend that it get moved back to committee for further consideration as opposed to voting it down because voting it down is not good.

And I apologize for the late review.

For some reason I thought since we had been talking for a couple of years about moving the May 31st date back to April or March to give enrollment more time to work with.

I thought that was included.

Reading it this afternoon I did not see that.

Does that assist us in getting more accurate enrollment projections if we move the option school back from May 31st say to March 30th.

Does that help us substantially because I've heard over the years that waiting until May 31 to close it up makes it difficult to get good numbers.

And then we get crunch for time in the summer and we have bandwidth issues in terms of real projections and waitlist issues.

So in terms of that timeline we are ultimately producing our initial enrollment projections in February that end up going to budget so that they can allocate staffing appropriately based off our initial projections to schools.

So March 31st wouldn't help with that timeline.

One of the things we have talked about over the years though is just that.

As we are able to close that school choice period that just allows principals and schools to be able to plan better for the coming school year right now as you mentioned school choices open until May 31st.

And we do have families who are making choices at the last minute and then we've talked about the fact that schools are having to determine with their BLT what their staffing is going to look like how they're utilizing staff.

And so those changes that happen later on in the school year then result in again less ability for the schools to be able to plan earlier.

and or to work with their BLT which is engagement.

And if we're off on our projections and we get our numbers in on March end of March instead of end of May doesn't that give us more flexibility in terms of retaining teachers etc.

Because don't we have to give riff notices in mid-May.

Here she comes.

Dr. Clover Codd chief of H.R.

So that decision about March 31 versus May 31 does not actually impact the May 15th deadline because we've already made decisions based on the February projections.

So the February projections then determine the budgets that go out to the schools.

The schools work with their BLT and staff and that is what determines staffing for the next year in terms of the May 15th deadline.

It's those decisions are already made by March 31st or May 31st.

That.

I will tell you this is as clear as mud to me.

I'll come back next year.

I thought that we had incorporated it.

The chair of operations will probably hurt me if I push this through the second.

Well you already warned me.

That's good.

We love each other.

We're a team.

The second question I have is on number two where we talk about This the transition plan continues mostly assignment rules in effect during 2019 20. Some highlights and changes are and I sent this out this afternoon for the heads up updating advanced learning assignment language and tiebreakers to reflect the fact that all schools offer AL programming and eligible students will be assigned to AL at their attendance area schools.

I think that's a real debatable point and I want to make a record that we called it out and I really question whether we really want to leave that particular piece in.

Director Mack.

I too share concern around the language because the confusion and the statement that we're making that advanced learning services are available or advanced learning is available at every school is hotly debated when we have schools that don't have even walk to math or there's like what it is is not clarified.

So having that language in there is a little but I But I'm not sure how to rectify it.

It's just it's just it's it's a little concerning that we're making a statement that I'm not sure is accurate.

The conversation came up when we looked at data regarding all the students that choose to go in their neighborhood schools.

Right.

And so we have students who choose to go to their neighborhood schools if students choose to go to their neighborhood schools and they then the services are provided through that school.

That is one of the why we have the designation or most of our students actually are going to other schools besides the pathway schools that we have.

And we have that data.

Yes.

And that's the other part just kind of one more part it is required by law that they be served.

That language that she's referring to is for spectrum slash advanced learning not highly capable.

So that is part of where I'm concerned around the language is the confusion of advanced learning and highly capable.

Those are two.

Things that intermix better get confusing.

And so when we have a statement that literally says advanced learning in all schools and people confuse it with highly capable that reading this document as a layperson in the future is going to be problematic.

I don't know how to fix that because I understand the intent behind the language.

I think what — Director Harris — I'm just trying to make a record here.

Do we have any other comments questions concerns if not roll call please.

Roll call please.

Director Burke aye Director DeWolf can you pass Director Geary no Director Hersey aye Director Mack aye Director DeWolf abstain Director Harris aye.

This motion has passed with a vote of 4 to 1 to 1.

Thank you.

D1 introduction items and I want to remind folks that we are at 955 and we have an executive session in anticipation of litigation after this meeting.

Intro item 1 approval of southeast elementary attendance area boundary changes in 20 — 20 21 and 21 22. I got to read it into the record.

Sure sure.

Go for it.

Ops October 3rd for consideration approval of this item would approve scenario G for the Maple Rising Star and Dearborn Park elementary attendance areas beginning in 2020 21 and for the Rising Star and Wing Luke elementary attendance areas beginning in 21 22. approved grandfathered assignments with transportation for K-4 students enrolled in Maple and Rising Star in 2019 20 through the 2024 25 school year and direct the superintendent to take any appropriate action to implement this decision.

This has been updated since intro 10 16 19. Can you tell us about what has been.

updated.

So what's before when we submitted the intro we actually left the recommendation for the map off the original plan.

We submitted all the maps we put them online.

We've engaged with families over time.

We've done several engagement sessions throughout the southeast region.

We've done them in schools we've had a work group we've done various things we've compiled all that data.

We've sent it to the board.

The superintendent and the cabinet had access to that data as well.

And through looking at that data we're coming forward with a recommendation to move forward with map G.

And because we're creating a record and folks are watching on Channel 26 and TV land.

How strong is that recommendation?

from the other options that were put forward because we've heard a lot of public testimony about this as well.

Yes and right.

And the majority when you looked at all the data regarding all of the submissions throughout so talk and everything it's the preponderance of suggestions showed a clear through line.

Now of course the families of Georgetown there's many of them that were in dissent but from other areas.

But there was actually some Georgetown families that actually were in agreement as well.

Mack.

Director Mack.

One question about the clarification around the recommendation for grandfathering.

And my first question is we did get an email from.

Someone in the neighborhood who doesn't have children yet in the school but in the boundary and just realizing that they're finding out that they are impacted by this.

And we've had this situation in many years past where I know we engage with a direct school community but in fact the neighborhood doesn't know what's going on or they didn't they don't get notified that the process is happening.

Did we have any sort of communication out or notification to the people impacted by the boundary changes the houses or did we only have communication going through school communities?

We had it go through school communities through the webs through the e-mails through the e-mail chains we've used the variety of ways we communicate that we typically would for specifically targeting the southeast region in these areas.

But you're asking in terms of, so that would require a different type of engagement, right, in terms of a citywide blast, which we typically have not done.

Yeah and just for clarification for the record that it's not something that is done and has been done in the past and it does leave a gap in terms of people that live in those boundaries that are having their kids you know expecting them to move in next year.

How would we know what that gap is?

Where would we get those e-mails?

I mean that is such a glacial issue.

You hire a political polling firm that sends junk mail to your house because they target

We did not hire a political polling firm to do any of that.

Just saying.

Any other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Hersey please.

I just wanted to extend a huge thank you to both of you for doing the immense amount of community engagement that you did with this process.

Thank you very much.

I think that we need to replicate that model and use it for everything else because you really did go the distance and I appreciate it.

Ashley Davies is a rock star.

Yes she is.

Thank you.

She's absolutely a rock star.

I also wanted to say that I took the time to walk with several families throughout this process in various parts of District 7. And I it is unfortunate the way that the Georgetown community in so many ways was characterized as a group of white parents who were advocating for a specific way.

And I think that.

it needs to be said that there are so many different types of communities experiencing so many different variations of trauma and that characterization was unfair and we as a community need to do a better job of being in the same space and actually seeing each other and not letting false narratives bubble to the top in order to make decisions in the interest of specific interests.

So just wanted to put that out there.

This meeting is adjourned at 10 p.m.

We are adjourning for executive session anticipation of litigation.

We expect it to last 10 minutes.

If we need more time we'll come in here and yell at the empty room.