Dev Mode. Emulators used.

Seattle Public Schools Board Meeting, November 16, 2016 Part 3

Publish Date: 11/22/2016
Description: Seattle Public Schools
SPEAKER_14

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you Director Patu.

One of the curses of being one of the last speakers to speak or one of the last board members to speak is a large portion of your audience has left and also that many of my colleagues have already said things that I would say so I will just reiterate my appreciation for the Van Asselt music makers, a fabulous performance and Julia who left but she represented our high school very well.

I got a chance to thank Tom Aaron personally but I wanted to publicly thank him as well for his leadership of the news effort over many years now.

He has been a stalwart and very smart and very charismatic leader of that effort and a million plus public school students in Washington State are beneficiaries of his energy and effort so I wanted to publicly appreciate him for that.

I also, thanks to Director Geary for comments about safe for students.

I've been appalled to read love stories sent in the last week or so since the election happened of mistreatment of primarily of students of color and people of color as well as our LGBT citizens as a result of the election and beyond finding that unconscionable it said to me that we need to figure out a way to do as citizens of this great union to stand in solidarity with those victims and that we actively say that it's not okay to target our fellow citizens.

I think that's going to be so critical because I fear that the genie is out of the bottle and there is lots of opportunity for that kind of unpatriotic and just miserably wrong behavior in our society and I think grandma you say all the time if you are not a part of the solution then you are a part of the problem.

And I believe very strongly that we need to be part of the solution and we aren't a part of the solution if we don't take action.

So I encourage everybody that cares about kids to ensure that they have safe passage to our schools, that while they are in our schools they are treated safely and that their parents and families and all other citizens of the United States are treated safely.

On the subject of boundaries.

I just want to say that I appreciate all the comments I've heard from folks that have come to testify today.

They have been enlightening and all issues that we want to consider.

I think the issues that we've heard around the dais today in addition to the fact that we have this huge looming budget deficit.

caused me to reflect a little bit on some of the what I call the lens that I want to look through these decisions with and I should share that.

In my mind I believe that we need to look at all of the decisions and all of the amendments.

A few lenses, one of them is particularly given the fact that we are dealing with a huge budget deficit, the potential for a huge $70 million budget deficit.

that if the consequence of the amendment is to cost the district more money then that should be something that should be factored into any of these changes.

And I believe that some of the amendments have that potential.

Additionally, I think that we should continue to use our strategic planning process that says that equity is one of our core principles and that we should evaluate the amendments through that lens as well.

And then finally and not least importantly what is best for student learning?

I know that a number of different transitions that students face as they move from school to school in the best educational interest of students and so that is something that we need to factor in.

All of that said these are tough decisions that we have to make and as the district is growing and we are getting more students come to our schools we recognize that we also don't have capacity in many of the areas where we are growing.

And so that necessitates making tough choices and some of those choices may fall on individual families in different ways in what is perceived to be an inequitable way and I think we have to mitigate against that but also recognize that regardless of the school that a student may be assigned to we are aspiring to make sure that all of our schools are great schools.

And so it may feel uncomfortable in the moment.

I've talked to many parents over time that got moved from one school to another, their students got moved from one school to another and they reported over time that they had a fabulous experience at that school.

and you know may have been glad that they actually were assigned to a school.

So my hope is that we can look through all of the amendments and the motion that is before us, soon to be before us through a lens of a systemwide lens and looking at each individual piece but also reflecting on what impact it has on the system as a whole.

And finally I will end my remarks by saying that I appreciate the work that our staff has done.

It is an immense amount of work as I look at all the documents that have been sent to us.

I am so impressed by the amount of work that our staff has done and I feel some sense of responsibility to honor their work by providing as much support as possible as we are looking at these amendments.

That said, I'd like to thank everybody.

My next community meeting has not yet been set.

It will be sometime in December and I'm looking forward to meeting with anyone who comes to visit.

SPEAKER_14

I would like to say thank you to Julia Jackson for sharing her comment about her school and just being pleasant here to share with us.

I also would like to acknowledge the native groups who came tonight to let us know how important education is for them and for their children and the struggle they have been going through.

We are hoping that we can go ahead and look at that and I know they have been coming down here for many times and letting us know that they would like to get a school for their Native American students and maybe something we can look at.

I also would like to say a sincere and humble thank you to the National Education Support Professional Day because we know for a fact that those Employees are the ones that actually does the job that a lot of us do not want to do and they pay attention and they are the ones that are watching our kids, making sure that our kids are being fed, making sure that they are taken care of.

So I really, my hat out to them for today.

And also would like to welcome to Crowe, I am excited to see our tech moving forward.

I have a lot of problems with tech so hopefully you can resolve my problems.

And I'd also like to thank Mr. A Horn for your great presentation he's not here but actually you know I've been following McCleary for a while but he actually made it very clear what McCleary was all about for me tonight so I really appreciate it because I hear people talk about it all the time I try to follow but he made it very very clear what's happening and what we're doing to hopefully to make sure that it becomes a reality.

I also want to Thank the staff who has been working diligently with a lot of the boundaries.

I mean I looked at that, that is the most commitment I have ever seen and I really appreciate the staff that is working on boundary for your patience and continue on to answer questions that needed to be answered.

And I also wanted to say thank you to the Van Asselt music makers.

and the young man that made his own instruments he's going to be very famous one day.

I've never seen anybody who made so many instruments that actually plays so hopefully keep it up and Hoping to see you in the future being successful and actually being an instrument maker.

And thank you so much for being here and also I would like to kind of, one of the speakers actually brought up the Indian heritage program which we voted, the board voted in 2013 that when the new school opens, ECO staff opens that there will be space in there for the Indian heritage program.

So I hope that is not has changed.

I heard this you know the speaker talk about it tonight and it kind of gave me a remind me we did vote on that and we made a promise that once that school is open that there will be a space for the Indian heritage program.

That is something I will check into and make sure that it is followed through because that was already voted on by the board and it should be honored.

And I want to clarify on the boundaries and everything else in your mind.

We always love to hear from you and let us know exactly what we are doing and what we are not doing.

And sometimes we don't do what we are supposed to do but we thank you for reminding us and we are doing our best to be able to provide all our children the best education we can.

And I know for a fact that most of us up here are here because of the kids.

With all our students We have no business being here.

That's the whole purpose why we're up here because we want to make sure that every student that is in the Seattle Public School receive that excellent education that we promised them that we will give them.

So thank you so much for reminding us what our purpose is and why we're up here and continue on to remind us because that is your purpose and our purpose is to be able to do what we can to make sure that everything goes accordingly.

So now we are going to move on to the next part of our ongoing items and our first action item will be authorization to comment on salary and contract discussion.

Approval of this item would authorize directors Blanford and Harris to engage in contract discussion with Superintendent Nyland for the 2016-17 fiscal year and report back to the board with introduction and act December 7, 2016 legislative session.

in this item and action at this meeting.

SPEAKER_11

One moment please.

SPEAKER_02

There we go.

SPEAKER_09

All right.

Thank you.

And that's your concession.

Let's just get that page.

And we're going to start right there.

Number one.

OK.

SPEAKER_05

All right I apologize for the delay.

I move that the board authorize directors Blanford and Harris to A, engage in contract discussions with Superintendent Nyland for the 2016-17 fiscal year and B, report back to the full board with introduction and action at the December 7, 2016 legislative session.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

SPEAKER_06

I second the motion.

SPEAKER_14

Is there any questions or comments on this item?

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

I just want to publicly thank my colleagues Director Harris and Director Blanford for their work as board representatives.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments?

Okay seeing none Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Motion passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_14

Okay authorization for lawsuit November 3rd for approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to take necessary actions to resolve the damages brought forward by plaintiffs in the amount of $315,000 which would include the execution of a settlement agreement.

SPEAKER_05

This item is for introduction and action.

I authorize the superintendent to take the necessary actions to resolve the claims for damages brought by plaintiff in her lawsuit King County Superior Court case number 15-2-12565-6 SEA in the amount of $315,000 which would include the execution of a settlement agreement that contains a waiver and release of all claims.

To eliminate additional expenses, remove the case from the judge's docket and gain finality, immediate action is in the best interest of the court.

SPEAKER_14

Any questions or comments from the board?

I see none.

Ms. Harris.

SPEAKER_06

Actually I see that general counsel has stepped to the podium and I would very much appreciate an explanation as I'm sure the viewers at home and the folks here in the room would appreciate and I would like to see us focus on lessons learned, risk management if this case went to a jury trial and what the mediator had to say.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_16

Yes good evening Noel Treat General Counsel.

As you may recall this matter was discussed in an executive session previously.

This arises from a lawsuit on a personnel matter.

It was scheduled for trial in November.

We thought it was a case where we should look at settlements so we did go to mediation.

Coming out of mediation the parties were still fairly far apart so we asked the mediator for his opinion of what an appropriate settlement would be.

He recommended $315,000.

The parties ultimately agreed to that number subject of course to board approval.

I think we did have some lessons learned that we can talk further about I think in maybe another executive session because there are still other personnel matters that may have similar issues that we want to deal with.

But in the end the risks and costs of going to trial we think way in favor of approving this settlement agreement.

So that is my recommendation to you.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments?

Questions?

Seeing none Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_14

Third item 2016-17 legislative agenda.

Executive October 6 for consideration approval of this item would adopt the 2016-17 legislative agenda.

SPEAKER_05

I move that the school board adopt the 2016-17 legislative agenda as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

SPEAKER_14

Any questions, comments?

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_05

I have a comment.

Regarding the wording of one of our, one of the points in this document, it was brought to my attention that when we talk about, well this is specifically where we ask about good teaching and fair salaries that perhaps our language is a little too focused.

Right now the language says good teaching, fair salaries, adequate classrooms and class sizes are all needed to close opportunity gaps for our neediest learners.

And that is true but the suggestion has been made and I remember thinking about this when this came before us.

should we not also say and are in the best interest of all of our students.

In other words we talk about all of these things are the requests that we are making and we are focusing on our neediest students but we are also acknowledging that these are good things for all of our students.

And so are we satisfied with the current language or would we want to add that just those added words at the end to address more students.

SPEAKER_06

If you made such a motion I would vote for same.

SPEAKER_08

I find myself wondering where exactly are you looking at?

SPEAKER_05

It's in the summation.

SPEAKER_14

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

An amendment to add and would benefit all of our learners or students would be fine by me.

SPEAKER_05

Okay then what I would propose is adding the language after for our neediest learners and are in the best interest of all of our students.

Okay.

SPEAKER_06

Leslie you said you.

I second the motion.

SPEAKER_02

Okay.

SPEAKER_14

Any discussion?

Seeing no discussion, Ms.

SPEAKER_05

Ritchie.

Oh I should probably read the motion now as amended correct?

SPEAKER_00

You need to take a vote on the amendment first and then you would read it as amended.

SPEAKER_05

Director Geary.

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Patu.

SPEAKER_14

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

The motion to amend is passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_14

Okay you want to read the motion.

Dr. Pinkham.

SPEAKER_17

I also want to hopefully discuss around the issue and clarification for the people in the audience and those watching.

The one phrase that says allow school districts to have parity with higher education institutions regarding local land ordinances.

If we can provide hopefully some clarification on that request.

SPEAKER_07

Flip Herndon associate superintendent of facilities and operations.

Currently the Seattle Public Schools has been in some disagreement with the authority of the local landmarking in order to impose some restrictions on our abilities to maximize our land and our buildings.

So what we are looking at is currently the University of Washington is exempt from local landmarking and that is what we are looking to have basically is parity with the University of Washington.

SPEAKER_08

Director Blanford.

Are there other school districts that have similar parity with either the University of Washington or other universities?

SPEAKER_07

Well the local landmarking is not universally applied to all school districts.

In order to have local landmarking you would need a local landmarking board and not all municipalities or counties have that so not all school districts are subject to that.

Seattle school district is by far and away the most impacted by this.

We have 33 of our buildings currently landmarked which is highly restrictive of how we are able to develop and I believe also restricts the school board's ability to make financial decisions based on that.

So you are not able to maximize the dollars in which we get from taxpayers.

SPEAKER_14

Director Harris.

Oh I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

SPEAKER_08

So I understand the complexity of landmarking in the sense that on the one hand we want to be as efficient as possible with the dollars that we have and sometimes the landmarking of buildings makes it much more difficult for us to renovate, for us to construct.

But there is also something, there is also a benefit that comes with landmarking.

recognizing the historical nature of buildings which for many citizens in Seattle they frequently come forth and share you know an appreciation for historical aspects of those buildings.

So are we moving too far in the other direction with the idea of going with the standard that the University of Washington has?

SPEAKER_07

I don't think so and the reason why is because again just because we would not be subject to local landmarking doesn't mean we are going to raise every single building that we come upon.

Certainly we do understand the historical benefits that we've had of each of these locations, the historical record that we have on each location but several of the buildings are not in very good shape.

And when you landmark it becomes longer, more expensive and more restrictive.

In some cases the design of the buildings are very inefficient.

So we lose a lot of space for classrooms to wider hallways or something else where our students are not actually benefiting in that environment.

So I would say that you know just because we are at that location doesn't mean that we are necessarily going to bulldoze every building that we come upon.

SPEAKER_08

So if I can ask one final question Director Patu.

Go ahead.

And that is so can you explain to us what happens as a result if we are granted this parity what would be the result?

Will we still have to go to a board for landmarking or what happens at that point?

SPEAKER_07

No we wouldn't have to go to the board for landmarking we would still have to go through the city process for all of our building on what we need to do.

There are several things that we avoid by doing this.

One is that any changes that we make to the building we don't have an additional step.

Currently if a building is landmarked anything that we do on that site or to the building not only has to go to the city and through their processes but also through that landmarks board.

There are two areas in which this really impacts us.

One is I will give a recent example of Hamilton Middle School.

So we have had some issues with students getting on the roof of Hamilton Middle School.

They were accessing the roof via the new addition which is where the gymnasium is.

Not a historical landmark site.

When we started to put up features to keep students off there the landmarking board then technically red tagged the building which meant it wasn't to be occupied.

I don't think that's where they really wanted to go but that's where they did go so we halted that particular project.

which in our opinion makes us more vulnerable for students getting up on top of the roof possibly injuring themselves.

The second and again not part of the original landmarking.

The second is any time they are landmarked a building is landmarked and the site is landmarked they also do things like landmark the portables that are on there.

Now I know some of the portables are older than 25 years meeting the benchmark for landmarking but I don't think anyone wants to landmark a portable.

And anytime we need to add portables it is another step to go through the landmarks board to add portables.

So we have to do the same thing at Hamilton this year where we added two double portables on there for one year only at Hamilton middle school but not only did we have to go through the city agency then we have to go through the local landmarking board as well.

SPEAKER_14

Director Geary.

Director Harris.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you.

Thank you Director Geary.

I'm a native of this city and I am more than distressed at some of the architectural abominations that have gone up.

So where is the protection for the soul if you will of our city.

And where is the balance and a place for communities to weigh in if they disagree with your plans if we are not landmarking.

Second question, isn't the University of Washington landmarking issue on appeal?

And third you didn't mention the clay tiles on the portables when you talked about your portables.

to daylight that because to me that is just the definition of insanity.

How much money does this cost us and how much litigation?

SPEAKER_07

millions over the years clearly.

Ultimately what this does is provide the community the opportunity to give you the board the feedback to make these decisions.

That is ultimately where the decision should be made anyway.

So this keeps that within your hands.

It doesn't tie your hands either.

All designs for buildings come through committee ultimately approved by the board.

So nothing is going to go on, it doesn't matter if it is my plan or not.

Ultimately you as the entity of the board will be making those decisions.

If you are hearing a ton of community feedback saying we really like this, we think you should preserve this, we have done some landmarking features where we will do the facade of the building which is fine because quite honestly If you are not going to school in that building there is a very low probability that you are actually going inside the building anymore to witness any of the landmark features like chair rails or blackboards or light fixtures or a water fountain.

These are just a few of the examples of things that have been landmarked.

So that responsibility still rests with you as the board.

That doesn't change at all.

appeal at this point?

I don't know if it is on appeal.

I don't think so.

But I'm not 100% sure.

We can find out and get back to you on that.

SPEAKER_03

Director Harris covered my question in terms of the opportunity for the public to weigh in and our ability to make decisions with regard to any major renovations or the construction on sites that have historical significance to our community.

SPEAKER_17

Yeah and then as we are looking at this and I know for the University of Washington it was their old nuclear engineering building that has already been torn down.

So I don't know what kind of appeal would reverse them making them put that building back up.

But I guess as far as the local landmark and ordinances how does this then possibly prevent some of our schools to become still landmarks?

Then someone why would we go through a troubling landmark in this building if the school district has the authority to bypass it.

SPEAKER_07

So I'm trying to clarify the question so any buildings in the future that haven't been landmarked wouldn't have to go through the landmark process.

You as the board would make the decision on any future renovations.

SPEAKER_17

Okay and I think with this issue has been that yes when a building is landmarked that landmark does sometimes even limit or just even remodeling as I think you've been telling like hallways are landmarked but that seems more the landmark board not necessarily the ordinance correct?

SPEAKER_07

Correct the board ultimately makes the decision on the scope of landmarking that's completed I would say over the past four or five years that scope has become more and more restrictive is what I have seen.

And so many of the buildings that have come up lately have become so.

Lincoln high school being one that has quite a bit of landmarking features on there.

The other is there is also, this clearly does not preclude anything from, I don't know if we would have any buildings that would qualify but there is the national registry of historic places.

For instance Stadium High School down in Tacoma is on the national registry.

There is always the National Historic Landmark Society.

SPEAKER_17

And then this also does say allow school districts, it isn't specifically saying allow Seattle school districts.

SPEAKER_07

Yeah we are speaking for ourselves but not necessarily carving that out.

We just want to make sure that it is school districts and I am sure the other school districts that have had buildings landmarked wouldn't necessarily disagree with us.

SPEAKER_14

Any more questions?

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

For me personally I am loath to add extra layers of bureaucracy to what we do.

But I share Director Harris's concern around what has happened in terms of style of some new construction and that you know favors It looks to me like it favors interior volume and construction time over aesthetic value.

And so I want to be very deliberate that we don't make something at a policy level or go down a path that that in the future should we not be here sharing these concerns that we are putting our city at risk of more of that.

So I would be interested in adding something to our internal process that explicitly replicates aspects of a landmark board so that the school board would be informed by a you know an aesthetic and landmarking style of process.

So if it's not at the city level and it is governed by the board to build that specifically into our project stream so that it's prioritized at a Still at a high level.

SPEAKER_08

Director Blanford.

I opened a can of worms and I didn't mean to open a can of worms.

I recognize fully that we are approving a legislative agenda that has this as an issue and then if we are granted relief by the legislature then we could then have some decisions or discussions about how we would enact that additional discretion that we have right?

Correct.

Okay thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments?

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

I just wanted to comment that in putting together the legislative agenda the staff met several times we also met with our local delegation to talk about these items and what we thought we could advocate for at the state level but that this is not an all-inclusive agenda.

and that we, there are lots of other issues beyond this so I just wanted to make sure that our population understood that it is not just limited to this, these aren't the only things we are going to be advocating for.

but that in being effective you need to have something that is concise, not too many points, speak slowly, clearly, say the same things over and over and then hopefully we can work in some other things as well.

So I look forward to everybody coming out to support public education as we go into our legislative session in a budget year.

Thanks.

SPEAKER_06

Director Harris.

And I think that it bears stating.

that we are doing better at community engagement and there is a number of parent groups that I expect will be holding hands with us.

And I think it also bears stating that between assistant superintendent JoLynn Berge, deputy superintendent Steven Nielsen and Erin Bennett whose title I don't exactly know but Between the three of them and our legislative rep Director Geary I kind of see our lobbying issues as on steroid this next year and with a real depth on our team and I'm very excited about it.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

We are now going to call a vote for 2016-17 legislative agenda as amended.

SPEAKER_05

I move that the school board adopt the 2016-17 legislative agenda as amended as attached to the board action report.

SPEAKER_06

Second the motion as amended.

SPEAKER_05

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Patu.

SPEAKER_14

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

This motion passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_14

Okay our next one is approval of collective bargaining agreements with Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters.

ANF October 13 for consideration.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to execute the 2016-19 collective bargaining agreement with the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters with any minor additions, deletions and modifications as deemed necessary or appropriate and to implement the terms of the agreement.

SPEAKER_05

This motion was discussed at the Audit and Finance Committee meeting on October 13. It was moved to the full board for consideration.

I think the reason it was for consideration is I think there was a change in the amount of money related to that.

Can somebody speak to that?

Or there was something missing?

SPEAKER_00

Clover Codd assistant superintendent of HR.

So I believe the reason for consideration was that this collective bargaining agreement included a salary increase which is retroactive to September 1. we should not be implementing that salary increase until the board has approved of the collective bargaining agreement.

We would then go back after say if you were to approve tonight and go back to September 1 and make sure that the employees are paid the appropriate amount.

A staff member had inadvertently assumed that the board had already agreed to this collective bargaining agreement and in good faith trying to get the carpenters paid their new salary.

The October paycheck for those 18 members included the salary increase from September 1. So that was a total amount of $1048 for all 18 employees.

When we learned about that we stopped, we put a halt Hopefully we will have action tonight and then we will go back and the December payment for the 18 employees will include the October and November back pay for that raise.

SPEAKER_05

I will now officially read the full motion into the record.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute the 2016-19 collective bargaining agreement with the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters in the form attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications as deemed necessary or appropriate and to implement the terms of the agreement including the retroactive salary increases.

The inadvertent payment of $1048 to employees prior to board approval of this agreement is ratified.

SPEAKER_06

I second the motion.

SPEAKER_14

Any questions, comments?

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_08

I will just note that there was extensive conversation about the payment or however we are characterizing it that had not been authorized by the board.

There was extensive conversation about how that happened.

and the mechanisms that have been put into place to assure that that doesn't happen again.

So there is some level of comfort that we shouldn't be seeing this issue again but it is deeply troubling and I think that was conveyed and heard by staff so hopefully we won't be in this situation again.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments or questions?

Thank you.

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Patu.

SPEAKER_14

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

This motion passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_14

Next one repeal of policy D121.00 student activities general standards and regulations.

What is it?

SPEAKER_05

Chair of C&I can you give us a.

That's not the order it's on our page but okay.

Okay I move that the school board repeal policy D121.00 student activities general standards and regulations as it is an outdated policy which is more adequately and specifically addressed in six current school board policies as referenced in the board action report.

SPEAKER_06

I second the motion.

SPEAKER_14

Questions or comments?

Can we ask the chair first to do a report?

SPEAKER_19

Sure briefly this came before C&I a couple of times once for advisory and then for review prior to being moved forward in the October 10 meeting for approval.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Any questions comments on this?

I see none.

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

SPEAKER_14

Director Patu.

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

This motion passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_14

Approval of 2017-18 implementation amendments to 2013-20 growth boundaries plan for student assignment.

SPEAKER_05

I move that the school board amend the 2013-20 growth boundaries plan for student assignment as shown in attachment A to the board action report and direct the superintendent to take any appropriate actions to implement this decision.

Operations.

SPEAKER_11

I second the motion.

SPEAKER_08

This item was heard by the operations committee on September 15 and moved forward for consideration.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Any questions?

SPEAKER_05

Comments?

I have a procedural question and that is in what order should we be addressing some of these.

SPEAKER_16

Good evening again Noel Treat General Counsel.

I was previously asked to give you just a quick reminder on the amendment process given how many amendments you have before you tonight.

So I can do that and as part of that I will make a suggestion about what order you might take them in.

So just as a reminder on the basics you start out by making the main motion of course and then you can make amendments to that motion.

Generally you can make amendment proposals or motions for an amendment in any order that the directors would like.

You have been provided by staff, Nate Van Duzer did a very nice job putting together a sheet for you that sets out each motion, talks about any interdependencies between the motions.

Some of the motions are mutually exclusive so he sets that out there as well.

So for organizational and process purposes you may want to just follow the order set out in the sheet that was provided.

A copy of that was also put on the back table so that the public can access that as well.

That may be what you might want to do in terms of order and then you'll want to note as you go through this again that there are some proposed amendments that are mutually exclusive so you'd want to if you're the proponent of one or the other you'd want to make the one first that you think is the one that you want to see enacted and then see where that goes.

So as you know you will work through the amendments and someone will make a motion to make the amendment.

You then will have your discussion and questions about the amendment.

You then vote on that amendment before you go to the next amendment.

So you work this through with a series of votes amendment by amendment.

And then once you're done with all the amendments that you want to propose and vote on, you then come back and vote on the main motion as amended.

Another question that was presented to me before tonight's meeting was just what about amendments that we aren't going to make or what if a motion for an amendment is made and then we decide we don't want to do it what is the process for that.

So first if there are now motions on this sheet that directors no longer want to make you simply don't make them tonight.

You might make a note if you were one of the sponsors that you aren't going to be making that motion but you don't need to take formal action to pull it off.

the agenda or anything like that.

And then once a motion is made and seconded it is then essentially the motion that is before the full body.

An individual member can't individually then pull that motion, withdraw that motion.

So one process you can use there is if you made the motion and it is seconded and there is discussion and you think people decide the amendment is not a good idea anymore You can ask the chair if you may withdraw the motion, the chair can then say are there any objections from any other members and if there aren't then that proposed motion can be withdrawn.

So that's the process there.

So with all of that any specific questions about that process?

All right good luck.

SPEAKER_06

Stand by.

SPEAKER_16

I did tonight bring my full book of Robert's rules just in case so we are ready.

SPEAKER_14

Harris.

So I would like to actually call upon staff for updates and general contact to the item.

SPEAKER_05

And we are starting with amendment 1A.

SPEAKER_14

I thought he said to follow.

Okay.

SPEAKER_05

I would like to ask Director Harris if she feels we should address her motion first since that would completely change the landscape if that passes tonight.

SPEAKER_06

I don't believe a meteorite is going to hit us.

I do however as I stated in my comments pathways identified with the student assignment plan identified etc. etc.

I made my point.

I thought that there might be an opportunity to drill down and to better synthesize this.

But again I don't see the meteorite coming our way.

I move this motion.

Okay.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_05

And for the record Leslie I do appreciate the thought that went into this and I think that in a perfect world that is how we should be doing things.

So thank you for bringing that perspective to this conversation.

SPEAKER_14

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

I would like to give staff the opportunity to speak to the original motion and if there are any comments or changes since introduction that they would like to speak to.

SPEAKER_20

Hi good evening everyone.

Ashley Davies director of enrollment planning.

So did you want me to go through the original motion and talk about any changes or just mention if there are any changes from the original motion?

Okay so there are no changes from the original motion that was provided at the first introduction that we had in October on October 12. Can I make another comment about the student assignment plan?

So I also did just want to mention for the record that the student assignment plan is going to operations committee tomorrow so while we have been working on the growth boundaries work we have also been having conversations discussions, community engagements around a lot of other program, service and school related changes.

And all those are up on the website right now given that that conversation is happening tomorrow and there are five community meetings scheduled between in December and November to address all the changes in the student assignment plan.

And any outcomes of the growth boundaries conversations that come from tonight's conversation will end up being redlined in the student assignment plan.

SPEAKER_07

One other quick comment.

Even though there have been no proposed changes to the original motion there has clearly been a lot of work going on.

with staff and board directors to try and clarify as much as possible each one of the amendments, the impacts on the amendments.

We certainly appreciate as much of the conversation as possible.

because ultimately we are trying to support as many students and families and minimize the changes.

There is also a lot of work still to be done in the future and we recognize that and I know you recognize that as well.

So we are happy to continue those conversations anything that happens after tonight as well we will work as diligently and as hard as possible to make sure we can implement everything as smooth as possible.

So, I believe we are looking at this, we are going to be looking at one of the transportation piece I know which is kind of a big umbrella that we have been looking at.

SPEAKER_14

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

I just want to take a quick opportunity to thank you because I know after we go through this process we will all be exhausted and a lot of people will have tuned out earlier I know a lot of people probably out in our broader community are paying a lot of attention.

It does mean we have heard or are trying to please everybody but I acknowledge that I have heard from people very specifically and we heard tonight simply alone on amendment number nine how how there are different opinions out there on these amendments as well as I have heard specific requests such as sibling grandfathering that I don't see in these amendments.

And so I don't want anybody to walk away with the perception that we as a board have just tried to you know please everybody who came to us and that it wasn't with thought and it wasn't without some balance as to the limits of what we can do.

And maybe we are exceeding that bound as well.

Maybe this isn't I don't know the capacity crisis that we are facing is big.

And so as we go through this process there will be people at the end of it and there will be families that they will feel very much like their needs of their family weren't met.

And we know that and that we as a whole again I'm going to call for us as a city faced with something big that we have to support one another and that to the extent that any one of our friends, neighbors has not ended up with the outcome that they hoped for in this process that both their prior school situation and their future community recognize that and do everything they can to fold those families into their community and those students into their classrooms.

So I just say that up front before we begin this.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Any more questions, comments before I, I am going to go ahead and just go call out your amendment number and if it is your amendment I would actually like you to read your I would like staff to read their amendment motion to the record and state that they will not move the amendment or what they are going to choose to do.

And that way we can kind of move this along because there is a long list of amendments and we want to get started.

So the first amendment is actually amendment 11.

SPEAKER_05

I move that the school board amend the proposed 2017-18 implementation amendments to the 2013-20 growth boundaries plan to provide transportation to all transportation eligible students in areas where the board has approved grandfathering.

SPEAKER_06

Second the motion.

SPEAKER_14

Can I ask the staff who actually made this recommendation to please?

SPEAKER_08

Staff or board member.

SPEAKER_05

Well it actually was, there was staff support of this.

Well I can speak to it but I can't speak to the specific cost of it.

The point is if we allow grandfathering do we also provide transportation for those students?

And this would say that yes we would and there's lots of good reasons to do that.

SPEAKER_20

Yes so this particular amendment came from assessing the equity factor in whether we were going to grandfather and many of the amendments did involve grandfathering students and part of our analysis and work throughout this process was saying if we were going to grandfather without providing transportation we really weren't and allowing that opportunity for all students so if we were going to grandfather we should provide transportation.

So that was the thought behind that.

SPEAKER_14

Dr. Geary.

SPEAKER_03

Question for clarification so this amendment is if we approve the grandfathering that the transportation comes with it not grandfathering on all the decisions.

On all the movements.

SPEAKER_05

Correct.

SPEAKER_08

Director Blanford.

So I'm unclear why we would consider it first.

SPEAKER_20

So the idea was that the consideration of the cost associated with transportation would be thought around as you consider grandfathering amendments.

So either no grandfathering for anyone and then no transportation would be provided and that would be one way to look at equity and then you would have transportation provided and grandfathering provided and that would be equity in that standpoint.

So the idea was again to think about and factor in that the transportation would be an added cost for any amendments that were passed that required grandfathering.

SPEAKER_08

And so looking at the fiscal impact on this if I'm correct it's I see two numbers $68,000 and then $680,000?

Oh one bus cost $68,000 and so the financial impact of this amendment would be up to $680,000 per year.

SPEAKER_20

depending on which other amendments for grandfathering were approved.

Yes.

SPEAKER_07

Eventually clearly if you have the grandfathering it extends only to the students in that school at that time.

So your cost over time will go down because the students will age out, you will have less of that happening.

There is also many times where if you are doing grandfathering and there is space available on bus routes there you can take advantage of that.

So this is calculating basically the space available as well as additional buses that might be in there.

So for the first year yes 680 after that we would have to figure out how much the impact would be after that but it wouldn't be more than that every year.

It should get less.

SPEAKER_14

Director Harris.

SPEAKER_06

Has the staff put together an analysis for transportation costs for each of the grandfathering motions or have you just given us a big number provided they all pass.

I'm unclear here.

Oh Peggy you knew you were coming up.

Excuse me assistant superintendent.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you assistant superintendent Pegi McEvoy, operations.

So yes as these amendments have been coming through transportation staff have been looking at each individual amendment and doing a cost analysis based on the number of buses that might be required and or routes.

this one is a little tough for us because we don't know what you are going to be grandfathering.

So as you go through and approve your amendments we will let you know what the cost for transportation will be on each amendment.

SPEAKER_14

Dr. Burke.

SPEAKER_19

So as a clarification recognizing that this is an active motion if it were withdrawn and discussed later the individual amendments do not include language about transportation this is global language and so as we were considering individual amendments the amendments have cost ramifications with and without transportation.

I'm not sure was that?

So we would be able to make this decision incrementally and then at the end a final decision of whether or not we provide transportation.

That is correct.

SPEAKER_06

I have a clarification on what you are asking for though.

Are you planning then on splitting up the different scenarios and some people could potentially get transportation costs or not and are we going to pit schools against each other on equity issues?

SPEAKER_19

I would say we are definitely not going to, from my point of view we are not going to pit schools against each other on equity issues.

I am trying to understand from a process point of view we are looking at a big range of numbers that depends on anywhere from I don't know 5 to 11 decisions that we make and then there is a cap that is on top of that where we decide how much extra are we spending to provide transportation to all or not to provide transportation to none.

This is how it is interpreting in my mind but I want to make sure that is correct.

SPEAKER_06

And I have a point of clarification and or a personal privilege.

Assistant Superintendent McEvoy if you have the numbers for each of these amendments could we give those to staff to handwrite them in and go make us copies please.

I'd like to know the ramifications of my vote.

I'd like to know whether or not what's good for one school is going to be good for all schools.

I don't feel like I have enough information to make those decisions without those numbers on the page.

SPEAKER_01

Good evening, Nate Van Duzer Director of Policy and Board Relations.

I want to say that some of that information is in the bars for the individual amendments where it was available at the time.

So I think some additional analysis has been done and staff can point that out when it comes to those amendments.

The idea behind having the transportation discussion first was if you are coming to a grandfathering amendment later a director might base that decision on how much of that particular amendment costs.

And they wouldn't know that if the transportation The cost depends on the decision of the majority of the board.

And so making the policy choice first across the board of saying yes or no to provide transportation allows individual directors to know how much each individual amendment for grandfathering costs.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments?

Because, Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_08

Forgive me.

I am trying to process all of this information in my mind and I am very cognizant of the fact that before we came out here we were in a meeting where we were starting to grapple with a huge deficit of $71 million and those of us who have been paying attention to the finances of Seattle Public Schools for a number of years are very cowed by that number because that number is a lot larger than we have had to grapple with in many many years.

And so I'm trying to understand and process in my mind on one hand I know that grandfathering has equity implications for kids.

I also am aware that grandfathering if you don't provide transportation then it will have inequitable outcomes for lots of our students.

That said, transportation is dollars that we are not, we are not getting adequately funded from the state to start off with so that draws down our bank pretty significantly.

And adding onto a $71 million budget deficit in future years is deeply deeply problematic.

So I'm trying to process all of this in my head in real-time as I'm thinking about the implications of each one of these amendments.

And so thank you, thanks for the information and more is better at this point because what we don't want to do is make decisions without recognizing what the opportunity cost for them will be and I think the opportunity, the financial cost of each one of these decisions we need to know that before we make it.

Right?

SPEAKER_15

JoLynn Berge assistant superintendent for finance.

So when we were looking at costs for all the amendments as they were coming in there were three things that we were looking at.

We were looking at the cost to staff the building and what it costs in additional staffing given the WSS formula that we have currently.

So those costs varied in the model.

but they were running about $200,000 or $300,000.

So my staff had done hours worth of analysis at some point I said stop I don't think, it's not worth going any further into that not knowing what set of amendments was going to pass.

But needless to say none of them taken individually or as a whole were something that alarmed me to that extent.

So there is that cost.

There is the transportation cost.

The transportation cost with the current transportation formula are a one-time The formula is such that they will pay the actual cost that we spend it is just a year delayed.

So we believe given if nothing changes in the formula etc that we would have a one-time outlay in 17-18 for the additional cost for grandfathering.

It could be up to around $600,000 if all of it was taken together worst-case scenario.

third is the capital facility costs for the portables.

So I think that we have a plan for that.

The facility fund while not endless is in a better financial position than the general fund.

So I will say that the one general fund concern that we had was mitigations that typically happen when you have schools that don't have full enrollment.

those are the things that will cost money.

If in fact we get to a situation where a school isn't full and there is mitigation requests that come before the board that could cause us to have significant dollars.

The other things that we are going to talk about in our budget discussions are having fewer dollars to address class size splits or to have mitigation dollars available.

So if you have grandfathering happening and you have larger class sizes or conditions that may cause mitigation requests to be made or class splits to happen there may be fewer dollars to be able to address those things.

SPEAKER_05

Director Peters.

Thank you for that context and background.

But isn't it also true and I don't know if this is a question for you or a question for the facilities staff that if we did none of these amendments we would still be looking at mitigation fees because some of our schools will be under enrolled.

For example I have in front of me the prediction if we do none of the amendments Meany will have 493 students.

Eagle Staff will have 666. Whitman will drop down to 485. So we will be looking at mitigation costs no matter what we do.

Is that not correct?

SPEAKER_07

Yeah I think to some level there will be some mitigation that would be necessary.

We are trying to make sure that we have good educational programming available for all students especially at the middle school for comprehensive middle school.

We did do that for Jane Addams there was a very conscientious choice to make sure there was some mitigation to make sure as they opened that would happen.

And in many of these schools the mitigation may be for the first year or two but then we expect to see the numbers to rise and then as that population comes in then you need fewer mitigation dollars to go along with that.

SPEAKER_05

Thank you for making the point that the mitigation costs would be a short-term or a one-time cost that we would not need to necessarily sustain forever.

SPEAKER_07

Probably not one time but yes larger though in the first year or two and then I mean this is part of anticipating our enrollment growth and the number of students that are bubbling up.

It is so we also don't have to continue to redraw lines year after year or every two or three years that is pretty impactful as well.

So some of these are trying to anticipate but yes mitigation is something that we are going to need to do in some places.

SPEAKER_05

Okay thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments, questions?

Okay we are going to skip over that one and go into 1A and 1B.

SPEAKER_16

Good evening Noel Treat again.

Procedurally probably the right thing to do if you don't want to vote on that motion now would be that the maker of the motion which I think was Director Peters to say that you would like to withdraw it at this time then the chair can ask is there any objection to withdrawal if there is not then it can be considered withdrawn.

That is the right procedure.

And then you can bring it back later in whatever form you want.

SPEAKER_05

Okay and what is the correct procedure to find out if people would like to vote on it now?

SPEAKER_16

You could just ask that question and people can weigh in and you can decide whether you want to withdraw or not that would be acceptable also.

SPEAKER_03

I am comfortable going ahead with this now.

SPEAKER_05

Okay.

All right let's go ahead with the vote.

Ms.

SPEAKER_14

Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

No.

SPEAKER_10

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion passed 6-1.

SPEAKER_14

Right our next one is Amendment 1A and 1B.

Grandfather current area 41 and 44 students to Green Lake.

Retained area 41 and 44 in Green Lake.

1A and 1B are mutually exclusive and the board can choose to adopt neither or one but not both.

Okay questions, comments?

SPEAKER_19

Hang on just a second let me grab my amendment.

I would like to make a motion for amendment 1B and I move that the school board amend the proposed 2017-18 implementation amendments to the 2013-2020 growth boundaries plan to retain areas 41 and 44 in the Green Lake attendance area.

and direct staff to engage the community regarding potential boundary adjustments between Green Lake Elementary and BF Day prior to approval of any changes for boundaries in the 2018-19 school year.

I second.

Dr. Peters.

SPEAKER_05

Since 1B and 1A are mutually exclusive are you withdrawing 1A?

Just a point question of clarity.

SPEAKER_19

I could speak in general to the motion and the philosophy.

1A represents a a shift in two geographic areas that the Green Lake community was enthusiastically supporting maintaining those areas as part of their community.

And recognize the impact to their building but also recognize the adverse consequences of losing those families.

1B It reflects a little bit larger challenge which is that the Green Lake school sits in an attendance area that also contains two option schools, two international schools.

And these schools have unique enrollment situations where once you get to the higher grades they can't add students.

They also are capped and so any sort of overflow from these international schools goes to Green Lake Elementary.

So it's kind of a double whammy that they have a formula that or a situation that doesn't fit well with our formulas.

And one of the things that I had heard from the community and I know has been discussed between staff and building leadership as well is the idea of adjusting boundaries such that John Stanford international school to the south of Green Lake is considered in the attendance area for BF day.

And this is not something that as a director who talks about minimizing disruption that I would want to do last minute from the dais but it really affects how the students are assigned and how the families interact in that region.

It is since that is what I consider a major assignment area shift for Green Lake that doing one shift this year and another shift next year has the feeling of a double whammy.

And so if we are looking at that for next year it feels to me like we should look at this for next year also so that we are looking holistically at the whole school situation.

So that was the philosophy behind amendment 1B and to understand the impact of it and get the discussion going and then if there is not support for it then we could consider amendment 1A.

Did that address the question?

SPEAKER_05

Yes thank you.

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

I think it is also important to note that BF Day is one of our schools that actually can take more students and so that ultimately we probably will be looking at moving students in that direction.

As Director Burke pointed out the two option schools we may want to look at them in terms of maximizing the use of that space to handle capacity issues which I think we wouldn't do in this portion of our decision-making but in the student enrollment plan or assignment plan.

So again it's that what order do you do things in?

The grandfathering would mean that families going into 41 and 44 would experience the change and so they potentially would have to be flipped back should we decide to move them back into Green Lake.

And between 41 and 44 we are just, we are pushing them from one overcapacity school into two other overcapacity schools.

And so all of those things were factored in in coming up with this particular amendment seeing that this is truly one that with more planning there could be future change to these families and going back to Director Burke's point that we don't want to be flip-flopping them.

And I note 1B doesn't have a transportation impact.

SPEAKER_20

Hi I just wanted to make a few comments in regards to some of the points that were raised.

I know that some questions around the option school enrollment have come up in particular to Green Lake given the fact that they do have two option schools within their attendance area.

Green Lake in particular has a very large attendance area.

Probably one of our largest at the elementary school level.

So we had actually been having conversations amongst district staff and leadership around increasing the class size at our option schools back to the contractual maximum.

So for this year we had brought all those class sizes down in line with McCleary.

But given our capacity challenges and some of the points raised and thinking about the impact that that has on not only our attendance area schools that have a lot of capacity issues but also our option schools that are looking to maintain viable cohorts as students age up.

We are going to be moving forward with bringing our option schools back to the class size maximums for the 17-18 school year.

So those were conversations that we were trying to be really thoughtful around, think about the impacts.

That communication just went out to option school principals today.

There will be a communication that will go out in our principal communicator tomorrow going out to all school leaders.

And then we will be having a tailored letter that will be going out to all families.

There will also be communication on the enrollment and admissions webpages to explain to families as they go through open enrollment the changes that we are looking at for the upcoming year.

SPEAKER_14

Director Harris.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you for that explanation.

But that is brand-new news.

And since that hasn't been vetted yet and considered by members up here that have to make these extraordinarily difficult votes, it makes me wonder what else is behind the curtain that we don't know about that is going to bite us in the backside.

I think we are doing a pretty good job of synthesizing all the information that comes through and reading it and asking questions but you just threw a curveball at us.

Not you personally Ashley Davies but the system did.

And that hurts.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments?

So we are going to vote on 1B.

Ms. Ritchie roll call for 1B.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_05

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Patu.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

This motion passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_14

Does that mean that we cancel 1A?

Okay I just want to make sure.

Okay our next amendment is amendment 2. retain area 45 in Eckstein.

Can the director who actually has this amendment, go ahead Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

This is amendment two.

I move that the school board one, amend the proposed 2017-18 implementation amendments to the 2013-2020 growth boundary plan to retain area 45 within the Eckstein middle school attendance area.

And to direct staff to note where appropriate in the upcoming 2017-18 student assignment plan that this area would be an exception to the rule that an elementary school attendance area feeds into a single middle school attendance area.

I will second that.

SPEAKER_14

Any comments or questions on this item?

SPEAKER_03

I have a question.

I think of where attendance area 45 is which is rather north in terms of the Green Lake Elementary attendance area and thinking that these students were being directed down to Hamilton and so I see on the transportation impact that this will require an additional bus but I'm trying to wonder why it would require any more busing than to send those students down to Hamilton which appears to be farther away from them than Eckstein.

So if I could get some clarification on that.

SPEAKER_04

I will do the best that I can and it sounds to me like I should have had a router here with me to explain all of these.

The estimate here was because of a length of time for routes and as you know there is a couple of things that factor into the required buses.

Part of them have to do with the length of route that would happen.

My recollection from the work with the transportation staff was because of the way the routes are actually developed that we would have to add an additional bus because we can't have anybody on a bus for over 60 minutes.

That's my best recollection at this point for why they had recommended that we would need an additional bus if we did this option.

SPEAKER_14

Anymore questions comments on this item?

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

I brought this amendment because this 45 is much closer to Eckstein has historically been routed to Eckstein middle school.

and that I believe that this amendment was made in large part to get to that idea that our elementary schools will all feed into one middle school but in this particular case they are being routed to one of our most overcapacity middle schools and away from a middle school that actually can handle the capacity of this this population.

This population also very much has expressed a desire to stay within its historical assignment or enrollment pathway.

And so I thought that this was one that just made sense in terms of getting away from the idea that we would be transporting a large group of students in the traffic feeder pathway down to a school that is already over capacity.

So that is in large part the thought behind this amendment.

SPEAKER_08

Director Blanford.

So I am wondering if staff can talk about the opportunity cost associated with this particular amendment.

Do you understand my question?

SPEAKER_20

I think so.

I will take a stab.

So there are actually only 24 students who are impacted by the change in this particular area and we did receive feedback from both families who have students in elementary school at Green Lake and at the middle school level at Eckstein.

And so again the original recommendation from staff to move that area into Hamilton was so that we have alignment with our elementaries feeding into our middles and essentially the recommended plan that went to the board from the beginning had all of our elementaries feeding within their particular respective middle schools and that's also the way we align many of our program and service offerings and that's as we think about the link schools chart and the services again in programs that are provided to students in particular areas.

So as we think about the highly capable cohort pathways special education.

The number of students in this area is small so the impact wouldn't be large and I do understand that there are very valid points around the fact that those families are already currently attending Eckstein and they are closer.

SPEAKER_07

If I could also just make a point about Hamilton middle school because it will probably come up in a couple of the other amendments.

The challenge with the capacity at Hamilton is not necessarily its boundary area.

There are only three elementary schools that actually feed into Hamilton.

Most of its capacity is through the other program offerings there.

Highly capable and international schools.

those two programs themselves make up 60 to 75% of the total population of Hamilton.

So the actual boundary area of Hamilton is pretty small.

It is one of the smaller of the middle schools.

So that is why this alignment really is of a smaller impact.

I understand the family association and going to Eckstein Again as is true with amendments that pass or don't pass families always have the option through open enrollment to enroll in schools as long as there is capacity there and we will have several where that would be the case.

So for instance in a future one with Whitman if the numbers are going down at Whitman families that want to stay, I've got two sons at Whitman right now if they want to stay at Whitman it would be open and I wouldn't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to go there because the capacity would be there.

SPEAKER_14

Any more questions or comments on this item?

Seeing none, Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

I have a question for you Flip.

Is that then, are you saying that if we didn't make this amendment that it would be likely that any parent in 45 who wanted to go to Eckstein would be able to get into Eckstein through open enrollment?

SPEAKER_07

Yeah so we look at the numbers I don't know what the breakdown is for each grade level but if there is capacity at Eckstein I wouldn't see a reason why families wouldn't be able to go to Eckstein through open enrollment.

SPEAKER_03

And then over time are projections for the growth around both Hamilton and Eckstein for that?

area where do we see the growth in the district happening so that after we make the changes if Hamilton isn't at capacity which I have never heard that these changes are fully going to alleviate the capacity issues at Hamilton.

Do we expect, which of those areas do we expect to have the greater growth over time?

SPEAKER_07

Between Hamilton and Eckstein?

I'll let Ms. Davies answer that.

SPEAKER_20

So again the points that Flip mentioned in terms of the program and service offerings at Hamilton given again the current pathways that are there we still see a significant amount of growth given the growth we have seen in the students who are participating in those types of programs.

So we do anticipate growth in both Eckstein and Hamilton so the change in this particular area is small but we would anticipate future growth at fairly similar rates in both areas.

SPEAKER_14

Dr. Peters.

SPEAKER_05

So I have a document dated October 19 with the predictions for the enrollment in these middle schools and so for Hamilton starting this year the prediction was 1195 and next year 1031 and the following year 1039 and after that 1044. For Eckstein this year 955, then 961, then 1032, then 1106. So actually Eckstein is predicted to grow faster than Hamilton.

This is based on no amendments passing.

So I don't know if that helps flesh out what you were looking at or thinking about.

SPEAKER_03

Does that document indicate the capacity at each of those schools?

SPEAKER_05

It just indicates the enrollment predictions.

This is page three of the Seattle Public Schools five-year school projections 2016-20 dated October 19.

SPEAKER_07

In general our middle schools have a capacity of 1100 but clearly we've been over that in several schools.

Currently Hamilton, Mercer, we've had Washington over that, Eckstein has been over that.

So in general though the middle schools are meant to be at about 1000.

SPEAKER_14

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_05

I do want to also add a historical note.

I do remember when Jams was open students were told that if there was room they could stay at Hamilton and by and large that didn't happen.

There just wasn't room.

SPEAKER_07

Correct there was not room there.

SPEAKER_06

Let me clarify what you just said and why if I could because I'm not sure I picked it up.

Are you saying that unless it is part of the policy then it is not a given?

SPEAKER_05

Is that what you are saying?

If we rely just on open enrollment and rely on whether or not there is space then it is not a given.

Is that correct?

SPEAKER_07

Correct.

Open enrollment is not a guarantee.

We are going basically off the estimation of whether or not there is capacity in that particular building.

And if there is capacity then through open enrollment families are able to choose and usually get into buildings where there is capacity availability.

SPEAKER_14

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_06

I guess that just brings back the nightmare of the student assignment plan originally when we said we were going to keep 10% aside for each high school.

And that didn't quite work out that way.

So I am concerned about the lack of a guarantee.

SPEAKER_14

Any more questions comments on this item?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_14

Okay our next amendment, amendment 3 grandfather current area 126 in West Woodland in Hamilton.

Can the director who has this amendment go ahead and Yeah, three.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, for computers.

SPEAKER_05

All right I move that the school board amend the proposed 2017-18 implementation amendment to the 2013-2020 growth boundaries plan to implement grandfathering at the elementary school level for all current K-4 grade West Woodland elementary school students living in area 126 and to implement grandfathering for current 6th and 7th graders living in area 126 to allow those students to finish middle school at Hamilton middle school.

SPEAKER_14

Is someone second?

Second.

Comments, questions on this item?

SPEAKER_06

Do we make money on this one according to the cheap sheet?

SPEAKER_05

Let's see that's number three.

Oh yeah what does that mean?

We lose a bus?

We don't need a bus.

SPEAKER_04

So there is a net gain of one bus if you do amendments three and four but it would take both of them going together so yes.

Again there may be other opportunity costs based on doing this but as far as transportation it is a gain.

SPEAKER_14

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_08

So can we speak to the opportunity cost associated with this amendment?

SPEAKER_20

So for this particular amendment this was driven by capacity at West Woodland and the fact that if this were to move forward they would have to add another portable or remove the daycare that they, the afterschool care that they have.

So it was a capacity constraint that overweighed the transportation costs.

SPEAKER_14

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

So I assume by that their aftercare program is one that takes a designated room and so therefore there is still the opportunity of looking at a way to incorporate it into space.

SPEAKER_07

This particular as I recall it's been a little while since I've been out to West Woodland but I believe this particular location is a very unique configuration for that particular room and we've added portables in the past because the cost of renovation to the room exceeds the cost of a portable.

But portable space is becoming I believe we have We just added two last year so I think that brings us up to either four or six on that particular site.

So we would probably be going with adding portables because the cost of the renovation of the particular interior room might be more expensive.

But I would have to double check on that.

SPEAKER_11

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

As a former West Woodland parent myself I'm familiar with the space that you described for their before and aftercare and I know that it is highly valued by the community so I appreciate you sharing that with us the renovation cost as compared with portable cost.

This has been difficult for me knowing the challenges of being in that building actually when my wife was teaching she was teaching out of a closet in that building when this school had like 100 kids less.

I don't know the exact numbers but.

the experiences that our teachers and our families experience you know this is, these are real.

And so while I support this I do it with some apprehension and with a very explicit call to the community to rally together around ways to make sure that the school stays amazing and strong and a positive learning experience for all the kids and also for the staff to look at the ramifications of class size versus portables because I think that's going to be a really important consideration when we do our next round of assignments.

SPEAKER_07

And I will mention in some cases West Woodland I know is one that we have looked at possible projects in the future, capital projects in the future as some of the buildings core spaces are really not appropriately sized.

So I know for West Woodland their gym is not very big which also means cafeteria space isn't probably the greatest either.

So as the schools grow I mean Clearly we can continue to add spaces but those core spaces don't get any bigger when we do that.

So that's the other crunch that people feel.

Not only when we add portables do we start to lose the exterior play spaces and things like that but it means lunchrooms and gymnasiums are more crowded.

SPEAKER_14

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_05

Well one of the reasons this was brought to our attention is that these two zones, both this amendment and the next one deal with two zones next to West Woodland and it doesn't make a whole lot of geographic sense for these students to be directed further away.

They are really quite close to West Woodland and so in terms of the ease with which the families can get to the schools it made sense to keep them in the West Woodland area.

And my understanding is that moving them out wouldn't necessarily alleviate crowding a whole lot.

In fact if they moved to a school that also had some crowding issues.

And so it seemed like it wasn't going to solve a lot of problems by moving just these two little zones out to a different zone.

So the fact that it would save on a bus is something that we should be considering and thankful for.

And this is grandfathering so this is not going to be a long-term situation this will be just for you know two years I believe.

So just to keep that into perspective.

SPEAKER_14

Any more questions or comments?

Okay Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

No.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion passed 6 to 1.

SPEAKER_14

Okay our next amendment, amendment 4 retain area 124 in West Woodland and Hamilton.

with the Burke or Peters.

SPEAKER_19

I'll take this one let me pull up the paperwork.

I move that the school board amend the proposed 2017-18 implementation amendments to the 2013-20 growth boundaries plan to retain area 124 within the West Woodland elementary school attendance area and Hamilton middle school attendance area.

I second.

I will speak to this initially and then I would welcome Director Peters to join in.

What we hear again and again from families is disruption is bad, disruption is bad.

And I think there is I recognize that there is a perception component that goes along with that and then there is the recognition that it generally hits us as adults harder than it hits our students but our students reflect our own emotions and so I think When we are looking at our community as our constituents, our cheering squad, our voters and our customers that we are trying to serve their students we have to maintain a level of satisfaction and to me that means minimizing disruption.

And this particular boundary move relates to a section of Seattle which would move to Bagley but Bagley will be moving to an interim site as part of a remodel.

So these students depending on what grades they are in could be moving from West Woodland to the the interim site and then back to a new site.

So there could be a larger number of moves that we were putting on these kids.

37 K4 students.

And so when I look at 37 students potentially and the possibility we might have to hop them around a couple of times.

We talk about opportunity costs and we talk about the cost of goodwill.

This one felt to me like also recognizing the enthusiasm and resilience of the West Woodland community that I think it's still something we have to look at but I think we perhaps want to look at it when we don't have to move the kids twice but only move them once.

SPEAKER_05

And this one also is listed as being one where we would not need a bus.

When I first saw this issue and it was first brought to my attention I wanted to create a global rule that said we don't move kids out of a school if we are only going to put them in an interim site and then move them again.

Speaking to what Director Burke just said.

But then staff pointed out to me there was only one school that fit that description in this group which was this one.

So that's why we have this specific amendment having to do with this.

But I think as a general philosophy it is something that we should try to avoid as a district and that is moving our kids too much.

Preferably not moving them at all and if we do move them not putting them in a situation where they are going to be in an interim site and have to move again.

And so that's what the case is here and that was one of the motivating factors behind this amendment.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments?

Dr. Geary.

SPEAKER_03

Having a child who did experience three different schools in middle school from Washington to Lincoln to Hamilton.

It is hard on kids to be moved around that way.

And it colored his experience in terms of transitioning into a new program and then trying to just adjust to all the changes So that is meaningful and though maybe there is only one example in this particular situation it is something that we have done in the past and it does have real consequences to our kids.

SPEAKER_14

Director Geary, oh I mean Director Harris, no Blanford.

SPEAKER_08

Director Blanford.

Director Blanford.

Thank you.

So the staff did not recommend this and so I am wondering if someone can speak to why they didn't recommend this and what an opportunity cost might be associated with this amendment.

Am I asking a question that makes sense?

I see the look on your, like you are perplexed.

SPEAKER_20

So the rationale for this is very similar to the last I described for West Woodland just given the capacity constraints that they have there and thinking about what would be required to retain these students in terms of adding the additional portables and minimizing the amount of playground space.

You know although we did receive a significant number of feedback from community members from this area around their desire to stay a part of the West Woodland community you know we did also receive some feedback from families around the fact that the families at West Woodland are really crowded at their current school.

And so while these The impact is significant for the families who have to move.

The impacts of many of these changes are also very significant for the families who have to stay at a particular school and have limited access to resources like the playground space or have to have limited space inside the classroom because of the crowding that takes place.

SPEAKER_14

So are you saying that your suggestion is not a good idea to move these kids there because it is already crowded?

SPEAKER_20

So the students are already there.

I am just saying the rationale for moving them was around the fact that they would essentially end up in a larger building once faculty has an additional capacity.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

Sorry before you sit down I just wanted to confirm also not to speak against an amendment which I am supporting but my understanding around this is also that the interim site has more capacity than the current Bagley site with portables so even though there would be multiple moves where they would be moving to would be less impacted is that correct?

I just want to make sure everybody has the full perspective.

SPEAKER_07

Yes so the interim site is the John Marshall building which is a bigger capacity and additional capital project that is happening at Bagley will also increase the capacity at Bagley.

So yes both of those statements are true.

SPEAKER_14

Any more questions or comments?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_08

Director Blanford.

I will abstain.

I am not clear on the impact of this so I am going to abstain.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_08

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Patu.

SPEAKER_09

Aye.

Motion passed 6-0-1.

SPEAKER_14

Director Harris.

SPEAKER_06

I am confused as usual.

On the transportation it is my understanding that 5A and 6A go together.

So that if the 5a passes, would it not suggest that 6a is double booked?

SPEAKER_04

So I was hoping somebody would ask that.

What we did for the analysis was line item analysis but just like we did with three or four we were able to say if you did both of those you would have a net gain.

So you are absolutely right.

6A and 5A if you put them together I do not think would be the total of both those costs but it may be something a little bit more than 340.

SPEAKER_06

Go ahead.

Thank you.

I beg of you if you know of something like this if you could daylight it as soon as possible so we don't run into a buzz saw I would be eternally grateful.

SPEAKER_04

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_06

As opposed to waiting for somebody to play the key on the piano.

SPEAKER_04

So I was planning to do that as the amendment came forward.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Any questions, comments on this amendment?

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

So I think just to start out I think there needs to be a motion for an amendment and so I would like to make a motion for amendment 5A.

And it is fairly extensive.

Just protocol question.

I read this in its entirety into the record.

Is that true?

Okay no we are good here.

So this motion I move that the school board amend the proposed 2017-18 implementation amendments to the 2013-20 growth boundaries plan to one, open the new Cedar Park elementary site as an option school rather than an attendance area school.

2. Establish the geozone for Cedar Park to be bordered by NE 145th Street to the north, 30th Avenue NE to the west, NE 125th Street to the south, and Lake Washington to the east.

3. Retain area 88 in the attendance area for Olympic Hills.

4. Retain area 95 in the attendance area for John Rogers.

Sorry that was four.

Five provide focused district support for new school visioning and community engagement prior to and during the open enrollment process.

And six place a high priority on mitigation spending for the new Cedar Park Elementary until the earlier of the first two years of operation are completed or until enrollment reaches 80 percent of capacity.

I second the motion.

SPEAKER_14

Okay this is open for comments and questions.

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

I would like to just briefly comment on it.

I feel that this is a sort of a keystone amendment because it relates to how we do all of our boundary, our cascading boundary shifts in the Northeast.

I've spoken on this previously at a work session so I don't want to belabor the point.

The community input around this has been very strong in favor of it and I think that it really addresses so many things that we aspire to as a district.

You know to open Cedar Park as an attendance area school with the potential for such a high concentration of disadvantaged learners feels like a disservice to the community but combining the community demographics with the natural tendency of an option school to draw in more affluent families and provides a natural balance to the demographics.

And I think that that's a really exciting prospect for the area and that also is matched by feedback I've gotten from the community.

What I think this is, what this challenges us to do is to raise the bar on how we reach out to community to start up a school and build on the enthusiasm that is already forming There has already been an outpouring of people who plan to attend the school and are willing to be part of the planning and rollout.

And for folks that don't attend the school that are also enthusiastic about helping the community plan for it to be successful so that their neighbors are successful as well.

And I think this is a chance for us to work with our student enrollment process which I've heard concerns raised multiple times that option school enrollment is an inequitable process and inherently just the families that have more time and awareness and resources generally favor option schools.

And so this is our chance to try to tip that a little bit further towards a balanced point.

I'll leave it there.

SPEAKER_14

Director Harris.

SPEAKER_06

It's no surprise that I'm very much in favor of alternative education.

It's no surprise that I'm very much in favor of more equitable opportunities.

It's no surprise that all of y'all that said this was a great idea that if this passes we are going to put you on the community engagement team and make you walk your talk.

But I think we have an opportunity to shine here and to make lemonade out of what potentially was a big lemon and setting up a ghetto school.

And that is just not who we are.

And I think we can do just so much better.

SPEAKER_14

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_17

Yeah and I want to definitely thank the community on this one as well because just going to our community meetings and hearing their inputs and concerns I think was very impactful and they were also able to bring in that voice that we hadn't heard before.

You know they as they were saying they went out and did the you know connections with the families that we sometimes overlook because either their language barriers or they can't make those meetings in the evening because maybe they work more than one job to try to get by.

I just appreciate that they went through that effort and brought that voice in so we could hear this.

And for That voice to be heard and that we are actually seeing that we are reacting to it I think is a good step for us as a school board and as a school district that we are sensitive to issues that are out there and have to balance the capacity enrollment size and growing boundaries but there are creative solutions that can address those needs.

And I think making Cedar Park as an option school helps satisfy the needs of the community and the needs of the school district to try to balance the capacity issues.

SPEAKER_14

Dr. Geary?

SPEAKER_03

I look up on that wall and I see that Olympic Hills is one of our schools of distinction and they've hung together at Cedar Park as a community anticipating the building of a beautiful new building that was designed to meet the needs of a free and reduced lunch population.

And I can't imagine this population who may not be as in tune to this whole process when it comes time for student enrollment realizing that they are not moving with their community into the big new beautiful building that was supposedly designed to meet their needs.

I just I can't I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

And so there's just no way I could make a decision.

I could I could endorse that.

I just can't do that.

I can't.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments.

SPEAKER_20

I'd like to make a comment real quickly in regards to this.

So I thought it was important for this conversation as we are thinking about the potential of an option school and there's been some thought and consideration around if it's going to be an option school what could that look like.

So, I wanted to yield some time if that is okay to Ms. Dede Fauntleroy who has been an integral part of the conversations that we have had with the Olympic Hills and John Rogers community around the opening of Cedar Park and she has done a little bit of thinking around what are the potential options for an option school and just wanted to.

SPEAKER_12

I just want to give you some context about the opportunity costs and I want to make a small comment first.

Just the use of the term ghetto school.

Thank you.

Not okay.

Please.

Thank you.

So some of the opportunity costs you just need to know that any option school that you are starting brand-new is going to cost $100,000 minimum.

just so you know that because I know that there is no cost analysis on there but as I went through some of the options that could go in there that is basically what we are talking about.

And then the other opportunity you have so you could, there are some difficulties in starting an option school from the ground with no community to engage that is already there.

So you could start it say really really fast because we only have six weeks realistically before open enrollment starts.

So we would have to make a choice of a model really really quickly engaging families that may or may not go to Cedar Park because we can't guarantee seats there because it is an option school.

And then hopefully get some excitement around the model and then get people to come in.

or you could do what I am calling an opportunity school where you could have families just come and sign up to an option school to be named later.

It would give you a little more time to kind of engage an actual community that is invested.

It would mean probably that you would only have about K-3 in there because 4-5 you know the investment in that would not be as great.

And it might, I am thinking that it would be under enrolled for the first year or two just so you know that too.

So there would be mitigations on that end too.

And then the option three is that you could move an existing option school that is looking to grow or looking to expand or whatever or maybe it needs to be in a different place.

That would be the cheapest option if you were to take an existing option school and move it to Cedar Park.

So those are just the opportunity costs as you were saying and the actual costs of putting an option school at Cedar Park.

Any questions about that?

SPEAKER_14

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

I want to just make sure I understand the idea of moving an existing option school.

What is our commitment to families in a particular option school regarding transportation?

If we did a relocation are we potentially, I guess how does that work?

SPEAKER_12

Well that would have to be considered.

Depending on which option school you would opt to move.

I mean I wouldn't say that I would force an option school to move but if they were looking for a bigger space that is a bigger space for you know a lot of our option school programs are in much smaller places.

SPEAKER_14

Director Harris.

SPEAKER_06

I want to thank you for calling me out on the use of that word.

Totally appropriate and appreciated.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Any questions or comments?

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

I want to thank you for just being willing to come up and continue to work with us as this just shifts around.

I know that you anticipated and worked very hard in one direction and so the grace with which you continue to adapt as we are trying to do this work is very much appreciated.

Happy to help.

SPEAKER_05

Just a couple of observations.

One of the objectives of this amendment as I understand it is to stabilize other schools and make it not necessary to move kids out of other schools to sort of stave off the domino effect of a lot of the changes in that part of town.

And if that is so then we should look at the costs that that saves for families in terms of disruption.

Because yes we are as a district obliged to look at our own budget but we are also responsible for how what we do affects the budgets of families to a certain extent.

and the stability of the students.

And so someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I thought one of the motivating factors of this in addition to being one having to do with equity and balance and not disrupting a school that is doing well but also to try and minimize the disruptions all around Cedar Park.

And so there is a cost benefit to that that might not be as tangible as some other benefits.

And as far as starting up a new school, when I think back to when McDonald International was started or Queen Anne Elementary, in both cases they came up with a concept, McDonald was a language immersion, Queen Anne Elementary ended up being tech.

It took them a while to come up with that idea.

I remember Queen Anne Elementary they did a poll and some families wanted language immersion, some wanted Montessori and they ended up being a tech focused school.

I'm not quite sure how that happened.

But I do recall these decisions being made not necessarily with a long-term plan but they were happened upon and it was enough to draw families to start out with in both cases I think the schools were somewhat small.

And I think that's always the case when you start a new school and perhaps even more so with an option school.

But now both of those schools are very well enrolled and so it is a case of if you build it they will come and it will take time.

So I appreciate Ms. Fauntleroy for pointing out that fact but I think it is a reality that it will take a while to build up these schools.

And we do need to find what it is that will draw families.

We can take a look at things that have appealed to other families throughout the district whether it is STEAM at Hawthorne or whether it is yet another language immersion program or whether it is something else.

Well right there is that.

So you know we don't have to start from total scratch we can look at other models that have worked.

So what I am trying to say is none of these solutions like if we did nothing or if we do this neither one is going to be perfect.

They are both going to have costs and they both are going to have you know some disruptions to our families and so I think what my colleagues have attempted to do here is come up with a creative solution and I appreciate their effort.

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_08

I have listened intently to this one and will not be in support of it primarily because I feel like it flies too far afield from the recommendations that staff has made on this and whereas I appreciate the conversations about equity and trying to to recognize and accommodate equity issues.

Equity is pretty broadly defined and sometimes inequitable processes end up labeled as equitable and I fear that the jury is out on this.

I'm not quite sure where we will end up and so for those reasons I'm not going to be in support.

Dr. Geary.

SPEAKER_03

It was my understanding in a recent meeting with our state delegation that the boundary changes across the north of the district were hitting on their register as well.

And that one of our legislators was very concerned about what we had proposed at Cedar Park.

And so I just throw that out there not that they are determinative But to know that these people who are going to be out there advocating, fighting for funding for our school, two points.

One I think it's important that we listen to their concerns as well because the delegate you know our constituents are their constituents and they want to see us come up with a solution that works.

And two I mentioned that because I think this is something we can continue to talk to them about to the extent that we need to mitigate.

the impacts of this decision financially upon our district.

So those are people to contact and to say that this is happening and to encourage them to help us financially with these decisions.

SPEAKER_14

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

Just quickly to build on what Director Geary mentioned to highlight that this legislative community is the community that helped, they provided the district with funding to do work in the Cedar Park building that allowed us, that enabled us to use it as an interim site that enabled us to do the remodel on the beautiful new Olympic Hills building.

So I think that the understanding the relationship and what they have invested in it and they feel like they do have a stake in it and although it is something that we have to think about our constituents first we have to make sure that we are respecting relationships as well.

SPEAKER_14

Any more questions or comments on this item?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_08

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

No.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Patu.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

This motion passed 6-1.

SPEAKER_14

Our next amendment is amendment 5B open Cedar Park as kindergarten rollout.

Director Burke or Geary or Pinkham.

SPEAKER_18

We won't be introducing amendment 5B.

SPEAKER_14

Okay.

So we are going into 6A.

Amendment 6A.

He says do not implement changes for area 18, 128, 117, 90, 93, 101, 122, and 120. Okay Scott can you go ahead and read the motion.

I move that the school board amend the proposed 2017-18 implementation amendments to the 2013-20 growth boundary plan 2. 1.

SPEAKER_17

Retain area 18 and Broadview Thompson elementary school.

Two, retain area 128 in Whittier Elementary School.

Three, retain area 117 in View Ridge Elementary School.

Four, retain area 90 in Olympic View Elementary School.

Five, retain area 93 in Olympic View Elementary School.

Six, retain area 101 in Sacajawea Elementary School.

Seven, retain area 122 in Wedgwood Elementary School.

And eight, retain area 120 in View Ridge Elementary School.

Second.

SPEAKER_14

Any questions or comments on this item?

SPEAKER_04

I just wanted to clarify because you are using what I thought was going to be my private cheat sheet that we made copies for everybody.

So as we are looking at 5A and 6A we knew 5A probably was going to be a range of about three to five buses and hence we had that estimate.

If you are adding 5A and 6A together we do think it is going to be much more likely that our estimate will be a firm $340,000.

Correct $340,000.

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

This might be something for the routing folks but could you help understand, help directors understand what the additional buses would be since many of these changes relate to maintaining existing students in existing attendance areas.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah and you are right it probably is if you need real deep specifics it would be better to have routers but when we originally had analyzed the changes and looked at it we actually were able to reduce some buses by keeping them in their current and same areas now we had to add those buses back on.

SPEAKER_14

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_17

I just want to address the issue of what we brought this up because we did see kind of a big swing of moving students to the Northeast area but looking at some of the community input and the demographics how things are going and new schools coming online it seems like if we swing students to the Northeast just in a couple of years we are going to swing them right back.

So trying to prevent that you know making changes this year, two years and then we are going to swing right back to as new schools come online so hopefully if we can again lessen the impact on families from moving from one school to the next and then a couple of years later oh now I have to move back to this other school.

I think part of what we saw of the initial impetus for this change was the projected growth for the northwest area which didn't happen as much and so that's why this amendment was brought forward.

SPEAKER_14

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_08

I see Ms. Davies coming up and I wanted to give an opportunity to comment on this.

Particularly the opportunity cost associated with it.

SPEAKER_20

Yes, so in respect to the fact that we just passed amendment 5A.

I did want to mention that if 6A was passed and those other areas did not end up being changed that Olympic Hills would then remain basically half empty because they will be in a new building that is twice their size but those other areas will not be moving into that attendance area.

So I wanted to point out that point.

And then additionally I did want to highlight a few of the schools that do have significant capacity constraints and limitations with adding portables.

So that's Viewlands and Sacajawea.

Viewlands in particular we were just able to get a city funded playground that opened this October so any additional portables would have to cover that city funded playground that was just opened.

With Sacajawea an additional portable would require a departure.

And that is not necessarily guaranteed and it would also cover a significant amount of playground space if an additional portable was added.

And then with Olympic View before adding a portable we would likely have to remove the childcare.

So those are just some additional implications with those changes.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_19

Ms. Davies I was wondering if I could ask a couple of clarifying questions around especially in relation to what we heard from some of the community around Olympic View removing the childcare.

Is that something that is a financial decision or a space decision?

versus adding portables which the feedback that I had heard was that that is a viable option for the site.

SPEAKER_07

So currently the board space prioritization goes K-12 instruction first and pre-K and before and after care.

So if we need classroom space within a building classroom comes first.

So if there is a space and there is a pre-K or before and after care there that goes first.

And then if there is no more space available then we add the additional portable.

The reason being several.

One is There is very little usually very little capital costs associated with having the space.

Two is again adding an additional portable on the exterior is a cost that we wouldn't be incurring otherwise.

Also occupies more space also usually depending on the building or the location could require us to go through more steps through with the city.

If we have a lot coverage issue or if we're putting more than two on at one time, we have to do a different kind of review process with the city as well.

SPEAKER_19

And just to completely clarify the existing space that is used for the childcare before and aftercare whatever it is is existing classroom space and there is not a significant cost to repurpose it?

SPEAKER_07

We would have to take a look.

Each building is different.

So in the instance that I mentioned previously about West Woodlands the cost of that was nearly twice the cost of a portable which is why we looked at the portable impact first.

So I don't I'm not intimately familiar with this particular location, so we'd have to take a look at that.

SPEAKER_19

Okay and one other quick point of clarification is that when we look at the number of students impacted by grandfathering and the cost for grandfathering transportation and we compare that to some of these costs I think it makes this option a lot more palatable just because it's reducing the number of students and should those students choose to be grandfathered should we choose to allow them to be grandfathered the transportation costs for that could be pretty significant.

SPEAKER_14

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

Part of what I considered in supporting this amendment was the fact that we are having a lot of change up in that part of our city.

And we are opening, we just opened Hazel Wolf it has a huge waitlist.

We are opening Olympic Hills.

We are trying to predict all the different shifting.

And then we are also discussing potentially looking into putting a bigger school on the John Rogers area.

And again it's one of those things where we are shifting a whole lot of families in one direction based upon some unknowns that we might have to then shift in another direction in three years.

And so the thought being that this was while uncomfortable this isn't a change.

We are not changing what they are doing.

And so If worst-case scenario happens and we have a half-empty school and people very upset then next year we would have a chance to look at it again and adjust it having not disrupted these communities in the meantime.

I'm not ultimately there will be I understand ultimately I believe that there will need to be some adjustments in this area.

I just my thought at this point there is too much happening at once without a sense that we are not going to be flipping back within a few years.

SPEAKER_14

Director Burke can you actually clarify for me it says on 6A it says do not implement changes for the areas and then on 6B grandfather current students in the same areas.

SPEAKER_19

Yeah I think this is the should we choose to not allow families to remain in their existing locations?

Should we not?

then the fallback thought or discussion would be that if we are asking those families to honor the new boundaries or we are adopting the new boundaries then the fallback position would be to support grandfathering of those families to minimize the disruption.

So it is an either or.

In one case we are advocating for not moving in the other case we are advocating for moving with grandfathering.

SPEAKER_02

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Any more questions comments on this item?

SPEAKER_06

A question I believe for Ms. Davies.

It's been reported from members in the audience that if we don't do this we will be moving more folks in than we are taking out in terms of capacity at Sacajawea.

Second it has been reported that there is a boys and girls club out in the portable that could be moved into a childcare facility etc. so that there actually may be more movement than I understood previously and or more options.

If that makes any sense.

Having just gotten this information on the fly which is most frustrating.

SPEAKER_20

I don't know in particular about the boys and girls club program but in terms of the changes for Sacajawea part of that again we have portions of that area moving into Olympic Hills with the new, what was supposed to be the new boundary because they have the more capacity.

So there is an area moving into Olympic Hills and there is also areas moving into Sacajawea.

So my point previously about the additional portables it was saying that if we ever got to a point where more, where there was a need for more portables that would require departure and it would require use of the playground space.

So these are just capacity considerations and space considerations to think as we think about long-term for all of these buildings.

SPEAKER_06

So we are talking more long-term then than we are next year.

Is that correct?

SPEAKER_20

I mean we are considering both.

The changes are not only to think about the current state of our buildings but also the future state of our buildings.

Which is why the opening of Cedar Park and Olympic Hills long-term will give us capacity for the north end.

SPEAKER_14

Any more comments?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

SPEAKER_10

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_13

No.

SPEAKER_10

Director Patu.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_10

This motion passed 6-1.

SPEAKER_14

We are now into amendment 7 retain area 117 that is west of SR 99 in Viewlands and Whitman and retain area 18 in Broadview, Thompson and Eagle Staff.

Can someone read the amendment.

SPEAKER_01

May I make a procedural point at this stage which I think will be interpreted as good news.

Amendments 7 and 8 you no longer need to tackle because the meat of those amendments has been covered in the amendments that you have already done.

SPEAKER_14

Oh, thank you.

So we are now moving to amendment 9.

SPEAKER_05

I have a question.

Is that true for amendment 8?

Could someone please answer, speak to this question.

Amendment 8 is there, are there no fourth and fifth graders who are not covered by the previous amendments?

SPEAKER_20

So amendment 8 would not need to be moved given that amendment 6A and then all the others previously were already put into action.

Those others all encompassed all the other attendance area changes at the elementary level.

SPEAKER_05

Even elsewhere in the area?

Okay you are absolutely certain of that.

Oh all right I am being asked about Cascadia.

Cascadia is not discussed in this.

SPEAKER_20

Yes so Cascadia is not an attendance area school so that would not be covered within this.

That would be covered within the student assignment plan.

So it is not covered within that amendment the way it is currently written.

SPEAKER_14

Okay.

SPEAKER_17

Director Pinkham.

So just to clarify work because it says all rising fourth and fifth graders so even down the south and central area there's no impact there that we have to consider.

SPEAKER_20

There are no elementary changes in those other areas at this time.

SPEAKER_14

Any questions or comments on this?

Okay moving right along we are into amendment 9. Universal grandfathering for rising eighth graders.

SPEAKER_05

Okay I will read the motion.

I move that the school board amend the proposed 20. Well actually I want to I actually want to discuss this and not move it at this time.

I think that this issue will be better addressed in the student assignment plan for the following reasons.

I put this forth, this was discussed or brought forth to a work session last week and I actually put forth the idea a couple of weeks before that but I guess it didn't publicly surface until about a week ago and only now, only in the last few days have some people come upon it and feel that they haven't had enough chance to weigh in on it.

People who would be affected by this.

So I'm interested in having more people have a chance to digest what this means.

I do still feel strongly that allowing our eighth graders to finish their third and final year in their middle school is in the best interest of student stability and student well-being academically, socially, emotionally, all those things we talk about.

You know we don't serve our children well when we pull them out of their schools just before they're about to graduate and put them somewhere new.

It's very disruptive and I think we've discussed that a couple times tonight already.

So in terms of the response I've gotten so far on this topic, the tally has been in favor of this amendment.

There have been a few who have been opposed to it and those who are the most concerned about it are the ones who are concerned about the HCC cohort and what it would look like at Eagle Staff if the eighth graders are not all there.

So just to put, and I want to respect that concern and I do want to reach out to that community between now and the time when we finalize the student assignment plan.

and put forth this proposal in the student assignment plan as a one-time stipulation with a sunset component to it.

But between now and then I would like to hear from the HCC community and other communities that are affected by this.

In terms of perspective the number of eighth graders who are slated to go to Eagle Staff is 235. Of those 11 would be coming from Eckstein, 9 from Jane Addams, 113 from Hamilton and 102 from Whitman.

So in the cases where the numbers are very low it seems a little unreasonable to be pulling those kids out.

And in the case of Whitman, which will be somewhat under enrolled if these kids leave, apparently through open enrollment they should be able to stay.

However, as was stated earlier, there have been times in the past where open enrollment did not end up being a sure bet for students.

So I do not want to put families in limbo by promising them something that ultimately we will not be able to fulfill.

That is why I still believe this needs to be stipulated in writing and in the student assignment plan.

As far as Hamilton goes it would be 73 HCC students and 40 students from other programs who would be moving to Eagle Staff.

And so again In a way it's not a whole bunch of kids and if they are allowed to stay for just the one year via transition year it might make things a little extra crowded at Hamilton for one more year but then after that that would not be the case.

And in the case of Whitman it would help Whitman's numbers to keep their 102 eighth-graders next year.

Apparently I also got an email from the PTA from JAMS, Jane Addams Middle School and they also support allowing their eighth-graders to matriculate from their school.

Apparently the current proposal from staff would affect 20 students and they would like their 20 students to be able to stay at JAMS.

and I've also heard from a few families over at Washington concerning Washington and Meany.

But knowing that this requires a little bit more thought I would like to as I said not bring this forward tonight but bring it forward into the context of the student assignment plan where I do propose to put this language in there And between now and then I ask members of the community who are impacted by this to be in touch with the board on this issue and I may even ask for a meeting with them to talk about this and to talk about what the impacts would be.

And part of what is a motivator for this amendment or for this language is the history, recent history with the district in which when Jams was open, Jane Addams middle school, students were redirected from Hamilton and Eckstein.

And I remember that was a time of great anguish for families especially those whose students were in eighth grade.

And I remember the testimonies from families about that imploring the district not to do that.

And I remember there were students who had been moved multiple times and this would have been their third or fourth time that the district had uprooted them from their school.

So mindful of that this is what this is trying to address.

And it has been pointed out to me that some of these students who are slated to be moved to Eagle Staff are likely to be moved again to Lincoln.

So the goal here is to not have so many disruptions.

But as I said I would like to allow a little bit more time for feedback from the community so I am going to put this forward into the student assignment plan.

Are there any questions or comments?

SPEAKER_20

I just wanted to call out the timeline for the student assignment plan just so that it is clear if that decision is included within the student assignment plan action is not anticipated until January 4. So the student assignment plan again will be brought to operations committee tomorrow afternoon and then it goes for introduction scheduled for December 7. And then it is anticipated to be action for January 4 and so because of the holidays there is only that one board meeting in December.

Assuming it just goes right to action at that next meeting that would be the fourth.

And so we do have our middle school planning principals who are trying to ensure that families can be part of that planning process, can get information around the opening of those new schools.

if that decision falls with the student assignment plan decisions that would delay that timeline for some of those families.

SPEAKER_05

I'm sorry how would it delay the timeline?

I didn't quite follow.

SPEAKER_20

So essentially you are saying that if a recommendation were to move forward for grandfathering for families that were supposed to go to that new school essentially at this point all those families would just have to assume they are going until an amendment is passed that they would be grandfathered.

So it would provide a little bit of confusion for those families who are not sure yet if have the ability to be grandfathered or if I am definitely going to Eagle Staff or Meany.

SPEAKER_05

Okay but conversely would also allow families more of a time to consider this other alternative, the grandfathering alternative and to weigh in on that alternative.

SPEAKER_20

Yep I just wanted to mention the timeline.

I think it would be really important to just make sure that all families who live within the boundary are still aware of all the meetings that are happening so that they could you know still be part of those conversations and part of that planning.

SPEAKER_14

Director Harris.

SPEAKER_06

So what kind of really robust community engagement do we have on the student assignment plan between now and then.

SPEAKER_20

So we currently have five community meetings scheduled for the student assignment plan.

I don't have them at the top of my head but those are all scheduled between November and December across the city again we are doing a meeting in every region.

We will have a short presentation that describes the updates in the student assignment plan and then leave the majority of that time for questions.

So I will also, just one other point in terms of many of the updates that happened to the student assignment plan.

I have the dates right here.

So as you all know the student assignment plan is essentially just a document.

So engagement around a document doesn't really mean a lot.

So we've had a lot of separate engagements as we think about the highly capable cohort pathways.

We've had engagements With those communities as we think about some of the changes related to Madrona we've had separate meetings with that community.

So what we like to do with these changes is make sure we are providing that opportunity for that specific community.

These student assignment plan meetings are larger meetings again in all areas of the city to make sure that anyone who may have interest in any of the particular changes is aware of what is happening within the district.

But we essentially like to make sure that we have very tailored community engagements that address specific concerns related to specific changes.

SPEAKER_06

Director Harris.

The policy that we passed last spring about placement of schools, programs, etc.

The student assignment plan actually is the safety valve and isn't addressed by that policy is that correct?

So it is hugely important to some folks.

SPEAKER_20

It is not just a document.

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

It is a powerful way to set forth pathways etc. and it is not covered by the policy that this board passed in spring.

SPEAKER_20

But any changes to the student assignment plan come to the board for board approval which is why it begins tomorrow when I will bring it to operations.

So my comment about it just being a document was essentially saying The engagement isn't really around the document itself.

We do make the updates to the document.

It's a very important document.

It has a lot of really pertinent critical information for families trying to navigate the district.

But the content of it is what the engagement really has to be around.

SPEAKER_07

So the changes the board made last spring did not weaken anything in the student assignment plan.

Everything that is in the student assignment plan has always needed to be approved by the board and will continue to be approved by the board.

So I don't, I didn't see much of a change from that so that is why the student assignment plan because it has such a dramatic impact on families has always had to come to the board in order for anything to be changed in that.

SPEAKER_14

Director Burke.

SPEAKER_19

Recognizing that we are a little out of order on this topic but since it's come up for the board and the community the work that we are doing here with the amendments how and when does that get incorporated into the student assignment plan that's going through its current process?

Because I did get a chance to look at the read ahead and it is tables showing pathways there's not a lot of maps that somebody could look at and say oh I'm here so therefore I will go there.

And if we are looking at things that might have elementary schools with multiple pathways does that become part of the student assignment plan?

SPEAKER_20

So the student assignment plan does contain, you are referencing the appendix that has the list of schools and the elementaries that feed into the middles.

So based on some of the amendments that have been approved tonight thus far.

There will have to be a number of changes to the student assignment plan so that plan has already been routed.

It is already available on the website.

Tomorrow at operations committee I will be speaking verbally to some of the, to acknowledge the amendments that were made and I will speak to what that will look like in terms of making those changes.

So everything that has been voted in today will have to be updated.

I will need probably a little bit of time to digest and make those updates which is why but then again that will all be redlined in the next iteration.

SPEAKER_19

I guess my specific question would be is that body of work do you anticipate that will be done prior to the community engagement so community meetings will incorporate this latest information.

I just want to minimize confusion.

SPEAKER_20

So we will do our best to get that updated.

Our first meeting is actually going to be on Monday at Chief Sealth.

But I will also be able to verbally speak to all the changes as well and make sure that families who attend those meetings are aware of what was voted on here.

So that will also be another great opportunity for us to share the information that came about from this board meeting.

SPEAKER_05

Director Peters.

Okay and just to tie up this conversation I just want to make clear what it is that I'm not even sure if I said what I was focusing on just so that families can know and they can give us some feedback between now and January 4 and that is my motion is to allow the grandfathering at the middle school level for all rising eighth graders in the 2017-18 school year who live within any areas that are changing from one middle school to another.

for the 2017-18 school year.

So it would just be a one-time grandfathering for eighth graders.

And again I will put this into the student assignment plan.

I have already talked to Dr. Herndon about this and families will now have more time to weigh in on this And I also want to finish with one little quote from the Jams PTA.

Some people have pointed to Jams as a successful opening of a middle school and by and large it was but let's not overlook the fact that the first year was very difficult for some of the students and the PTA have said in their letter the transition to a new school was especially difficult for our eighth-grade students and their families.

And so this is the history that I am building upon and trying to not replicate.

SPEAKER_02

All right, thank you.

SPEAKER_14

So we are going to go into amendment 10.

SPEAKER_05

This one is also mine and similarly I want to move this one to the student assignment plan and here is why.

The proposal is in the event that it is determined or proposed that the students in Cascadia Elementary that there will not be enough room in the new Cascadia building for all of the highly capable students.

In the event that a proposal was put forth to split the North End HCC elementary group into two schools.

My proposal was going to be to make the second location an optional one similar to Fairmont Park, similar to Ingram high school.

And that has worked, both of those have worked quite well.

They have been appealing enough so that families have chosen those and it has helped alleviate crowding in the other schools.

I have since heard that there are some families who may or may not be interested in the that option and so again I would like to allow more time for input and to take a look at some of the surveys we've done and possibly do another survey asking families what would they think if we had an optional second HCC location would families come to it?

So again I would like to put this in the student assignment plan as a proposal and allow more input from the families.

Any questions or comments about that?

And I think we have to wrap up, I have to take a break.

SPEAKER_20

I will just say quickly that that actually is already included in the student assignment plan.

What has moved forward for the recommendation is to do the geo split so as we go out and have those community meetings and we continue to take time for feedback.

We will be able to solicit feedback around the current recommendation as well as what you just described and that was also some of the feedback that was received last night at the Cascadia PTA meeting.

SPEAKER_05

Thank you and just to clarify the location that you have chosen is Decatur is that correct?

Correct.

All right so that would be great to get some more feedback from the community on that.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Okay we are going to move on to amendment 12. establish middle school HCC pathways and place a high priority on Whitman and Washington for mitigation spending.

And that is Director Peters and Harris.

SPEAKER_05

All right okay this one stays on the table.

I move that the school board amend the proposed 2017-18 implementation amendments to the 2013-20 growth boundaries plan to one direct staff to include the following A highly capable cohort HCC middle school pathways for North End students in the 2017-18 student assignment plan.

HCC enrolled students in the Eagle Staff and Whitman middle school service areas would attend Eagle Staff.

HCC enrolled students in the McClure and Hamilton middle school service areas would attend Hamilton and HCC enrolled students in the Eichstein and Jane Adams middle school service areas would attend Jane Addams and to place a high priority on mitigation funding for Whitman and Washington middle schools in the 2017-18 school years as they may see a significant drop in student enrollment due to the opening of Eagle Staff and Meany middle schools.

SPEAKER_06

Second the motion.

SPEAKER_14

Questions comments on this item?

Director Blanford.

SPEAKER_08

I haven't had enough opportunity to dig into this so I'm wondering about the high priority on mitigation what does that actually mean?

SPEAKER_05

Okay in the case of Meany and Whitman they are both projected to have enrollment drops, well Meany because it's a new school and then Whitman is projected to drop down to 485 students down from about 700 or so.

And so this is a conversation that some of us have had with staff and it's known that we may be needing to mitigate in any cases where schools are under enrolled.

And so the purpose of this amendment is just to put a fine point on that to acknowledge that we will have some schools that will need that support and we are not going to neglect them.

And that also to outline certain pathways that had not been explicit in the growth boundaries discussion.

There has been a lot of anxiety in the community as to what our vision was for some of these schools for those two reasons.

So we are just really trying to make explicit something.

SPEAKER_14

Director Pinkham.

SPEAKER_17

Yeah so that just makes me kind of cautious that we're saying oh this school gets more priority than other schools that have also mitigation.

So I'm kind of curious why you would say this school in particular has high priority than make lessons other schools that need mitigation that they may feel oh we're not high priority because of this bar that's being presented to us right now.

SPEAKER_08

Dr. Blanford.

In my experience with communities needing mitigation is everyone sees their particular school as a high priority.

It seems to me at the point that we would be considering mitigation for any schools I just wouldn't want to hamstring us to have to put them first in line if there are other schools that are deserving of mitigation as well.

Particularly given the fact that there may not be a whole lot of mitigation funds available given our conversations about budget.

SPEAKER_14

Director Geary.

SPEAKER_03

My concern with this amendment.

is that I feel like we are pulling out a certain part of the student assignment plan discussion before we have a global picture to hear everybody's concerns and make sure that we are taking all of those concerns into account.

including the mitigation as well.

And I'm not saying these aren't good ideas and that we wouldn't ultimately support them if they came up as amendments of the student assignment plan.

But to invite it into this process versus waiting until we're doing everybody all of our families all of our schools and creating the pathways It feels like we are mixing things up.

Saying that I hope next year because what I have felt is that constant tension with these pathways that can be moved not knowing where they are going while we are trying to understand the boundary impact of the decisions we are making seems backwards.

and that it would have been a lot easier for me to understand our boundary issue if we had already decided where we were going to put our students.

So that is my comment.

SPEAKER_14

We have one more minute and we have to take a break.

Director Burke make it one minute.

SPEAKER_19

Okay here we go.

So I want to make sure I understand this.

There are two points here.

One of them relates to the content that I believe is captured in the student assignment plan that is going through operations right now.

And then the second one relates to the mitigation and I worry as well as some of the, what I've heard from some of my colleagues about making commitments like that in isolation.

That it's challenging to do that because we end up over committed.

Because we commit to everything in isolation and we put them all together and we realize wait we can't deliver on those promises.

So I'm wondering if this content is covered appropriately in this upcoming student assignment plan with community engagement and then also separately during our mitigation discussions where this board that is making these decisions is going to be having those discussions.

SPEAKER_14

So if there's no other comment I was told that we still have time to actually vote on this amendment before we leave for a break.

SPEAKER_05

I appreciate the comments that you all made about this.

In the case of the pathways this is actually reiterating something that staff has already proposed and we will see it in the student assignment plan starting tomorrow.

But there was great uncertainty in the community.

People wanted it to be included in the discussion.

This is specific to the North End And very specifically the HCC pathways were not part of the growth boundary discussion and so there was a lot of interest in the community in making that explicit.

So this is not anything controversial it is just stating some aspect that it will be in the student assignment plan but reassuring parents that we also have this in mind for the growth boundaries.

As far as the mitigation funds if someone was more comfortable with adjusting the words from high priority to something less focused I would be open to that kind of wording.

But the point is these are two schools that will be seriously under enrolled because of what we are doing.

Because of the growth boundary changes and because we are opening a new one and that is why there is an extra focus on them.

So again Meany is slated to have 493 students and Whitman is slated to drop from 851 down to 485. And so the concern is that with those numbers and with our weighted staffing standards those schools will not get the resources they need to be comprehensive and to meet the needs of all their students and so we are trying to be mindful of that and say we are going to keep an eye on that and we are going to do our best to provide resources for those schools to mitigate it as needed.

SPEAKER_20

I want to be respectful of the time and whether you have to take a break.

I did if it is possible want to yield a second to one of our other planning principals.

Is it okay to do that now or should I wait?

Just two seconds.

So this is Shonda Otis and she is the planning principal for Meany.

SPEAKER_21

So good evening.

Thank you so much for talking through this.

Meany and Washington as you have been speaking about EGLE staff and the Blipman and the schools out there are in a different situation.

Washington will keep HCC.

Meany is scheduled to open at 493. So the grandfathering concern is huge for me because if the grandfather goes through we will open it even less.

So that is when I will absolutely need to ask for mitigation funds so I can run a full program for our students.

And then again if you are in this amendment you are talking about adding more money to the HCC program for Washington where Meany again will need some of those mitigation funds.

So I just want to put that on the table because we were talking a lot about the north end concern with HCC but Washington is keeping HCC and Meany will have spectrum.

SPEAKER_05

I don't follow what you said adding more money to HCC at Washington I don't understand what you mean by that.

SPEAKER_21

I'm sorry I don't have the amendment in front of me but it says in the amendment that I want to mitigate funds for Washington.

SPEAKER_05

It wasn't for HCC it was for Washington middle school across the board as needed.

Okay.

SPEAKER_21

My point is that Meany will be a lot lower so I was just trying to make sure that that is considered in this.

So we definitely will need to at 493 we will need to mitigate some funds as well and so they are still going to be a lot higher and so we just want to make sure Meany is put in there as well if we are going to talk about mitigation in this.

SPEAKER_05

Oh yeah Meany is one of the schools that we were talking about.

Meany and Whitman are the two we were talking about for mitigation.

SPEAKER_21

The way it's written in here wasn't Whitman and Washington.

SPEAKER_14

Oh Washington oh sorry that should be.

We definitely have to take a break right now.

SPEAKER_99

you