School Board Meeting January 17, 2018 Part 3

Approval of the 2018 19 school year calendar.

This went to exec on January 11 which we approved.

The approval of this item would allow school board to establish the dates for when the school year starts and ends which is required by state law.

In addition the development of the school year calendar is subject to bargaining with unions and certain calendar rules are outlined in the 2018 2015-18 Seattle education SCA certificated employees collective bargaining agreement.

Mr. Damas?

Thank you Stan Damas.

With a nod to the time of the evening sir.

Yes ma'am.

Then I will skip the rest of the title because that would keep me awake too long.

You've touched on the main points in this particular bar which is to establish the beginning and ending of school and it was drawn up consistent with the collective bargaining agreement referenced.

I would like to point out that there will be one minor technical adjustment adding a tri-day on August 28 to correct a technical problem where the specific language of the contract superimposed a tri-day over a holiday.

And we are fixing that.

I spoke with John Donaghy earlier today and he agrees that that is a technical correction.

And we will modify that for the record here.

Harris Great news.

Thank you very much.

Questions comments concerns?

Excuse me Director Pinkham.

Pinkham You said that you are adding a tri-day?

Best The calendar that is in the bar at the present time has a tri-day superimposed over the Labor Day holiday.

So I think a cleaner way to describe that is we are moving that day to the Tuesday before Labor Day.

Okay number two, New England Center for children contract modification.

This came to A&F on January 8 Mr. Chair.

Pinkham And I move to afford for approval.

Harris Approval of this item would detail purchase agreements with the contract modification of $267,351.01 that brings the contract total to $380,000.

$91,900.21 to provide a student with a residential special education program.

Chief Jessee take it away.

Jessee Chief of student support services.

Yes we are moving this particular contract in front of you.

It is a modification To comply with the individual disability acts we had to have an emergent need to have services for this particular student and so we had to make an interim contract because we just can't move through our own district's approval process in routing as we are going to exceed the $250,000 threshold requiring your approval.

So we wanted to get those services obviously.

This is with a nonpublic agency, very unique services as determined by the IP team.

Due to the narrow focus though of this particular contract I'm going to be very limited in about what I can supply as far as details.

Harris because of disclosing federally protected information is that correct sir?

Best that's correct.

Thank you for finishing that for me Director Harris.

Harris I'll go there.

how much of this amount of money is reimbursed by either the federal or the state government?

Best We will get some… We are very likely… That is obviously under review by OSPI but we will be submitting for safety net yes on this particular situation.

again please I'm sorry I did not understand what you just said sir.

Best I throw it to Scott Dry too.

On this particular situation we will be asking for reimbursement for safety net which is what OSPI reviews in our package that we submit to them for students with significant needs and exceeding some traditional costs.

It's never enough and I know that's also something that the state ledge is also reviewing.

Historically what percentage of the cost for safety net have been reimbursed?

If you can give us some kind of an estimate.

Berge assistant superintendent for business and finance.

If we apply and the application is successful generally we should get anything we pay above $30,000.

Thank you.

questions comments concerns keeping the FERPA and privacy issues in mind.

Director Geary.

Thank you Chief Jessee.

Thank you.

Number three adopting resolution number 2017 18-10 to establish an equitable vision for advanced coursework in all high schools by replacing highly capable pathways at the high school level with a localized assignment model by years 2021-22.

This went to C&I January 9 and

Director Harris was passed through for consideration.

Director Harris The bar raids approval here.

Or the cheat sheet that I'm reading from.

Director Geary Oh it goes for approval?

I thought well I'm not on C&I.

Director Harris Okay.

Directors that were at C&I?

Director DeWolf Yes we move this forward for approval.

Okay approval of this item would state the board's intention that starting the 2021-22 school year students entering high school from a highly capable program or with a highly capable designation would have a default assignment to their neighborhood school.

And that language to this effect would be inserted the next time the board considers a student assignment transition plan.

comments questions concerns?

Well I wanted to I guess since we are the people sponsoring this, Director DeWolf and I wanted to have an opportunity to speak a little bit about it.

This motion was brought trying to and I apologize for being so tired and may not be as eloquent as I'd want to be.

But it gets to a lot of the work that we as a board have been doing around the question of the highly capable pathways.

And that it is clear that we have been Circling around a lot of different factors that have to do with the highly capable cohort from identification to how we are going to organize the program, what are the grade levels, what does it look like, where does it exist geographically, and obviously it intersects with the capacity issues, it intersects with equity, it intersects with eliminating the achievement gap, and a lot of the work that we are doing.

And going back to the point I made before about the need to plan and to have some type of a vision.

And so In coming up with this resolution it was creating a vision around a highly capable program that met the students where they lived in their own communities.

Allowed those communities to work to make identity safe education for all their students.

To decide what that would be and the one way to do that would be to have it exist where the students were.

as I acknowledged earlier the heat map around highly capable sort of predetermines some of the pathways that have been talked about and that we may be looking at as an interim and this does not address the interim.

But we've all acknowledged that those heat maps identify the kids that are already in the program and don't discuss the disproportionate failure to include kids of other of other races other than Caucasian.

And so.

I've asked different members of the staff because I believe that this resolution was also based on a lot of the work that the staff has done in conjunction with the smart goals that we gave them to work around in terms of communication in terms around providing education through the that meets the children where they are to get a year's annual progress under multi-tiered systems of support and around.

our equity work and eliminating the achievement gap.

So if the staff members who is everybody here and then I know principal Vance is here too as a principal.

I think that's more for the boundary so.

So.

If it's okay with the board I would just have each person get up and give us just a you know a snapshot of their thoughts and their work around this resolution and whether or not they believe it's supported in the work that they have been doing on behalf of the district.

Okay given the time of the evening.

It's 9 10. How long do you suggest this presentation to go forth?

I would just ask that everybody give really a really tight snapshot but be available of course to you for questions and or maybe what we could do is raise questions and then on action or we can figure out a way that deeper questions Because I know this is a conversation that no matter how many times it comes up it can go on.

But I also think given the amount of energy that our audience brought today that it would be fair to have an explanation a full explanation on behalf of the district and the work that it has done and give them an opportunity to respond now and perhaps even more fully.

Harris So how many folks are we looking at to present and can we parse it out?

Yeah I would say Kerry Campbell around the community engagement, Ashley Davies around capacity issues that are arising, Wyatt Jesse around the education and oh I'm not going to get the name right and then we have our representative and please introduce yourself I'm just too tired.

Yeah thank you on the EOG work.

And each just a couple minutes around the intersectionality around the smart goals the work you've done and why you believe that this resolution or you know if you believe this resolution supports the work you're doing and the vision we have as a district when all of our departments start to intersect around this work.

Harris did you wish to add something to that Director DeWolf?

Given the tenor of the room earlier I think you're right it is 9 13 but I mean we do deserve I think a thorough conversation.

Not not suggesting.

I'm just trying to be respectful of people's time.

Thank you.

Campbell I'm the chief engagement officer.

So as a lot of this the school board already knows so some of the information that I'm going to share really is for the public watching at home and the public in the audience.

But one of the goals the SMART goals of the board and the staff is really to engage in authentic dialogue with our community to determine their values and co-create solutions that meet the complex challenges that we have as a system to ensure equitable access and equity.

So as you know last year we adopted thought exchange.

Thought exchange is an online communication tool that helps build consensus and priorities in our district with our families about what matters to them.

And so we use thought exchange to support Wyeth Jesse's team and the advanced learning department in determining what are the things that we need to consider as we develop solutions to address advanced learning and to expand advanced learning for all students.

So across our families the priority that really came to the top was around equal access.

And when you dig into what that meant to our families it really was about having opportunities closer to home.

They also asked for more advanced learning opportunities like sequencing and programming.

But the key thing was really around access closer to home.

So the resolution I think it meets the spirit of what our families asked of us.

They didn't give us a particular plan to follow they did give us a lot of detail about things that we continue to need to explore if we were to accept this resolution or pass the resolution but I think that that's the most important thing is that by passing the resolution we actually are We are honoring the perspectives of families and what they said matters to them.

I think a key point for the community is that lots of times we don't hear from families that have been marginalized and so we took that extra step to have home language conversations with our Vietnamese, our Somali, our Spanish and our Chinese speaking families in home language.

and the same hopes that they have for their kids was reflected across the 1800 other responses that we had from families.

We had 5000 comments 170,000 different engagements with other people's thoughts and I think the feedback was super clear.

So I'm hopeful that the board considers this resolution.

I think it is our North Star.

This is me personally.

There's moments in our personal lives and in the life of an organization where we have to stand and we have to say what's right and I believe this is the right move.

It's the right move for our kids, it's the right move for our families and it's what they've asked of us.

I can take questions later if you want.

Ashley Davies director of enrollment planning so I'm just going to talk briefly about some of the capacity concerns that were raised in some of the public testimony today as well as lots of emails and other forms of engagement that I'm sure you've had with the public.

So some of the questions have come around what will happen to the other schools that are not pathways if we move to a decentralized model, a model where we are able to offer services to all students close to home and with that we do know that most of the schools in the north end continue to serve an increasing number of students who are highly capable already in their neighborhood school.

Each year we've seen a larger number of students opting to stay at their neighborhood school and we know with those numbers services come.

And so families are clearly already acting with their feet showing that they desire to be close to home in those aspects.

In other areas we do know that we don't have as large of a numbers and so they do opt to continue in the pathway but again part of that could be because of the services are not there.

With this resolution again with the idea of allowing and providing services closer to home not only for those who are eligible but a lot of the conversation that the board has had previously a lot of the conversation that staff has had and I will tell you that staff has had a tremendous amount of conversation.

on all aspects of this and it's really been a great opportunity for all of us to really stretch the way we think about equity in uncomfortable ways for us as well.

And with that we recognize that providing those services in neighborhood schools allows access for those who may not even be eligible.

And if we talk about really thinking about the eligibility requirements and providing access by offering regardless of those who are eligible.

Again I think and am hopeful about this resolution to be able to provide more of that closer to home.

So again just summarizing that we are already seeing a trend of families staying in their neighborhood schools despite the fact that they are HC eligible.

And as we grow those numbers, those students, the services will follow those students.

Good evening again Wyatt Jesse, chief of student support services.

For us I just had presented by request of Director Burke a timeline around what does this plan look like over the next five years and so I was able to detail that.

Director Patu and Director DeWolf were there and we had to engage in a conversation where I was able to have an outline plan of what it looks like and what some of the work streams are that we would have to do to move forward in developing what it looks like to fit the intent of this particular resolution.

It really excites most certainly a lot of principals and staff who've been working and recognize that again as Director Burke said the services for HC is different in elementary and middle than it is at the high school level.

And I'd also like to just take this moment of thinking about your own individual development.

Our own individual development happens over the course not because somebody was identified in second grade but actually we all have a course of our own learning.

And we think of every single student story strength and need we need to recognize that and recognize also their potential.

A lot of our students when they do get to high school they go I'm ready to start taking college and career ready courses.

That is our work.

That is to give them that opportunity.

And so this plan does a great job of outlining that.

And I think also fitting as Ashley was very well articulating a comprehensive communication plan of course with the help as a team for us to get out there.

So many families don't even understand about how college and career courses are at our high schools.

how to even get into them and they think there's some prequalification to get into these classes when we really have a lot of work to do.

So very excited combining with our 24 credit work around master schedule, communication with families and the course catalog we can make this happen.

I'll just give you one example Rainier Beach much discussed.

What does it mean?

It means honors courses in ninth grade IB for those who want to start IB in their sophomore year they most certainly can do that they can do that now.

And then what does that look like their senior year?

We have many options now currently but we are not limited to something like running start or even adding AP courses or even integrating university prep courses and partnering with our university partners.

So it can happen it's some of it is that simple but it is obviously we cannot go any further in this plan without partnering with our stakeholders and that's why there is some level of brevity to this as we look forward moving obviously with the resolution for 21 22.

And I am Dr. Concie Pedroza.

I am the new director for the Department of Racial Equity Advancement for the district and I'm actually going to read a statement from Dr. Brent Jones from chief strategy partnerships and regarding this plan.

Relative to the pathway dialogue our policy 0 0 3 0 requires us to have equitable access.

The district shall provide every student with equitable access to a high quality curriculum support facilities and other educational resources.

We also need to have multiple pathways to success.

The district shall provide multiple pathways to success in order to meet the needs of the diverse student body and shall actively encourage support and expect high academic achievement for all students.

Beyond the direction from the policy as we look at creating pathways for students we have the opportunity to create access for inclusion of students that have been historically excluded from highly capable services.

There have been a variety of reasons for the lack of inclusion in HCC which we are actively addressing.

However this increase in the number of pathways along with the work to creating welcoming environments which is part of our equity initiative and equity has high potential for increasing inclusion and retention in advanced learning classrooms thus creating a diversified learning environment.

Diversity matters in all settings and particularly we need to really encourage and support our marginalized students.

In a 2014 scientific American article decades of research by organizational scientists psychologists sociologists economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups that is those of different diversities racial backgrounds ethnicities genders and sexual orientation are more innovative than homogenous groups.

This means diversity matters in all settings.

This diversity will enrich the educational experience for our Seattle public school students.

Students from diverse backgrounds bring individual talents and experiences in suggesting ideas that are flexible and adapting to a change and diverse student body comfortable communicating various points of various points of views providing for a larger pool of ideas experiences and thoughts.

By accomplishing this in the classrooms we can avoid child unawareness and enlighten them about other things going on around them with people they may be friends with or know.

Often people lack knowledge of things that they are not accustomed to and they are quick to judge and or stereotype.

It is proven that by valuing diversity and inclusion Organizations bring benefits to the people they work with with their local communities as well as to themselves.

Inclusive classrooms help prepare students for college and career.

Following the parameters of 0 0 3 0 by creating multiple pathways to success and equitable access are key factors in getting all of our students Seattle ready.

Did you want to say a few things too?

Yes thank you.

I'm really excited about this.

And I want to ask this particularly the folks that just spoke.

Are you excited about this?

Are you motivated?

Do you understand how hard this is going to be and are you ready to dig into that?

It's it's hard and I don't have to answer what I mean is that what we are asking you to consider today is very clearly an equitable vision.

I'm going to keep you accountable every step of the way.

And I'm learning very well from President Harris about how to keep folks accountable.

Thank you Director Harris for all of your wisdom.

It's going to be hard work and I'm hopeful that our runway as Director Geary has mentioned really helps to get at thinking deeply about this.

It's.

Some of the difficult questions that we need answered here.

You know as a native person I have I have family and friends who experienced Indian boarding schools.

And I understand their stories particularly how education or other systems built for good often continue marginalizing and perpetuating racism.

So I guess one of my first questions is and maybe it's just more generally is how do I tell or justify to the families and the parents of color that we are paying a large amount of money for a program that institutionalizes a program that serves 90% of students who are not of color?

That's I think one of the things that came up a lot today was around this cost.

You know can we actually afford this program to expand in this way and people kept asking that question and I think one of the things that came up for me was can we afford a program that only serves 90 percent students that are white?

Can we afford that?

I think that is the question we also need to be asking here.

I'm really grateful.

Thank you Carrie for your great work on community engagement because I know that one of the big criticisms about this is that somehow we didn't engage community and I think again really reiterating the point.

This is creating an equitable vision to getting to that place that we strive for in our policy around ensuring educational racial equity.

I'm excited to move this forward because of that stated explicit goal of ensuring educational racial equity within Seattle Public Schools and I'm particularly excited for a few reasons.

I'm excited for a reduction in the emphasis on HC pathways and labels and how that will have a positive impact on identity safety within classrooms across our city.

Here's so many stories I've just been getting all these really affirming emails about getting rid of these labels on students and I think particularly the stories around Thurgood Marshall when one side of the hallway is white students and the other side of the hallway are the students of color.

And what does it mean to be designated in this way?

The other thing I'm really looking forward to and I'm excited about is the fact that I'm excited for high school to benefit from being inclusive educational environments.

I also want to make a mention of one other thing too is that we had a pretty interesting story come out on Monday or was it Monday or Sunday in the Sunday Times.

Pretty headline front page.

Let's be real there.

I actually didn't get one email from anybody.

Anybody in our community telling me in frustration about the injustice that so many of our students are actually not being served by our schools.

I didn't get one email about that.

That's pretty frustrating to me.

Nor did I get an email from anybody saying what are you going to do about that?

So I think you know I'm really really grateful for our enthusiastic parents and I would just encourage you to think deeply about what are you asking us and if the question around equity didn't come up when you read that paper and you didn't want to email us but you wanted to email us about preserving a program that serves 90 percent of students that are white.

That's where I have a difficult time reconciling particularly to my to the families and communities of color out there.

So I'm really excited to move this forward.

I think because of our stated goal we have no other choice but to vote to affirm this.

So I'm looking forward to that opportunity.

Other questions comments concerns.

Director Pinkham.

On the community communication we said we had about 5000 respondents.

Were you able to tell like how many came from the north end versus south end and was there any difference between comments there?

Because again since we are noticing very high number of our HCCs population come from the north end.

What were they leaning towards versus at the south end again where south ends were predominantly are underrepresented population are.

Some of them are telling me hey I'm concerned if we do this localized that my school isn't going to have the capacity to hold an AP class for 8 math BC versus if I know that we're going to have capacity at Garfield.

That's a great question thank you.

So just to clarify so we had 1800 just over 1800 people participate in the online thought exchange and just over 100 participate in home language focus groups.

So 2000 total between about October 5 and the beginning of November.

But 5000 unique comments, so it's kind of like running a town hall but doing it online.

And then 170,000 engagements with other people's ideas.

And so across our regions, equal access was the top rated thought for the Northwest, the Southeast, and West Seattle.

And Northeast it was the second And central.

It was probably the third.

And what I want to clarify around that is this was based on where children are already going to school.

So if you already have access to a lot of advanced learning opportunities like you do at Garfield, equal access may not be top of list.

You might actually be thinking about other things that you want to see as part of revisioning or changes to the advanced learning program.

But in general across most of our regions closer to home was top of mind for families.

Pinkham Yeah I guess for me think about equal access I can have a different interpretations that everyone has equal access to the current pathways versus everyone has access to HCC at their local schools.

So I'd be concerned about how people are answering that than how we're interpreting it.

So that's a great question about methodology.

So the top 20 questions so those were the highest rated questions from every single school were collected they were themed and then they were grouped.

And so that's and it was an external evaluator it wasn't our staff it's part of our contract with thought exchange just to make sure that that's clear.

And so under equal access I know we had conversations about this before during work sessions.

These are some of the comments directly from families because they thought exchange wanted to make sure that we have the actual thoughts of families that it is not summarized.

This is exactly what they said.

Make more opportunities available to all and provide specialized supports.

Advanced learning should happen in more than just Garfield for all central and south end children.

West Seattle is a huge community now and it's not an easy task commuting for work let alone a 15-year-old.

There should be access closer to home.

And there were 54 top thoughts like that all talking about access closer to home.

So that's how the thoughts were themed.

And then theme thoughts were also themed around things like availability of advanced learning.

So that's where you saw things like sequencing and programming and that kind of a sequential learning opportunity.

Harris Go ahead Director Pinkham.

And this may be directed more towards Ashley.

So as we look at this and again I agree with this vision but I'm not sure how fast we can implement and I'm not sure if 2021 has given us enough time.

But as we get say this localized HCC pathway or not pathways a localized HCC options at their neighborhood schools.

What if one school doesn't offer the advanced learning courses that a student in that neighborhood needs would they still have the choice to go to another school that does offer it?

Or do they have to stay at their neighborhood school?

If we have these ACC at all neighborhood schools?

For instance it's been come up orchestra.

We saw these great students from Robert Eagle Staff perform here.

How many schools offer orchestra?

Right now it sounds like I'm just hearing Garfield.

Music other areas for bands learning.

I can't speak to the advanced learning if there be flexibility but in terms of orchestra most of our comprehensive high schools now have orchestra.

I helped build those programs out about 10 years ago.

I think Rainier Beach might be the only one that doesn't.

for those kinds of programs as other kinds of programs that many of our advanced learners are interested in.

We just like everything else we're going to have to have a plan we're going to have to think differently about how we provide access to advanced learning in the arts.

Many years ago 30 plus years ago there used to be all city band is a carryover from 30 years ago.

We still have residual kind of programming when we were neighborhood schools when we did have robust things like band orchestra theater in every single school.

And so that would have to be part of this comprehensive plan in ensuring that we're a strong neighborhood district.

But we know we have got the expertise in the system on how to do that kind of work.

So I just want to touch just quickly on the curricular piece.

Director Pinkham is just around I would might reframe that if those services aren't there for students who are identified as highly capable they're not there for other students as well at those attendance area high schools.

So that's an issue across the addressed and that that also applies for advanced learning.

And so again I'm going to keep reiterating over 90 percent of the students who attend IB and AP courses are students who are not identified as highly capable.

That still raises the issue and a requirement by law that we do want to comply with is that what does those courses have to be?

And so that's again honors and advanced placement courses are typically fulfilled.

Other districts like North Shore, Shoreline and also the other large urban district in Northwest Portland have a set number.

You go on their website you can see some of those course offerings that they have.

And so we have differences across our comprehensive high schools here in Seattle and that's one of the things that we want to work with with our stakeholders obviously the high school staff our university partners as well as our parent and guardians to figure out what is it that composition need to be both at IB and for AP that we can consistently apply and we've talked about that with math and science and that's seven courses that we have out there and that includes Calc BC.

I know you mentioned that.

But there's only one section of Cal BC right now at Garfield and one at Roosevelt.

And then some of those science and math classes are not consistent.

So that's that would be one of the things we've heard from parents that was in the thought exchange was one of the areas in the curricular pieces that we look at.

But again we're going to do it together as a community.

Director Mack.

I have a fundamental support belief that we should be providing advanced learning offerings for every student.

in every school that wants it.

The fact that we're not doing it now we have a lot of kind of glitchy things going on getting an email from someone who said you know I I had to take both advanced math and advanced language arts at the same time I couldn't accelerate in one and not the other.

That's that's kind of an interesting situation where we've got.

students that are advanced in one area and maybe not another and can we accommodate that in our schools?

Should we be accommodating them to advance in some areas and not others?

And Mr. Jessee you brought up the issue of the master schedule and the course offerings.

why aren't we actually offering them at this point?

I mean what is the holdup for offering Calc BC or all of these different advanced learning courses in all of our schools?

For me the vision is providing advanced learning to everyone who is interested in it.

And for those that might not know that they are interested, supporting them to get there to be interested.

If that's you know a path for them.

I'm having kind of a hard time understanding how.

Dismantling and taking the HC students.

And putting them in neighborhood schools and thereby redistributing actually does the work of providing the classes.

That's one question which I want to put a pin in, sorry I'm going to leave it hanging for a second.

But it goes to my other question which is if we don't use pathways for assignment then we don't have what 600 students going to Garfield.

Then we have those 600 students returning to the neighborhood schools and we have overcrowded schools and the impact of that on the neighborhood boundaries is a big question mark in my mind of what that's going to do.

And more importantly The article that came out in Vox just recently about how school boundaries can exacerbate segregation in cities.

And if we look at our city, and we were, actually we talked about doing a map to actually show, and that hasn't, you haven't been able to produce that yet?

Okay.

So we had asked for in the work session a map of demographics across the city.

I think maybe a good picture would be nonwhite and you can see how our city is segregated.

Redraw boundaries and have everyone go back to their neighborhood schools.

Are we exacerbating segregation?

It's a question for me.

So maybe back to the course offering question first and then we can ponder that second one.

I can do that for sure Director Mack.

On the first one we do have advanced learning coursework across the district.

We both offer obviously honors as well as AP or IB.

The statement I made just to clarify is just around consistency.

And so as a primarily site based district there's been some different curricular choices.

One of the things that I have communicated out most certainly recently and I'll state it again I'm really happy to do that today is we are revamping the advanced learning department.

We are looking to reshift our work so that we can provide oversight of advanced learning coursework at the high school level.

That's something we have not historically done.

And that's something that we do have to do in order to centralize some things and provide some equitable access to some courses that we agree to.

The thing that we're not going to be able to do is offer the same amount of coursework all the way across the entire district.

We have schools that are different sizes and also different curricular needs.

Cal BC is a great example for me only because there's only two sections in this entire district because there's only that many students who can are currently it's a pathway as you know taking those particular courses in a given school year is very hard coursework.

Director Pinkham and I had that conversation at the UW.

And so that's just just one one particular area.

Go ahead and then you have a question.

Mr. Jesse for just one second.

You just said that there's only there's only two schools that offer.

The Cal PC.

Right.

Right.

So.

So what happens when.

What I'm hearing you say is that there needs to be a critical mass of students for.

A certain number of courses.

I mean we need 24 kids to offer a course correct.

I think that's a great time for me to comment about critical mass.

So what do you.

I guess I just kind of need clarification what you're how you're defining critical mass.

Well I'm trying to understand that so if we right now we don't have critical mass in all of our schools because we only have a few students that want Calc BC in those two schools.

I'm assuming that there's between the two schools 48 total students I'm just doing quick math and maybe 24 per.

So if we then don't have the pathway so that we have students that want those courses creating a critical mass in that school to have 24 students and then we have those 24 students dispersed across all of our other schools and we have five students in school A and six school students in school B.

But that's the coursework that's appropriate for their advanced learning.

What happens?

I mean that's only.

That happens now.

That happens now across the district.

Right.

And so that's our point of having a conversation again is where we have curricular needs.

There's other needs too.

As you know you're illustrating where some courses are full.

That happens at Garfield now.

So kids cannot go along their sequencing.

So those issues they exist.

They exist at every one of our high schools.

And so I'm just using that as as one illustration of choice amongst with our stakeholders of which courses we are going to offer.

And we we do have to use Seattle colleges as some of our partnership whether they come on to our campus whether we choose to mitigate some of it that will have to come into play of what those agreements are.

Right.

Because there's always going to be some course that a handful of kids or their families want that we're not always be able to to address.

I think maybe my more direct question on that is that how do we guarantee the appropriate classes if we can't have a critical mass in order to provide them.

So there's two points again back to the stakeholders working with the stakeholders.

And then also as I as I have also discussed we've discussed in many venues with the parent groups is just around what our college is also looking at.

That has shifted in more recent times.

about what credits are being accepted and that's just been part of that conversation of which ones are they and how can we best get those particular coursework with them.

And so that's why we've been thinking of things outside of not just AP but also looking at it and around partnerships with our university partners of offering some of those courses right here on our comprehensive high schools.

Are we talking about the demographics and adding to imbalance here?

That was your second question I believe.

My second question was around the demographics across our city and you know potentially having more rigid neighborhood boundaries and what that may do to increase segregation.

Yeah it's an excellent question I think we've touched on it in the past with no easy solutions clearly.

And I believe it's a struggle as I've stated before of any urban metro area.

It's there's a long history of dealing with that.

There and Seattle Public Schools has its own history of dealing with how to balance out schools and whether you go back to the 70s and busing students out of neighborhoods to balance schools to the student assignment plan.

Previous to the picks decision in 2007 that used tiebreakers to help balance schools.

So you are correct in that in cities that have segregated neighborhoods if you have neighborhood schools you are bound to have some of that segregation incorporated in that.

The converse side of that to getting balances either drawing Very interesting gerrymandered boundaries that then try and carve out balance.

And many of I think many of the comments you've been hearing tonight and throughout any of the boundary conversations we have are people want to be able to attend the school that's closest to where they live.

And I think the goal of Seattle public schools has been to ensure that every school that is close to where families are is an excellent school for their students.

So that hopefully there isn't the disparities between the schools that we have whether it be high school middle school or elementary.

And ultimately historically that's been the fundamental difference between the quality of education and the quality of neighborhoods is that some neighborhoods and schools have been neglected in the resource distribution and the support that they get.

And hopefully we're not moving to that.

Hopefully we're moving in the opposite direction so that all of our schools are receiving excellent resources and support.

It's obviously a much longer conversation that would have to take place with that.

Director of enrollment Ashley Davies.

Thank you.

I also just wanted to bring one other piece back to the table and if we if we start this conversation back to when we were having it early in September we talked about the challenges at Garfield and the segregation that happens in the building currently.

We talked about the labels we talked about the tracking.

We've heard throughout all the engagement and the process that we've worked together around even some of the principals concerns about having a specific pathway and how that would influence the culture of the building.

And so when we think about this resolution and we think about again balancing and I do understand with the capacity piece to it.

We're saying that if students are to go back and have the opportunity to go back to their tents or school which essentially our plan says that every student can attend their neighborhood school.

And that's kind of the fundamental aspect of it.

It starts from the crux of being able to provide all the programs and services that people need there.

We realize that we can't which is why some of our highly capable our special education services are not.

But ultimately that's you know what we try to provide.

And so I do just want to recognize that although it would and this will be demonstrated when we get to the boundaries piece you will see when we do transition to 21 22 with the pathways With essentially HC in all schools we see some of the enrollment come back up at some of those schools.

But again just want to remind us that those students have a seat at those schools if they desire them.

And many of them may prefer to be at those neighborhood schools.

We heard a lot from families in testimony about the importance of being with those cohorts and being able to be with their neighborhood students throughout that process.

Other questions comments or concerns or can we wrap this up after my comments.

Director Pinkham.

There was a mention of a five year plan that was discussed with some of the board members.

Was that set in a Friday memo or.

I thought I heard someone mention about a five year plan to do this.

Yeah it's an outline and we can put that in the Friday memo for you.

Thank you.

And therein lies my segue.

I have enormous respect for the folks in this room.

I have enormous respect for our teachers and our principals doing extraordinary work day in day out with limited resources.

What we don't do well necessarily in this district is execute plans with fidelity.

We don't necessarily keep the trust with our parents and our communities when we punt and we do aspirational things.

Do I want to get to a place where we have extraordinary programs in each and every one of our high schools?

I most certainly do.

Do I want to keep Garfield completely packed?

That's not realistic.

We need additional pathways.

You got direction from the board with Lincoln.

District 6 West Seattle.

I believe we need a pathway in West Seattle.

I believe it depends on leadership.

Principal Vance has shown that leadership and Roosevelt.

I assure you I'm going to get murdered at my community meeting on Saturday and I'm OK with that because I do believe we need to distribute pathways.

We also need to get people off of that darn bridge in the morning and at rush hour.

We're supposed to be so green.

could walk there faster.

And our children have better things to do with their time.

Do I believe if we build it they will come by 2021?

It hurts my heart to think that we cannot execute that plan.

It has taken us nine years to get to MTSS.

We have had three years of waivers and 24 credits and and and we're still not there.

Dual immersion pathways are not well set.

We do not with fidelity fund the international baccalaureate program which is more expensive to run.

When I make a promise to my community and the parents and taxpayers of this city I want to know for sure we can execute it because we've got the brainpower.

We've got the money.

We've got the tools.

We're not doing master schedules by hand any longer in each of our high schools.

And I want a plan that says step by step I'm going to be a pragmatic little creep about it.

I want every step.

I want a fiscal note on every step.

And then I want buy in from folks because we do not philosophically have buy in across the board.

About AL HCC etc.

Even some of our statistics are pretty funky.

A couple of things I heard tonight that are frustrating to me and I'm hoping I can get to the bottom of them.

I heard something about Rainier Beach 10th grade starting in the IB program.

I don't understand that.

I don't believe we have an IBX program at Rainier Beach.

Personally I think we should if we're going to fund it.

Long term sustainably as opposed to SIG grants.

I think that should be an option.

There were.

Some odd.

Let's go back to 24 credit and core competencies.

We have yet to determine how we're going to give PD for our teachers if we do longer class periods.

We have yet to pay for mandatory PD for differentiation yet we continue to put more and more students in classes with wider and wider needs.

I'm not willing to make a promise that I don't know a plan of implementation with a fiscal note for every step of the way.

Do I think that relieving the pressure off of Garfield moving HCC to Lincoln and building out West Seattle pathway makes sense and principal Vance you cannot leave me because I am a sitting duck here.

I'm counting on you.

We're going to make it wonderful.

But I don't think we can do that to all of our comprehensive high schools in two years.

And I'm unwilling to dump that on the board for more disruption in two years to go through this crazy again.

We got to go slow methodical pragmatic and competing issues with 24 credits etc etc.

We have told the state the largest school district in the state.

We need a waiver because we can't get it together.

Now we've had good reasons we can't get it together.

But I'm unwilling to make more promises that are not sustainable not funded either structurally or economically.

Thank you.

Moving on for approval of the 2019 20 high school growth boundaries plan and highly capable pathways.

Approval of this item would outline high school boundary changes and high school highly capable pathway changes due to the opening of Lincoln High School and in addition at Ingram High School and fall 2019. Mr. General Counsel do I read the amendment now as well sir?

If you're still awake.

I'm hanging in there.

You don't necessarily need to read the amendment but at introduction it's probably helpful to the public that it be mentioned so that people you're obviously not voting tonight.

But they have another amendment has been put forward.

Amendment 1 move the north and dual language immersion high school pathways from Ingram to Lincoln in 2019 20. and develop a southeast dual language immersion pathway.

Approval of this item would switch the dual language immersion pathway from Ingram to Lincoln and direct staff to develop a southeast language immersion pathway for 2019 20. That's a resolution that was brought forth by directors Burke and Mack I believe.

The time is now 10 p.m.

We have another.

Six substantial introduction items.

Do you have to say anything about committee or do I just talk about it.

That's OK.

That's OK.

No worries.

December 7th at Ops.

Yes for consideration and.

and a work session on the 10th and we've we've had lots of great conversation and community engagement around this.

Do we have a picture of the most recent map that we can bring up on the screen or should we just talk around it?

Because what I'm I'm wondering so there's there's there's the amendment that I put forth which is one conversation that the.

The bigger piece that we'll need to get to is conversation around those A B C D and if there's folks that feel motivated to.

Put them in or out.

of the map and how we will process that vote so that it would pass.

And I apologize I'm exhausted as well.

So it looks like Nate is bringing up the map.

I think that the last one is with the A B C D is towards the end.

So while while Nate pulls it up I can just talk briefly about what's what we're about to discuss.

So at the board work session last Wednesday we reviewed two updated maps that were brought to the task force.

We talked about some of the feedback from the task force as well as other feedback that the board had received since those maps were created.

During that work session we also talked about some areas of consideration that the board wanted to discuss in terms of areas that were moved from where they currently are into different areas or areas that may not be moving that wanted to be considered for potentially moving to a new area.

So from the board discussion on the 10th we created map F version 4.3 and so that's the map that is included in the introduction board action report.

as well as the two previous maps that we talked about at the intro work session.

And then this is the that map that F version 4.3 with the four areas for consideration.

So within the bar packet I have also put together a document that outlines those four areas.

It tells you what area the.

That specific geography is currently in what it's proposed to move into based off the F version 4.3 map and then based off our discussion at the work session what was up for consideration.

And then I've also included the enrollment information essentially the resident count and those numbers align with all the other data that we've been providing in all the previous maps on the map itself.

You have a little bit of demographic data.

Some of the areas the numbers are small enough that we can't actually show the actual number for confidentiality purposes but where we could we included them.

Thank you Ashley.

So acting where are we in terms of are we discussing item four are we discussing the amendment.

Where are we in the discussion at this point.

I think we're discussing the item four.

OK.

And then that's OK.

No and then do we want to.

When do we want to.

I just want to understand the process of item 4 versus the amendment.

How do we want to approach that.

I don't have a preference which one we talk about first.

Your call.

Or.

President Harris stepped out.

But if you'd like to talk amendment first I'm.

Does it make sense in terms of does it make sense to raise the amendment now and then talk about it all.

Sure.

So the amendment is to place the dual language immersion pathway to Lincoln to move it from Ingram to Lincoln.

And at the same time to develop the southeast dual language immersion pathway that's been promised for quite some time but hasn't we haven't gotten there yet.

And that that work would happen over this next year and have a recommendation.

for next year's process timing to be implemented for the same time in the 2019 20 school year.

And do we have a map for the amendment?

There's no map.

It's just the students that are in dual language that are designated dual language.

It's just like with HC they get a pathway.

So dual language at this point the.

It is on.

This last page of the bar how it reads.

In the student assignment plan it is.

McDonnell John Stanford Hamilton to Ingram.

In the north.

And then it would just replace Ingram with Lincoln.

For the 2019 school year.

Director Patu.

So.

So are you actually in the process of developing a southeast language immersion pathway.

Is that already done or is not.

It's not done and that's what this that's what this motion would do.

It would both set the Lincoln pathway for the north and direct an authorized staff to start building out and figuring out what's the right appropriate location and and have the southeast worked out so that there's a recommendation for for the time that that could be adopted in the student assignment plan before open enrollment of next year so that it would be ready for 2019. Director DeWolf.

So we need to still develop a plan for that.

This is just setting a vision and then we will develop a plan correct?

So from my understanding that the southeast pathway has been I'm not sure what all the challenges have have existed and maybe or maybe Michael Tully could you speak to why the southeast pathway I would love to have a recommendation that we could act on right now but I don't think it exists yet and I'd like to understand why.

Michael Tolley associate superintendent for teaching and learning.

The details around why a southeast pathway hasn't been developed has much to do with the way in which the pathways have evolved in the past.

Typically was part of a international school model which requires a pre-planning year planning year and then implementation year.

And we haven't identified a school in the southwest I'm sorry in the southeast region that was interested in doing that.

However with the consideration of this motion going forward and the briefing paper conversation that took place we have been saying yes if we're going to move forward with a switching of the pathway from Ingram to Lincoln that we strongly recommend the staff that we also deliver on the promise of building out a pathway in the southeast.

So with that I've asked our international school administrator Michelle Yoki to actually have conversations with the principals of both Rainier Beach and Cleveland to see the interest level.

And they she's reported back that there's strong interest in moving forward with a dual language immersion pathway in one or both of those schools.

The understanding though that's different from an international school pathway.

Prior conversations I mentioned was around international school is to do language immersion pathway that we're discussing now.

You didn't mention Franklin.

Isn't Franklin not a part of this?

Franklin could be part of it but we're specifically talking about the southeast.

Franklin being more central.

That's a possibility as well.

In the past when we've approached Franklin about the interest in that there has been a question around the when you designate a dual language immersion with the variety of different languages spoken in the school how do you pick one language over another.

But that's a conversation that still needs to be had with the leadership there.

Thank you Mr. Tully.

And I'm I'm correct in saying that the the task force recommended this as well as the language emergent task force that was put together as well as the most recent briefing paper and staff recommendation.

So this bar and this amendment aligns with both requests that the southeast pathway be built out and that Lincoln be considered.

That is correct.

The dual language immersion international school task force those were the top two recommendations.

I do need to note that there is still interest among members of the community attending the Hamilton Ingram pathway to have access to the international baccalaureate program.

So understanding that the move of the pathway from Ingram to Lincoln will satisfy a large percentage of our community but not everyone.

And those students could still potentially opt into the IB program.

On a space available basis.

Which is what they'd be doing now because they're already in the Lincoln area.

Correct.

Well right now the dual language pathway goes to Ingram so they have a guaranteed path there.

Right.

So they're there so so the community is a little split on.

On that.

That is correct.

Yeah.

And the vast majority of the students in the dual language pathway that are coming up live in the Lincoln and Tittens area.

I don't know.

I would have to.

And actually there's there's there's there's some interesting information around the racial makeup of students that don't live in that and that they.

So please.

Ashley and then Director Geary.

Yes.

The majority of the students who are in dual language immersion live within what are we map that to the proposed Lincoln boundaries.

And so the vast majority about 70 percent live within that boundary and then about 58 percent of those students who live outside are students who are nonwhite students of color.

So again to Director Mack's comment the majority of students who are in the dual language immersion pathway currently already reside within that Lincoln boundary that we are proposing.

And then students who live outside and many of them come from that 15 percent set aside that we have at John Stanford and McDonald.

The majority of those students are students of color.

Yeah just to clarify that.

Excuse me.

I'm sorry.

Director Geary was up next and then you.

Thanks.

So we've heard a lot about populations coming in to Lincoln or Ingram and then pushing on the Ballard boundaries by pulling the dual immersion population back into Lincoln.

Does that then push more of the kids over to Ballard and mean that the kids in the northern part of Ballard are going to be pushed back up to Ingram in order to balance out the distribution of students and capacity.

I'm just all of a sudden I think we're back to this problem of putting more kids in Lincoln than we're pushing on boundaries.

I don't.

I'm not understanding how this affects capacity distribution.

At this point we wouldn't with this we wouldn't be proposing an alternate boundary than the one we've already discussed.

What we've already seen at Ingram is that the majority of the and again this aligns with Again the fact that most of the students already live within the Lincoln boundary.

We also see at Ingram that the students who are in the dual language immersion pathway the majority of those are also HC students as well.

So a very small number who are at Ingram in that pathway are just coming from other areas and don't have some of those other services that they're receiving.

Director Mack did you have something else?

Yeah I did.

I did want to clarify around the the the students that are in this pathway live in the Lincoln area.

So the proximity is like the vast majority of them are there.

The ones that don't are the ones that have opted in.

And and part of my concern or the motivation for this amendment and setting this is that from an equity standpoint when the students that live outside of the Lincoln boundary are 58 percent not color but then they wouldn't have the ability to come to Lincoln and be with their same cohort and have the critical mass of language classes that will be.

likely there.

I think it's important to set the pathway so that those students have the ability to stay with their cohort for the for the language classes.

And if we and as staff had stated in the briefing paper if we don't do this then you end up with we'll end up with basically a split cohort and challenges around the critical mass of students to offer the right number of classes because some will still choose you know some will still go into Ingram.

Most of them live in the Lincoln area and you'll likely have a split between the two.

So this is both supporting the kids of color that don't live in the Lincoln attendance area to stay and have access to the language classes as well as acknowledging that most of the kids live in the Lincoln attendance area already.

And that's why it wouldn't impact the capacity that much.

I have one quick comment or question and then given the lateness of the hour at 1015 I would respectfully move that we move on to the next agenda item.

Associate Superintendent Tolle you mentioned getting buy in from staff in Southeast for dual language immersion pathway I want to make sure that I have you have the opportunity to clear up what I didn't hear.

OK what I said what I didn't hear was.

We hadn't talked to Franklin etc.

But what I didn't hear was talking to the communities out there about the high school dual language immersion and I know you better than that.

You are correct.

So what I said was that I asked Michelle Aoki to have an initial conversation with the principals of schools to determine the interest of and support of the leadership of those schools.

I absolutely there is quite a bit more work to be done in order to develop a plan for implementation of this particular amendment to build out a dual language immersion pathway in the south.

And we would talk to those feeder schools as well that we made promises to that only to come over to Chief Sealth for high school.

Right.

So so yes there's work to be done.

All we've done so far is have an initial conversation with the leadership of the high schools.

OK.

Thank you so much.

OK.

Excuse me.

Superintendent Nyland please.

While you stepped out briefly we skipped past number four to talk about the amendment so much as we would like to move on because the hour is late.

We really need direction.

I appreciate the heads up.

That'll teach me to leave the dais won't it.

Number four approval of the 2019 20 high school growth boundaries plant highly capable pathways for 2019 20 and 20 21. Director Mack.

So we were at the place of looking at the map.

This is scenario F version 4.3.

It's what was agreed upon from the work session.

And then the the sections A B C and D were the what director Burke called challenge areas.

And.

In order to adopt this or adopt something in two weeks we'll need to say this map this scenario and then if we any of us want to say send B back to Ballard or send C down to Lincoln then we'll have to agree upon.

how to make those motions.

And I think I would look to Noel to maybe help frame how that would be.

But I think maybe more to the point does anyone have any strong feelings on recommendations for A B C or D at this point.

To the extent that you have clarity from director Burke what would that be.

Mr. PowerPoint at the work session.

I don't think I'm not sure there's complete clarity.

I from my own personal perspective of taking all of the comments that are coming in after the 10th work session.

There does seem to be a fair amount of consensus on some things but I I don't have a strong.

This needs to be in this needs to be out.

My one thought is that if we move to the decentralized model that my inclination would be to.

Retain.

As much as.

Is there an even pull in.

Section C and D in order to.

manage the capacity out for decentralization because that's a different need.

Sorry.

So maybe would it be helpful if I could just maybe summarize.

Yes please.

I'm too tired to make any sense anymore thank you.

No worries at all.

So this map here basically was a way for us to capture the pieces the challenges as Director Burke had talked about at our work session and pull in some of that data so that we could look at it given the considerations that were still on the table.

So with area B and we had some public testimony here tonight that talked about area B which essentially currently in this map it is purple because it's assigned to Lincoln based off the way we have the boundaries drawn.

And then I have a corresponding document that says again the areas currently in Ballard.

It's being proposed to move to Lincoln.

And then the consideration from our meeting last Wednesday was should we keep this in Ballard.

And then I've added the data points.

So there are 84 9 through 12th grade residents who live in that area.

And so that's the way each of those areas is broken up.

Area C is currently in Roosevelt.

It's supposed to go to Ingram.

The question was should we move it.

to Lincoln.

Director Burke had talked about the lower Woodlawn fields and the rest of those areas are similar.

I don't know if you want me to go through all of them or if that helps to orient.

I like maps and I like colors so is our proposal at this point in time for a straw proposal I guess to see where directors are according to the colors so that A and B would remain with Lincoln.

D would go to Roosevelt and C would go to Hale?

So the colors on this map reflect the proposed map that is in the bar right now.

B is in Lincoln right now but the consideration was whether to put it back to Ballard.

A is in Lincoln right now the consideration was to put it back into Roosevelt because of that I5.

Then if we move to that Golden D that area is currently in Roosevelt.

It's not proposed to change.

And so the question was should we move it into Lincoln.

And then C is currently in Roosevelt.

Yes currently in Roosevelt.

It is proposed to move to Ingram with the boundary map and then the consideration was whether to move it to Lincoln.

So barring any further discussion strong feelings from board members tonight.

That's the bar that would come back for board consideration on the 31st.

And our desire is to either avoid amendments or certainly avoid last minute amendments.

So is there a way to get some consensus on any of those now or.

Can somebody consult their conscience?

Our collective conscience?

There you go.

Director Mack.

I think not having Director Burke here is.

Problematic.

Yes.

This is his school and.

So I would I would not want to make recommendations without consulting him.

I think the way that this bar is set up is.

It's not a last minute amendment for us to say.

What we're finally proposing is that section B will be in section C will be out etc.

When we go to make the motion.

So it's not last minute amendment it's.

The final recommendation will happen in that motion on the 31st unless.

Harris I'm looking for consensus and feedback from the board here.

My colleagues.

Well, I mean...

Rick will be home on Sunday morning we can all serial call him.

So I haven't had the opportunity to actually call through my email because I'm getting lots of it.

And and you know it's not like this should be done by vote but it also does help inform that a fair amount of student people are saying actually this really works the best for us and this one doesn't.

And what I think I'm hearing is that section D staying at Roosevelt.

Geographically makes the most sense.

And as long as we don't need to pull students into Lincoln in order to fill it because we will no longer have the pathway there then that may be OK.

But Section A I don't know if we even heard from anyone that's complained.

I haven't.

I'm not sure of that.

We're hearing a lot from Section B. And I can understand their plight with the walkability etc.

And.

Also from C it seemed like some mixed reviews on actually we would prefer to be at Lincoln.

So what's kind of interesting is that I again I'm for me to make a decision that's logical.

I actually want to do some data analysis around the information that's coming in and not just guess because we're getting so many e-mails.

But my general impression is that a fair number of student a fair number of folks that are commenting are saying C would be preferable down in Lincoln instead of at Ingraham.

And B would be preferable at Ballard.

And those are two things that I think that I'm seeing as a trend in the emails we're getting.

But I don't want to make a definitive statement until we.

You know run that information and kind of.

Does anyone else looked enough at it to have a sense either or.

The shot in the dark.

Okay we'll be counting on general counsel and you Ms. Davies to help us put this together in as elegant and seamless way as possible.

The one thing that I would add and I think Nate's going to speak to it too.

I realize we have two weeks until action and then materials have to be posted before then.

If there is any consensus amongst the board on something an area that you do want included.

I guess I'd have to ask Nate what the timeline is for posting but I could include that.

Otherwise we would talk about what that would look like in another form.

Director Mack.

And then board manager Nate Van Duzer please.

From a process question.

Because what I hear Director Davis saying she's going to want to have a clean.

It'd be easiest to have a clean map with the final recommendation to post for the 31st meeting.

So would it be appropriate for us to in between now and then to pull the board directors and come up with a.

to come up with that or do we have to be in an open meeting to make that happen.

No I would recommend that you not do that.

You need to have that kind of to try and gain that kind of consensus among a majority would would not be what the Open Public Meetings Act envisions.

So what Nate and I were just talking about is that if individual directors have amendments to what's currently proposed that they and maybe Nate can speak a little bit more but we want it.

We want to try and get those early so that staff can help tee that up and notify the public.

in a timely way.

So Nate was going to talk a little bit about maybe how we might do that.

Good evening Nate Van Duzer director of policy and board relations.

I think what I would suggest is if by a week from today Wednesday if directors have an idea about wanting to shift one of these from the color that is currently into another attendance area to to let me know that so then I can work with staff to make sure we have all the implications of what that shift would mean available and we can have that drawn up as a separate amendment.

Because all of these areas are interrelated I think having doing that ahead of time will provide allow us to provide you better information.

And you would work closely with the chair of ops on that correct?

Sure.

Thank you.

Because we took a recess I think we're fine on the on the video.

OK.

It is 1030. May we move on now?

Building Excellence BEX and building technology and academics BTA capital programs oversight committee.

This went to Ops on January 4. Madam Chair.

Ops on January 4.

We're on number 5 for consideration.

Approval of this item would revise the charge of the BEX oversight committee to include oversight of the building excellence BEX and building technology and academics BTA capital programs.

I notice that in some of my social media.

questions etc.

The BTA capital programs is not being caught.

So if you could.

in reference to the hour make it quick.

And where did this come from and why do we need it?

This arose at the BEX oversight committee when we were having conversations concerning the BTA the large projects for the building technologies and academics capital levy.

I supported their oversight.

I think they have done an excellent job of providing guidance to Seattle Public Schools.

This seemed to be a natural extension of their charge.

And so the chair of the committee John Palewicz I directors Burke and Geary who sit on the back who sat on the backs oversight committee.

met we drafted the charge we took it to the operations committee.

Directors Pinkham and Mack asked that we clarify that the committee is 11 members and then in addition the two board members will be added onto that.

We made that one modification.

and we're bringing it forward to you.

The committee was clear that they did not want to take on the technology portion of BTA.

They do not view themselves as experts in that but they are subject matter experts as relates to design and construction projects and capital projects office fully supports this oversight.

I have a rhetorical question for you.

Given how much money we spend on the technology part of BTA would it be appropriate or good for us to have a technology oversight committee as well?

Yeah.

Yes very good idea and a conversation that I believe Bex Oversight had and I've had that conversation with our CIO John Krull about him going through that process to get something set up so he's going to be having conversations

And does Mr. Kroll report to you sir?

He does not.

He reports to Mr. Nielsen.

Thank you.

I assume you'll get back to us on that idea.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns on this introduction item.

Seeing none.

Let's move to number six approval of capacity management actions for the 2018 19 school year went to ops January 4. for consideration.

Approval of this item would authorize expenditure of four million five hundred and ten thousand dollars within the capital budget for annual capacity management actions in spring semester 2017 18 school year and summer 2018 support to support projected district homeroom and program capacity needs for the 2018 and 19 school year.

Questions comments concerns.

Seeing none.

Let's move 7 up up up up up up.

No such luck.

Director Mack.

I didn't mean to discount this item.

This is actually a pretty big deal.

I.

Can you speak briefly to the additions that were added since committee.

Yes.

Thank you.

And I'd also like to make just a couple of comments to advise the board of what this does not include.

Right.

So give giving an overview of this whole thing.

Yes.

This bar is for capacity growth.

Ashley Davies office provides us with enrollment projections for next year and this is to meet the capacity growth for those enrollment projections.

This does not include funding for K3 class size reduction.

This does not include special education program modifications and this does not include program placement.

This is strictly enrollment projection rests.

I just want to make sure that the board is clear as to what this bar is.

Thank you for calling that out.

Then the number the reason you see a substantial difference between the two bars that you approved earlier tonight for the purchase of portables.

This includes the design costs to locate those portables on the sites where they're proposed to go.

This includes permit costs.

This includes utility costs that includes furniture fixtures equipment curriculum technology And the facilities improvements at Lawton elementary school.

None of those items were included in the two bars that you approved tonight.

That was strictly the purchase of new portables and the relocation of existing portables.

Best.

We do anticipate I mentioned this earlier with the bars that will need to update this information after the open enrollment period.

We will definitely be coming back to the operations committee after that and advising them and then we'll be looking for the operations committee chair to let us know how we have to notify the board as to what actual Actions will be taking for the school year 18 19. But we do anticipate that we are going to be making revision revisions to.

Locations of portables.

My personal ask is that you footnote and date the heck out of it and you return it back out to the.

Entire board.

So it's clear as a bell.

And when it goes up on the Web site We are transparent and above reproach.

Director Mack.

I appreciate the enrollment projections and why we the request for portables is being made.

The fact that these numbers don't include our increased class size reduction for next year.

I have big concern over the fact that our high schools we already know they're exploding.

The three of them in particular.

But I'm worried about all of the elementaries and middle schools that will see lower class sizes but then might have problems.

Do we have a process in place for identifying those is one question.

The second question is.

Because of the space restriction in the buildings are we going to come up with two numbers for.

So for what capacity is because there is a space capacity.

And and then there's going to be a WSS staffing capacity.

Number.

But those are two different things.

Since we're increasing the number of staff in buildings but not necessarily the class size.

I think solutions will look different at schools dependent upon space availability.

Director Mack.

We do our elementary schools many of them a majority of them are bursting at the seams at this moment in time.

Director Nyland, please.

I've lost track of the exact number I think we had seven two years ago we might have a dozen this year situations where we don't have a classroom for the teacher.

So the schools have figured it out.

Some of them have done co-teaching some of them have done intervention specialists some of them have done walk to math and put that math teacher literally in a hallway.

So none of those are ideal but we are working on the enrollment projections and then we are working on the WSS which you saw last week.

So then those go out kind of simultaneously then as we do the open enrollment.

time period which as we heard earlier tonight is pushing us too late into the year to figure out how to buy portables and we probably yeah I mean it's just we're out of space and so then every portable creates its own life cycle in that you've got to find a way to squeeze it onto the site, you've got to find a way to order it, you've got to find a way to deliver it, you've got to find a way to hook it up, all of those things.

Director Mack you had a comment question.

Yeah it seems like this year in particular we have a challenge around which numbers we're going to be using for enrollment projections and wait lists and identifying this many students fit at this school because we've got a space capacity constraint.

But then we are adding teachers to the buildings.

So I'm wondering what that process is going to look like over the next couple of months in terms of daylighting.

This school is you know being projected at X number of bodies for space and waitlist projection.

I make a chair's point of privilege.

Yes.

Can we do.

A not text heavy dense FAQ or bullet points on this and all the different elements that need to be considered how they mesh together.

Get that in the Friday memo.

It is 1040. Your board members are exhausted unless we've got specific questions.

This feels very much like the weeds to me and inappropriate.

And I will just note to bring this to it will not be solved with strictly a capital solution.

And we are working with the Office of Teaching and Learning to determine where we can provide capital solutions or where we have to provide other solutions.

Director Mack.

OK we have two more intro.

items to go through and I don't want to do.

Short shrift to your hard work.

But I also want you to get valuable feedback from the exhausted people up here.

Number seven BEX IV award construction contract P 1 5 5 6 to King County Directors Directors Association KCDA for the Memorial Stadium scoreboard replacement project.

Ops.

For approval.

This item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of three hundred forty eight thousand eight hundred nine dollars for the installation of a new scoreboard at Memorial Stadium.

This will not.

Be destroyed.

Whatever we do in Memorial Stadium it is portable and will be incorporated.

Correct.

Or we could use it at any number of other facilities we have.

This won't be like the south tennis courts when we built Denny on them.

Correct.

OK.

I like that.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns.

Number eight.

Bex.

I heard that.

Becks for approval of the site specific educational specifications for the Wing Luke elementary school replacement model ops for consideration.

Approval of this item would provide the design team with information about program space required to support the elementary schools education program for the Wing Luke elementary school replacement project.

Mr. Best take it away.

Okay I would like to draw the board's attention to that we are the ed specs are currently looking at two models.

One is a 450 student model and the other is a 660 student model which has been the size of schools that we opened in 2016-2017.

We are looking at both models because of current construction costs.

When we analyze the enrollment data for the next 10 years we believe we will have capacity with the smaller school and we have construction cost concerns.

We will meet the capacity of the expanded boundaries for Wing Luke elementary school as approved by the board in 2013.

But I thought we only looked at five years not 10.

We were looking at 10 with some area resident projections.

So.

Dr. Herndon can you help me here because I'm.

We do look out to 10 years but we know the accuracy of that is not great.

So five years really stretches the accuracy of our numbers.

But we have looked out farther it's just it definitely gets hazier after five years.

And this isn't this one of the last affordable however you define affordable in this city.

One of the last affordable neighborhoods.

Wouldn't we expect it to grow.

That I don't know.

I don't know what the housing costs in particular this particular neighborhood are compared to other areas.

But I know that you're probably closer than you are farther away on that assessment.

I'm nervous.

Heads up I'm nervous.

Other questions comments concerns.

Director Pinkham please.

Just since it came up earlier as we also I would like to see some breakdown on the difference between the 440 and 650 model impact on the racial imbalance there are with the 650 model includes expanding the boundaries for this school or is just that you expect population to grow to fill that 650.

I can answer that question on Friday memo next week.

Director Pinkham.

And I think what I will do is I will show how we're looking at doing this because we would be able to add an addition at a future date when that school school grows to 660. We're planning.

I made this comment to the board.

You buried your lead.

A couple a couple of weeks ago about master planning our site.

So we're master planning every site for 660. So yeah.

Questions comments concerns.

Seeing none.

1045 we are adjourned.

Thanks for your patience.