Seattle School Board Meeting March 7, 2018 Part 3

This came to the curriculum instruction committee on February 6th plus multiple times before that it was moved forward with a recommendation for approval.

Approval of this item would approve the middle school math instructional material adoption committee's recommendation for instructional materials for all middle school math grades 6 through 8 Seattle Public Schools classrooms.

May have a motion please.

I move that the Seattle school board approve the middle school mathematics instructional materials adoption committee's recommendation to adopt envision math 2.0 as the instructional materials for all math classrooms in grades 6 through 8. This will provide materials for 12000 students per year for nine years.

I further move that the Seattle School Board authorize the superintendent to purchase Envision Math 2.0 with consumable student textbooks as the core instructional material for all Seattle Public Schools middle school math classrooms in the amount of one million eight hundred thirty seven thousand ten dollars and eighty one cents.

I second the motion.

OK.

Do my fellow colleagues.

We had a rich discussion on introduction at our last board meeting.

Do my colleagues have questions comments or concerns please.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Yeah hi I had a question that I didn't ask before and I just needed clarification.

The classrooms that are two grade levels ahead that aren't technically middle school yet.

Are they also going to be getting this curriculum.

If we approve it.

Thank you.

I'm Anna Box math program manager.

This is Patrick Gray co-facilitator of the adoption process with me.

Yes students logically fourth graders fifth graders or sixth graders would be ordered the sixth grade math book and likewise for students who are learning the grade seven standards in the grade eight standards.

Thank you for the chance to clarify that.

Other questions comments or concerns.

Director Burke.

There was some public testimony around this that I feel sort of an urge to to just briefly reply to as somebody that has a long term passion on math and math instruction and instructional materials.

So I'm going to start with.

In my day job I do a lot of work with protective clothing, firefighter suits, chemical suits, and there's a saying in the protective clothing industry that the best protective garment is the one that gets worn.

And so I'm going to flip that conversation over to instruction materials and talk about how instruction materials as the the common element that connects teachers students families professional development CBO's it's it's a common resource that everybody can share.

And when it's used even if it's not perfect is better than when it's not used.

And so if we take that example and we compare it to our K 5 adoption we have a great material that was selected for K 5. The.

The math and focus instruction materials.

There are concerns that those materials are accelerated from the standards and so they're not perfectly aligned.

So there's a really great scope and sequence but it doesn't perfectly match.

all of our standards and so there's there's dissent there's concern about we should use something different because of that.

It also is is is underwhelming in terms of fluency.

It doesn't have enough pieces for developing numeracy and fluency.

And so when when we adopted that there was a lot of debate and discussion around is this the right material?

How do we fix it?

How do we take it apart and put it back together in a way that is more beneficial for students?

What that was is a distraction.

And so what I want to commend Anna and your team for is how whether this is the perfect material whether it has exactly all the components that are going to build every perfect student's mathematical ability.

I don't believe it is.

It wouldn't be my first choice.

I'll say that publicly.

But I think that if the entire district can rally around it it's going to be that much easier to find the gaps and it's going to be that much easier to supplement them.

So that's just my philosophy around it and why I'm I'm pleased to be able to support this enthusiastically.

Harris.

Other questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Well then I'll go.

The statement that was made during public testimony and I will quote I think that it is important for the board to at least attempt to be publicly honest about the expectations for future math instruction before voting on adopting these instructional materials.

I find highly offensive and I find dangerously close to breaking the norms for public testimony.

This curriculum adoption has been done in a very transparent way.

The committee's meetings have been published.

The materials were made available.

There was a significant amount of outreach even though teaching and learning didn't have a communications person.

And I might add we are still looking for that magic person to be the teaching and learning communications person.

We did not find it on the initial.

job announcement.

It is a critical position.

If you know rock stars in the communications field that want to work with a great team please have them send us their resumes because that's what engagement and communicating out all of our very different initiatives that all lead to closing the gap.

I am extraordinarily proud to be part of a board that made a conscious choice and under some significant pushback to make sure that we give our teachers the tools with which to do their job.

I am not a math nerd.

But I take great solace in the fact that our system worked that we reached out that we did pilot programs that we figured out a way to do it more nimbly and quickly in the future.

And that we are making traction on a 20 year backlog.

And with that I will be wholeheartedly voting for this resolution.

Roll call please.

Director DeWolf aye Director Geary aye Director Burke I suppose.

That's a yay or nay sir.

Thank you.

Director Mack.

Yeay.

Director Patu.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Thank you to your team.

You're very welcome.

Number two City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning Seattle preschool program service agreement 2018 19. This came before Curriculum Instruction Committee on February 6th for.

This was brought to curriculum instruction February 6 to move forward for consideration.

Approval of this resolution.

would authorize the superintendent to enter into a service agreement with and accept the Seattle preschool program grant funds from the city of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning.

Acceptance of funds in motion A will allow continuation of 17 Seattle preschool program classrooms currently operated by the district.

The acceptance of funds in motion B would allow the expansion of up to seven new classrooms for a total of up to 24 classrooms.

The motion please.

Protocol question.

Yes sir.

So there are two motions an A and a B.

Do we read both of them in or do we read one of them in and do discussion.

Question for General Counsel we can discuss these both at the same time can we not.

Good evening Noel Treat General Counsel.

You can you can do this either way.

You could do both motions at once.

You could have the combined motion and even if you don't do them do both motions put both motions on the table at the same time because they're interrelated.

You could certainly discuss both in your in your discussion.

Director Mack.

I think we could be discussing both of them at the same time but I wonder if we want to be clear on which one we're actually voting on.

So I'm not sure.

I'm seeing nods in consensus so we have discussion on both motions and take them separately on the vote.

So I will read both motions into the record.

Thank you sir.

No excuse me.

If you're going to if you're going to do the motion separately in terms of the voting you do just motion a now have the discussion and vote and then you'd move on and make motion B and vote on that.

Correction I'm going to read motion A into the record.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to enter into a service agreement for the 2018 19 school year with the city of Seattle Department of Education early learning in an amount up to three million six hundred and seventy nine thousand three hundred and seventy nine dollars to operate 17 Seattle preschool program classrooms in the form of the draft agreement attached to the school board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary steps to implement this action.

I second the motion.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues who would like to go first.

Director Burke please.

Just a combination statement and understanding that this is.

Essentially a.

Renewal of existing and the conversations that were had in public testimony around converting schools to SPP plus our classrooms to SPP plus and integrating the developmental preschools into those is part of motion B.

Ms. Toner could you please address that please.

Good evening.

Michelle Toner executive director of curriculum and instruction.

Yes with the one thing that I was thinking about is the move from OVA to VA is technically included in Motion A. So that would be two SPP plus classrooms together at OVA.

Director Geary please.

I think the question about which will be converted is is sufficiently intertwined in in such that if we don't vote for new classrooms that doesn't mean we won't still be looking at converting I hope some of the existing classrooms to inclusion classrooms.

Because right now we have.

Let's see for inclusion classrooms in our SPP and I would like to see more one way or another.

So if we don't vote for more classrooms and because I don't see a prohibition in any of this be it this year or next year if we never make another SPP I hope that we will continue to want to create more inclusion classrooms in our district.

And that this simply is at some point going to come down to the issue that as we create more so we currently have 19 developmental preschool sites.

And those are for our students identified with disabilities.

As we create more inclusion classrooms and we create more seats within inclusion classrooms for kids identified with disabilities we won't have the same number of students available to populate our developmental preschool classes.

And so over time we will have to convert some of those developmental preschools Or they will have to.

We simply won't have the bodies because they will be in inclusion classrooms.

It's it is we cannot continue a dual system and maintain a seat for a student in both programs.

So I guess the either or aspect of this is a little for me personally is not the way I want to frame this just because again there's reasons and I know there's philosophies around whether or not to expand SPP whether we will continue to have space for SPP over time.

But I still hope that to the extent that we have SPP that we are continually looking to create more inclusive environments in those existing classrooms.

Can you address that point and can we have Mr. Chappelle and Ms. Aguirre address that point as well.

Because I have to tell you I'm a little confused here.

We've been told on a regular basis that we can't have more SPP plus classrooms.

We're doing it thoughtfully strategically etc.

And we heard some extraordinarily compelling testimony this evening that that I need some assistance with please.

Sure so why don't we just take it from the top.

Okay so we'll just start and kind of frame the whole thing and then we can move through the conversation.

Does that sound like it'll work?

Okay.

So first of all thank you.

Thank you for your engagement around this work.

It's been an ongoing dialogue with our board, with our SEA partners, with our city partners over the last four years.

I made a note to myself that the last time I was here I thanked lots of folks but I forgot to actually thank the special education preschool team in Seattle Public Schools central office and I actually also forgot to thank the early learning team in Seattle schools.

So lots of the correspondence and email that you get is research done by both of those teams.

So some of them are here.

Thank you.

This is very hard work.

It sounds simple but this is hard work to think about how do we build high quality programming at the same time make sure that we're meeting all of the outcomes we need for grants for students for teachers all of those different different stakeholders.

So tonight you do have the opportunity to vote to accept city funds.

Lots of lots of dollars right?

Lots of Seattle preschool program levy dollars to come to Seattle Public Schools for Seattle Public Schools to teach preschool.

I want to emphasize that.

Oftentimes people say it's a city program it's a city program.

Actually this is a city funded Seattle Public Schools program.

That's the nuance that is super exciting because these are SEA certificated teachers teaching.

So we are in essence creating P5 campuses in Seattle Public Schools which is one of the things I've heard our board say help us have fewer transitions for families.

This is a strategy that does that.

And it's really exciting.

So the proposal tonight is 17 classrooms continuing those and then adding four to seven additional classrooms.

We'll get to the nuance of that in a minute.

Inside of those seven classrooms are a combination of expanding the continuum of service so that plus model for more kids and more seats and making that more accessible.

Also something I really want to hold on to is there are two classrooms of funding the second half of the day for Head Start.

That aligns.

I want to say perfectly but very very well with our eliminating opportunity gaps and supporting families and building capacity with some of our underserved historically marginalized communities.

And so I'm really proud of that work.

This is an amazing opportunity for Seattle Public Schools.

for our teachers for our families and for our students.

We need to hold on to that big picture idea when we get down in the weeds in a few minutes.

We know that high quality preschool is a proven strategy to eliminate opportunity gaps.

Sometimes we talk about that as educators and people say what are you talking about?

This is something you can say like preschool like high quality preschool.

Don't you do you want that for your own children?

The answer is usually yes.

And we're helping expand access for more children in Seattle Public Schools.

Seattle Public Schools continues to be a high quality preschool provider serving diverse families.

You can see the demographic information in your bar that's also aligned with our core mission in Seattle Public Schools.

I'm really proud of this work.

This is innovative work inside of a public school system.

Understanding that high quality preschool was something that I had to make the case for several years ago.

I heard board members say that tonight.

I heard community say that tonight and I hear senior leadership in Seattle Public Schools accepting that just to be true.

That's really exciting.

And that's a shift.

Next year will be our fourth year of Seattle preschool program pilot overall.

So the city will be funding about 80 classrooms.

This proposal tonight gives us the opportunity to hold 24 of those classrooms taught by Seattle Public Schools employees evaluated it using the same metrics that we use for kindergarten first second grade teachers.

That's pretty exciting opportunity.

And we're learning as we go.

The work has not been perfect.

We've made course corrections.

We have a feedback loop.

We have several constraints that the board's been very clear about your direction.

Make sure that we vet facilities.

Make sure that your budget is completely contained within the grant from the city to drive all of this work and limit transitions for families as much as possible.

This proposal tonight tries to meet all of those needs.

I like to think of it as simple and complex at the same time.

When I get down in the weeds of it I think gosh how in the world could this be so difficult.

And then I think wait a minute.

This is a great idea.

That's what inspires me especially when things are hard when things and I hear feedback that say you haven't done this you haven't done this you haven't done this.

And some of that is probably true.

We're learning as we go and we're getting better.

So tonight you've heard lots of comments in public testimony that seem to me to really focus around two main areas.

So I'll just name them and then we can talk about them and I have lots of colleagues here that might be able to add information as well.

So I heard lots of comments around program design and I also heard lots of comments about educator voice.

Okay so we'll take the first one first which is program design.

The idea of co-locating in our first year of implementation of SPP plus made sense because we needed to build capacity within our SPP teaching core around best practice for inclusion practices.

Okay that's a lot of education speak for what are you talking about?

That means last year what happened was we converted or we changed Seattle preschool program classrooms into SPP plus classrooms.

And we did that at four sites and we built that capacity in our SPP teachers.

The proposal tonight is to think about having two SPP classrooms you know located together in response to a need that we heard from teachers to have a 1.0 special education teacher available to both classrooms across the day.

We found it's difficult to staff a 0.5 teacher teaching position and to mitigate for that we're thinking about having two classrooms next door to each other so that we can deal with that challenge.

Let's see.

Educator input was also in teacher voice was also something that I heard from our developmental preschool teachers and other folks that gave public testimony tonight that there's a concern around really formalizing the feedback loop that's been a little bit informal between central office folks special education folks and practitioners.

So I actually met with SEA the Seattle Education Association before this meeting and we had a long conversation around what might some of those mechanisms be.

So one of the ideas on the table is hey let's formalize that leadership team that's making programmatic decisions or making decisions around Seattle preschool program and preschool in Seattle schools.

So that's a solution that could help with the feedback loop.

Because as I was listening today I thought oh I wish you knew about this part or this part or this part these grant parameters or this part of the collective bargaining agreement or this facilities challenge that we have at that particular school.

So if we could build out that feedback loop I'm confident that the work will just get stronger.

Let's see.

Okay.

So that was a lot.

I do want to spend one moment and talk about capacity and how that works with developmental preschool.

And we organize that.

And if someone wants to jump in here and help me with this that would be fine.

But we organize that by region.

OK and so we look at how many students might we have in enrollment trends over time and we look at that across region.

One of the recommendations from the preschool task force was when you're building the programming and when you're building more inclusive opportunities make sure you're thinking about a continuum of service regionally across the city.

In other words don't cluster inclusive opportunities in one part of the city and that would not be equitable for other parts of the city.

OK.

Anything.

OK.

Could we hear from Mr. Chappelle and Ms. Aguirre and perhaps SEA president Campano would like to come to the fore and add some of her expertise as well.

First I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to come and speak today.

And also before I even turn this over to Monica I also want to thank you all for taking and allowing us to come and provide support and services for the kids here in Seattle Public Schools.

I know a couple of years ago when we were talking about the SPP plus program there were a lot of questions and I'm happy to say that we're looking at building it out.

But also, I'll let Monica speak a little bit more to what that's going to look like.

And she'll also talk a little bit more maybe about the expansion and so forth.

So again, thank you for this opportunity.

Good evening Monica Liang Aguirre department of education early learning early learning division director.

This is my third time here so I'm feeling like an old veteran by now.

And it's really truly remarkable how.

how much our partnership has grown and how really we are strategically planning the expansion within within SPS and within the city.

And one thing I want to emphasize before I get into some details is the fact that you know at the city we think about our preschool worker all of our early learning work because we know that the majority of the children Hopefully we'll run into SPS buildings one day right?

They will become part of your district.

And so all of our early learning interventions are with the notion in mind that they will come to kindergarten ready.

And so all of our early learning work are expanded birth through three work.

And of course all of our preschool work has that intent in mind is kindergarten readiness.

And so we are grateful that SPS has really embraced this notion of doing what you have the capacity to do right now to offer as many preschool programs as possible within your buildings.

And then obviously we work to support all of our other providers as well whose kids will one day be your students.

So just to, I heard some questions and some comments about enrollment and questions around that and I wanted to highlight some specifics around the SPS demographics for SPP so this is a lot of S's and P's in there.

So specifically the 17 classrooms that are run by SPS and I appreciate Cashel clarifying these are your programs.

We help fund them and and the ones that are run by SPS.

We have 70 percent almost 70 percent of those children receive free tuition.

So we are definitely meeting a need there for for children.

furthest from opportunity 27% receive partial tuition so they get a subsidy and then you have only 4% districtwide from your programs that actually pay full tuition.

So I feel like we are meeting our target in terms of and that is not too far off from our overall SPP population which is about 80% that receive full tuition.

So we're in the ballpark and obviously it ranges a little bit from school to school but that's the district average.

And then the majority of children are also children of color.

We have 28 percent are Asian, 19% are black African-American, 11% are Latinos, we have a small percentage of Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders and then other combination of two or more races and then 23% are white.

So again we are we are definitely working towards meeting the needs of community and I'm really pleased with the strategy that Cashel and her team have used to try to diversify the geographic locations of the programs.

So we're excited about that.

In terms of our enrollment processes I am very quick to admit that last year was rough.

So we had a parent who sounded like she had struggled with our system and our database which was far from perfect last year.

Hopefully our applications are opening next week so hopefully we will be smoother riding this year.

That was definitely a challenge and I will bring that feedback to the city to our colleagues there.

But we do have you know we tried to make this process work as best as we could for Seattle Public Schools families.

I know one of the challenges is if a family has a sibling in one particular school that you know there there is not an automatic sibling preference.

And the reason why that is is because we don't have the capacity neither on our end or I don't believe at your end right now to cross check all this information and if a parent applies and says my child goes to Boren my third grader goes to Boren then we have to before we when we have an application we have to check with SPS to make sure does this child sibling really go to Boren that is a little bit out of our capacity at this moment.

But what we did do after the first year when this came up we did go back to counsel and change the ordinance so that we could give preference to geo zones within the district.

So if you live in the Boren zone or in the Billy Gatzert zone then you will get you'll be a higher priority for that particular preschool.

And then if you're if you happen to have another child in that school then that works.

If you're out of if you're in a choice school then that doesn't doesn't doesn't work there.

But we definitely heard feedback that was in year one and we're trying to make it.

As simple for parents we have the great opportunity.

This is the last year of our levy so a lot going to the drawing board for the new levy in terms of thinking about policies and processes and making it one of our biggest goals is just to simplify for families and for providers.

So that's some of the things that we hope we will address as we move on.

Are there any particular questions that you'd like me to address?

Director Mack.

Thank you Cashel and thank you both for giving a good overview.

You answered quite a few of my questions in advance on the sibling preference and the geo zone.

We have the same struggles inside of our district as to wait lists and preference and how to you know our student assignment plan all these.

It's it's.

It's challenging and complicated to set that policy.

But one of the things I did hear when I was out doing the tours from the teachers and the families is that it's it is a struggle for.

Students that get into the SPP program and then they may or may not have access to the school after.

And they may have students in the school.

So it might be reversed in both ways where students are in the SPP program.

But they don't automatically especially if they're in a choice school right.

And they don't automatically.

Get preference to get into kindergarten or they're there in the SPP program but they may not be able to get into that that kindergarten specific.

Yes.

And so these are challenges that.

I would hopefully encourage that as you are developing the next levy that maybe we should be having those conversations about if there are some potential student assignment plan changes that we should consider to make it smoother for families.

I know there's concern around you don't want to necessarily give students an in in pre-K that would not give other students the opportunity.

So it's a complicated issue but I I appreciate that you said that.

There can be and should be a conversation as you're going to the drawing board around those issues.

I have a bunch of other questions around the developmental preschool and how that ties and how many students are being displaced in the current proposal and how many.

I think you said there was four SPP plus classrooms and I didn't I can't see it in the bar which ones those are in specific.

Yeah for the new ones I'll like.

No not for the new ones for the ones that exist because right now we're.

Oh the new ones.

The ones that exist are at Bailey Gatzert Thornton Creek OVA and and Boren stem.

Thank you.

And of those three of them have co-located developmental preschools currently.

Is that correct?

From what I was hearing.

I'll let Cashel answer that.

OK so it's your question of the classrooms that we have now that are SVP plus.

How many of them are co-located with a developmental preschool.

That's one of my questions.

Yes.

So let's just go through the sites.

Bailey Gatzert.

Yes.

Barn stem.

Yes.

OVA.

Yes.

And who is my.

And Thornton Creek.

That's fine.

Yes.

So those that's the current model right now.

And they have they essentially at this point in terms of building capacity have.

to preschool programs next to each other in all the settings.

That is a nuanced question.

Some of the classrooms have.

So yes to the SPP plus full day programming.

Some of the developmental preschools that are next door or down the hall or something might have an AM session or a PM session.

Some of them might have both.

Some of them might be doing some other programming.

OK.

So the other part of my question is the developmental preschool classrooms across the district.

If we are potentially putting a Seattle preschool program where currently a developmental preschool program exists or moving them.

How many students.

Are impacted by that.

Meaning how many developmental preschool programs development of preschool children at for example Bailey Gatzert developmental preschool program.

So that's that's a would have to get moved to Madrona or.

Yeah that's a nuanced question and I'll answer it and help you kind of categorize the ways that all of the different variables there.

OK.

So some of the sessions might just might have an AM session some might have a PM session some might have both.

Some children remember we enroll to developmental preschool when students turn three.

So the classrooms are a mixture of three and four year old kids.

So some of those students being served are going to automatically move up to kindergarten.

OK so that's one bucket of kiddos and then some might be a perfectly great fit for an SPP plus model.

Those are decisions that IEP teams need to make and families need to make.

Of that there probably might even be some three year olds that actually wouldn't be eligible for SPP plus or SPP at all because the alignment of when you enroll right.

Remember we and we serve students when they're three years old whenever your birthday happens to be when you come to kindergarten or when you go to SPP you need to be five or four by a certain day.

Does that make sense to you?

Okay.

It's helpful but what it doesn't actually illustrate which is where my biggest concern is is the displacement of the developmental preschool students that need those services and.

So that's a nuanced question that is appropriate for an IEP team to make.

All right.

So the students who will have service next year those conversations happen with with the preschool team or with the IEP team and then those decisions are made.

So it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say according to the data this is what it says.

Right.

But if it's not offered in Bailey Gatzert anymore then they're displaced.

So say there's 20 students that are currently accessing developmental preschool at Bailey Gatzert.

If the Seattle preschool plus program moves in there those 20 students are displaced.

Some of them might be but some of them will go to kindergarten.

Some of them might choose to go to SPP plus which would be a full inclusion model and some might choose to go to developmental preschool which I think we put this in the email.

The plan would be to relocate to a different neighborhood school.

Some families might choose that.

I guess from a clarification standpoint they will be guaranteed a spot in a developmental preschool program.

Yes they will.

And so that's that's back on placement with the IEP team.

And so whether they apply for SPP plus at Gatzert if that was to be co-joined there.

That is most of the students will be continue to be served at Gatzert but there will be some students right now are projecting with an N under 10 so I can't get into all the details that would look like they would move to Madrona right now.

One of the other things that I think is part of this conversation and I can greatly appreciate where the difficulty is is really around the number of students.

Preschool has a thing where it grows over the school year.

And so there's some things where we have to staff because these guys are great.

We want to we've got to hire them and place them.

But there's also the movement.

And then there's also because they are young.

There's differences when they IP teams come together and they change their placement over the course while they are 3 4 and 5.

President Campano I'm watching you nod etc.

Could you come help learn us up.

Yeah I'll get y'all straightened out there.

Thank you.

OK.

So I think what you were hearing tonight is that I think we all have a little bit of a different definition of inclusion.

So what is happening in classrooms is that you in some of the schools like Gatzert and Thornton Creek is you have the developmental pre-K and the SPP plus and there's inclusion going on so in the developmental pre-K you have some significantly challenged kids and those kids aren't going to go away if we all do SPP plus.

It's just like our regular classrooms in K through 12. We have some significantly challenged kids that disrupt the learning in in our general ed classrooms and we still include them to the to the least restrict environment so that they are still getting SDI on.

According to the IEP's.

SDI means please.

Specially designed instruction.

Sorry if I go into the lingo.

So I think that.

What we are all saying is that we do eventually want this to become just pre-K and not distinguish between developmental pre-K or SPP plus.

It's just all pre-K.

But for right now what we need to do in learning as Cashel said as we move along and build this and learn is that we start off with the developmental pre-K They can stay in their home schools and they get the services that they need in developmental pre-K.

They can go into SPP plus as they improve and eventually SPP as the years go on and stay in that elementary school and get into whatever services if they need any in that elementary school.

So there's less transition for their kids when it's co-located.

and the services are there.

So I think people get stuck when they hear developmental pre-K that they're in that room all day long.

And that's not happening in at least two of our schools.

They really are going into SPP plus classrooms in the least restrictive environment for those skills and getting the required education that they need per skill.

And that's pretty amazing.

I tried that in my K through 3 classroom and it's a lot of work and that's really what makes kids successful.

So I think that's happening.

And just back about the displaced developmental pre-K according to the contract it's 10 kids in the morning 10 kids in the afternoon so there is a potential for 20 students to be displaced.

And I think especially in the Gatzert community it is super important that they stay in there or I guess in any community but in a vulnerable community they stay in their school where they're comfortable.

And I think.

That's the special ed teacher full time.

The staff are concerned about half.

A teacher in SPP plus one classroom and half and the other.

Yes that does make a full FTE.

But it's better for the students that there is a full FTE all day long in one classroom.

Can I ask you a really direct question here.

Absolutely.

If we don't have money.

Yeah which we don't.

Are these deal breakers for us to vote against.

Ms. Tonight?

I don't we're not sure how much money it would cost to keep a developmental pre-K co-located with an SPP plus.

We see that as neutral.

The special ed teacher I mean we're not going to hold we don't want the process to be held up because of the FTE.

Like you heard the story tonight this is super successful for our students and none of us want that.

So what's the next step then in terms of trust in terms of whether the city will hold hands with us and devote more money to inclusion etc.

So the next step into building trust I think that meeting that we had with Cashel prior to this it was about 20 of the preschool educators they talked about a joint not really a joint labor management but a a leadership team where they come and have more communication.

And I think that would lend to some more problem solving around what is best for our kids and how do we move forward in truly including and I think having coaches and.

program specialist and city people in those meetings so that everybody can brainstorm of what how do we move forward.

I mean we're Seattle Public Schools.

We do things really well we're innovative.

How do we make this innovative especially for our kids our special needs kids.

Director Mack and then Director DeWolf.

I have several more questions I hope they're not too many but you answered a number of them.

Thank you Phyllis.

Especially around the especially around the FTE teacher.

I was brought up in testimony that it's important to have a full time IA. in support and that there are certain times in which those students are being supported.

So I have concerns around the full appropriate staffing in the SPP plus program that seems to be currently augmented by the developmental preschool program.

If I'm understanding that correctly that's why the co-location is working is that you have a cooperation I'm seeing head nodding here you have a cooperation between the two whether or not that's appropriate and we're blending is another question but.

Right.

So but at this at this point that cooperation is allowing for there to be sufficient coverage for the IEP needs.

Yep.

The other question that comes up for me is the idea that students from the developmental pre-K can graduate into SPP.

But if the classroom is full and there's an application process I'm not clear on how they would actually be guaranteed a spot.

They may not be guaranteed a spot but they can still access the SPP through inclusion.

If they are in the developmental pre-K but if they are say ready for SPP plus there is a limited number of spots and it's Designated through the application process.

Correct.

I think that goes back to the issues around enrollment.

Yes which you guys are going to get together and solve.

So.

Director Toner can you address some of this as well.

I might be nodding from up here is is.

Fascinating I must say.

I bet.

Stakeholder engagement.

OK.

So the current program model that we have today is goes like this and it would be the SPP plus model indicates additional staff.

Right.

So what we do is we have five seats for students with special needs.

Right.

And we have a pathway for enrollment inside of Seattle Public Schools.

Then we have 13 kids that enroll through Seattle through the city of Seattle.

general ed kids typically developing kids although not always.

Sometimes we find that within those 13 kids there are students that need more supports.

There isn't a mechanism through our city partnership to add additional supports as needed for the 13 kids.

The five kids that would be where the 0.5 special education teacher would be supporting those five kids.

OK.

In cooperation with the full the general ed certificated teacher and the instructional assistant.

The concept of inclusion is that all teachers teach all kids.

And so that means that there's a high level of collaboration that needs to happen inside of that classroom.

OK.

The budget you all have been very clear to me that the proposal I bring forward to you needs to be fiscally sound.

I vetted the model around the 1.0 general ed teacher, the 0.5 special ed teacher and the 1.0 instructional assistant and hourly tutor as defined as SPP plus staffing model.

With the five seats for special education students and 13 seats for gen ed.

We've run those numbers JoLynn's team has run those numbers our city partners have run those numbers and I've brought you that proposal.

That is the model that we've researched and I can say to you is fiscally sound.

I have not yet researched the request to.

What's the word I'm looking for to evolve the model or to revise the model.

And so I can't tell you this evening that that would be budget neutral.

OK.

Director DeWolf please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

First question is the development preschool from Bailey Gatzert is moving to Madrona and at Madrona there will not be any SPP or SPP plus program.

Actually there is a provider a CBO provider at Madrona that is SPP plus.

classrooms.

And are those SPP sorry too many S's and P's.

No.

So that's a community based organization teaching preschool at Madrona funded by the city of Seattle SPP program.

So there's technically SPP at Madrona for all intents purposes and the developmental.

And so are they co is that considered co-located technically?

I haven't explored that definition of co-location but there is a potential outside of that scenario more at other sites where community providers have said hey we would like to collaborate with you.

We would like to collaborate.

And so that conversation with the beginnings of that but we're not too far down the road yet.

And then my second question was around the sibling and prioritization.

We serve 329 students in that program.

Is there really no room for that conversation to.

I mean I guess I'm looking at the number 329. That's not.

We have 54000 I think.

As far as when it comes to students who might have siblings that seems like a small number for us to kind of go through in my head.

So is there room for that shift to be moved to actually giving priority to siblings?

We certainly can talk about it.

We're hesitant to make any exceptions for just the kids that are.

It would really be for all of our students in SPP right because if a family has a has a child in a school that has also a CBO run preschool we would want to offer that same.

So it really would be for everybody not just the 300. We're happy to talk about it.

It would require extensive.

data sharing between SPS and and us.

And that is something we are just gaining traction on.

And so I I don't want to over promise anything.

But we're happy to talk about it because we we actually I think propose that you know in our own minds a few years back but backpedaled pretty quickly when we realized the complexities of that.

It isn't ideal.

I just wanted to, may I add just a couple of thoughts that I had?

And I speak as you know like many of us former principal with really grappling with the same issues of I had a developmental preschool and started an inclusion preschool and I understand the real concerns of teachers because they are the ones who live it day in and day out.

We have great ideas and then other people have to implement them.

And so I respectfully acknowledge everybody's comments.

I'm also a parent of a child with significant special needs who goes here to the district.

It's getting great services by the way.

And but I was her principal when she was in developmental preschool and we started this inclusion classroom and just what a huge difference that made for her.

One thing that just hasn't been brought up and I just want to remind the board is that.

Developmental the task force was that was a board directive last two years ago two years ago last year.

It's all a blur.

You know made this recommendation that for equity purposes mostly right because we have to remember that developmental preschool the kids that are at the most significant needs are in half day programs.

And I believe it's four days a week.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

So they're getting less than half the amount of time than a child who would receive in a preschool in an SPP plus classroom.

And so it doesn't mean that they're always with a special education teacher.

I don't want to build that false idea but they are receiving instruction and they're in a structured environment.

And that's not the thing for everybody and not every child will benefit from that.

But for many kids that's a real game changer.

And I think In speaking with I happen to have a conversation with with the principal at the EU and who's implementing a very similar program to SPP plus and transition from a half day program to the full day program and the data that he's collected on IEP goals and progress on that has been astounding just just because they have the more exposure and more instructional time on a regular basis.

So I think that's just one thing to keep in mind.

I just want to make sure that got brought up.

And then also just the real complexity that the preschool fund early learning funding is right now with the district you know you're receiving Head Start funds and making the most creatively the most of that so that the kids the most marginalized children in the district can have access to full day preschool and that's such a huge accomplishment to do that with a creative blending of funds that you have available.

And this is another opportunity to do that.

So we have committed you know we do have some flexible funding in our program for special populations.

We sort of left it at that because we knew that There are always going to be circumstances where children have more specific needs and more distinct needs or that cost a little bit more for something.

And so we've been working with the district to to make adjustments as necessary.

Now it doesn't mean that we can't hire a full time special education teacher in every classroom that's not realistic.

But as on an ongoing basis as needed we have worked together to to make sure that kids get what they need.

Thank you.

Director Keary please.

So when I came on the board two years ago we were facing eliminating the EEU.

Our funding to it not eliminating it but our funding to it to some degree.

And over the course of its existence we have lost sight of the fact that it was to be a model for us to build around.

And so instead of eliminating that funding we renewed it with the promise that we would use it as the model to start building more inclusion into our system.

And since that time we're now up to we have this partnership around preschool and we have four sites with the opportunity to go to eight sites for inclusion.

So I thank you so much because I do know that the task force this is what they wanted.

This is what they worked long and hard over and recommended to us.

And that I also know that there were our special education staff that said it was going to be very important not to eliminate our developmental preschools because there will always be a need for them.

And by these numbers I see that we will go from 19 sites down to 17 sites while we are just up to eight sites for inclusion.

So this is great.

This is this is the right direction.

This is what many of our families want.

I think these shifts shifts around programming around location causes growing pains.

If not these two sites then maybe two other sites and then we would have a different group of people two different groups of people in front of us today.

That is the reality of the decisions that we have to make that there are choices.

And sometimes it's one group.

And if we were to change tonight based upon the requests of this group then next week we would see a different group because we would have to make the decision.

But what I did hear is that there was talk tonight.

Cashel you met with this group of people and what I want to hear from you were their commitments to continue conversations going forward around this work.

And what does that look like?

Because.

I do want to make sure that as we move forward with these decisions we don't just continue to go back to the task force as our community engagement.

But that we are purposeful in moving forward because I'd like to see more than eight of these classrooms.

But I also want to make sure that we are building in going forward.

a commitment for community engagement and that means with the parents and the teachers of the existing classrooms with good communication and explanation behind our decision making.

So are we are we in a position to commit to that?

And did you want to put an amendment on to the motion to assure that?

I believe there's actually language in in the amendment that talks about the non-certainty of placement.

If somebody else wants to make that motion I will I will be happy with the assurances of our staff.

So I think the conversation and I can summarize what I heard and then Phyllis if you want to.

Summarize what you heard as well.

We had a conversation around you know formalizing a mechanism for feedback and for decision making.

And so other groups in.

I asked a question I said there must be other groups in Seattle schools that have something successful happening.

And then someone said yeah there is a thing called a program leadership team.

And it works really well for nurses and it works really well for other groups that work across our district to be able to think about.

And I heard the analogy toward a building leadership team to think about professional development.

and have a constructive conversation about that because I can take surveys all day long and say teachers what would you like to have and then come up with a plan.

But really that should be a little bit more co-constructed and vetted and talked about.

And then we also talked about you know the feedback loop needs to go both ways.

So the educators are saying we know we're on the ground we do this work every day.

Right.

And I and I.

thought yes and there are constraints that we're working within that I think if we could just put those on the table and say these are the constraints that we have and our task is to figure out how to build programming within these.

And what I mean by that would be things like what are the programmatic expectations for Seattle preschool program.

Those nine milestones are very important that we continue to keep meeting.

We've done that successfully for three years.

We need to continue to keep doing that.

That's a hallmark of a high quality program.

And I would say Seattle Public Schools is poised to deliver that.

Right.

And then I also think about inside of special education there are also there are rules and compliance issues that we need to make sure we're meeting.

There's also another bucket of compliance through Head Start.

Right.

So there are lots of things that we should just put on the table and say these are the constraints that we're working in.

Director Burke and then Director Mack.

Then director Pinkham then director DeWolf.

OK I've got a lot of things in my head and a couple of them on note so I'll try to boil this down.

First of all thank you for for for working so hard to take this this complex and nuanced thing and share both an elegant vision and the detail that that that makes that work.

But if I if I sort of oversimplify what were the way I've internalized it you can tell me if this is drastically wrong is that we're we're looking at a conversion or you know creating a new SPP plus classroom which would essentially supersede or evolve from a developmental preschool.

And that essentially is a choice to serve nominally 20 students in a full day high quality program versus potentially 10 students in a half day.

Maybe more if you have.

Two half days but four day a week.

Program.

And.

So the.

Intuitively there's something that's that's really clean and elegant about the co-location in my mind just because presumably IEPs or family choice.

There are students that would say you know there are students that would.

would be better suited in a half day or a less intensive program than a full day.

I'm sort of projecting looking for head nods but we're potentially eliminating that ability to do that.

in a co-located site.

We're saying that if you want the half day program.

You're potentially at a different site.

Because we're going to put the two SPP plus programs.

Actually if I may the proposal right now is to keep the programming intact the way it is right now at Boren STEM.

The feedback from that particular school community is that they recognize so much change in growing their larger school that that is what makes sense.

Remember when we look at regional capacity for developmental preschool and enrollment projection The proposal that was that is on the table this evening is to make two changes.

Yes within developmental preschool and those particular changes would be at Bailey Gatzert and at Thornton Creek.

The other proposal on the table is to add capacity in an SPP plus classroom at BF Day because remember the task force asked us to look regionally and we do not have access in that part of the city for full day inclusive programming.

Okay so to to kind of go ahead with this the way I've sort of maybe oversimplified it but what would things look like if it were perfect and if our model was co-locating you know some type of developmental preschool with an SPP plus.

Is that an aspirational goal whether it's developmental preschool or whether it's SPP plus point five you know something that is that is a less intensive form of of engagement with education.

Are there students that we should be building that out for.

So I'm going to be really transparent with you and I would say we are actually technically speaking about six months into programming right now.

Right.

So is that September to now with the SPP plus model.

So I'm not sure that we have enough information to make a commitment that way.

We've had this co-location model at four different sites and we've had different levels of collaboration and different levels of feedback from staff regarding their feeling around what the model should look like moving forward.

OK and then the last question around the BF Day site.

I'd heard some concerns that with the the the changes that their community has been going through and the growth of their access program that went in there.

Is there capacity bandwidth support to build that program out in a way that it will be successful for the school for the community.

There are supports built into the SPP plus.

I wrote a grant to fund a coach within the early learning department that the focus of that person's work is to coach our SPP plus classrooms and to help us with the early achievers process which is the state quality rating indicator system for high quality preschool.

We're actually looking to be the first school district in the state to really move through that accreditation process which is pretty heavy work.

So there is support that goes with SPP plus.

There is some challenge because our communication with staff at particularly well actually I could just generalize that for all of this work hasn't been as strong as it could have been.

And we do have so many moving parts right.

We have our city funders that have only so much capacity.

So we of course made our request.

Would it have been premature for them to say yes or no to that request before they actually vetted their budget and figured out who and what was going to be funded for next year.

Right.

So that's a moving part.

And then also the overarching capacity of Seattle Public Schools.

You've been very clear please vet your proposals and think about facilities when you bring the proposal forward.

So can I make.

We have the structures in place for supporting the SPP plus classroom.

We will need to at BF Day we'll need to do some work around particular coaching that might need to happen given the context of their school.

OK next up is director Pinkham.

Director Pinkham.

He hasn't spoken yet.

Thank you.

Director Burke actually covered part of the question was asking about.

If at Bailey Gatzert we have in the developmental 10 in the morning 10 in the afternoon and then the SP plus and the SP plus currently have the 5 to 13 ratio.

And the proposal is then to put the SP plus in the developmental now and that one then too will become 5 to 13. So we're now going instead of having serving 25 development students going down to 10 at that site.

Yes we had a very similar conversation when we talked about shifting head start from you know an a.m.

p.m.

session to funding a full day.

Right.

So it's kind of how you think about it.

Is it dosage of time or is it number of seats or is it some of both.

But the point is we're going from 25 down to 10. That's all I'm worried about as far as.

So what I'm what I'm wondering is if Director Burke pointed out for us the different program models and that there is a there is a difference between the current developmental preschool model and the SPP plus model.

So it's kind of like apples and oranges.

But we're seeing testimony here that it's beneficial to have SP plus and developmental at the same site to help with either the needs or because of the staffing.

And then if they get shifted to Madrona where you're saying oh we have a CBO there but how are we sure that the CBO has the proper staffing to then pick up the needs of the developmental that are moved over there and I would hate to move students that have developmental needs.

Oh OK we are here but hey guess what we got to move you someplace else.

I feel that they need better care than that.

That we can try to keep them at the same site.

the best possible.

I don't know if there's a grandfathering that we can do for these students.

No we don't want you to move either.

How we can help out and fill those gaps.

And then yeah maybe the SP plus can work eventually but for the students that need that help I would hate to pull them out and move them to another school.

Director Mack and then Director DeWolf.

Thank you for everyone who just spoke before because I want to second it.

I appreciate it because that was one of my questions is the actual the loss of the access for developmental preschool students because the numbers go down the actual seats go down and that there are quite there has been a fair amount of email and testimony around how some of these students actually it's better for them to have half day because they're exhausted after half day.

And I remember having twins.

And you know naps are important and sometimes full day at that age is really not appropriate.

So being able to maintain that I'm seeing nods out here so I appreciate that as well as the loss of seats.

And the devil is in the details here because I think we are all very supportive of.

the Seattle preschool program and the work that's going on and Seattle preschool program plus because this is you know it's we're moving forward.

I'm personally concerned about the impact the developmental preschool and also making sure that those programs are inclusive and have the best possible situation that they can.

And so when I'm looking at the bar I'm having a hard time figuring out what we're actually voting on tonight because the first motion is around the 17 that exist now.

And it doesn't it doesn't clarify which ones are the SPP plus it just says the classrooms in it.

So to clarify the SPP plus.

programs that are currently in place are Bailey Gatzert, BF Day, Boren and Thornton Creek correct?

In the current proposal the main one not the additional.

So it's technically the policy that drives this bar would be accepting the funds.

And so because we're above a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar mark this work comes here.

The program placement and the managing the capacity around actually designating program placement is a different conversation.

But because of the need for transparency and the board's desire to really vet facilities we've included the sites that are included in the proposal.

If I understand what you just said correctly then essentially you're telling us that we've kind of got an up or down vote today on the additional classrooms if we want to say provide the direction that it sounds like we're hearing at least I am personally I won't speak for the rest of my colleagues but I'm hearing that.

In particular Bailey Gatzert should not have their developmental preschool program displaced by SPP at this time.

And that's but if we don't have the opportunity to weigh in on that and we are actually at a point of deciding we either say yes to the entire plan that you've laid out here or.

I'm trying to figure out where we have actually influence on the feedback we're getting because the concern around is having so using the developmental preschool sites and moving them.

I hear that concern but that's also a directive from the board has been to me expand the continuum of service.

So Keshel please bring us a proposal that builds out the SPP plus model.

And so those things we need to balance them together.

Mr. General Counsel.

It's your turn.

Yes.

We're voting to accept the money.

We're not voting.

to address placement.

Is that correct?

Yeah essentially the motion in front of you really is to approve the agreement and accept the money and looking at it right now the draft doesn't mandate these particular sites and the bar talks about the need that with capacity there may have to be shifts.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Director DeWolf.

Cashel.

Just a couple more questions.

And thank you for your stamina.

I appreciate you sticking up there.

You are welcome.

Thanks for yours.

So there's a proposal to add four additional SPP plus classrooms or is it seven because it says here for motion B open a minimum of up of four up sorry of four and up to seven.

So would that be seven potential SPP plus or.

Nope.

So I'll walk you through the new seven.

OK.

And I think last time through I had a map for you with a chart on the back and I forgot my map and chart for you today.

But I'll walk you through them.

OK.

So essentially in motion A it's the 17 classrooms that we have functioning and running right now with the nuance of moving the SPP plus classroom that is located at OVA down the street to Van Asselt.

OK so that's motion A.

Motion B talks about some SPP plus classrooms some Head Start classrooms and some actually brand new classrooms.

So I'll just walk you through them.

Ready.

Here we go through the seven.

Arbor Heights would be a new SPP classroom.

Bailey Gatzert would be a conversion of the developmental preschool classroom to an inclusive preschool classroom which is SPP plus.

BF Day would be it depends on how you think about that at the actual site.

There is an SPP classroom right now.

The proposal is to fund an SPP plus classroom.

Or you could think about it as a new SPP classroom and a SPP plus.

Nope.

So we have one there right now.

OK that's in the 17. But now we're talking about the seven.

So it would be a total of two.

Yes.

OK.

Keep going down the list.

EC Hughes would be two head start classrooms full day classrooms at EC Hughes.

Thornton Creek would be to convert the developmental preschool classroom that's there to an SPP plus inclusion model.

And then Sandpoint would be a new SPP classroom.

And I believe that gets us to 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.

And how many of the new seven.

Classrooms in Motion B or high need schools.

Can you help me think about what you define as a high need school?

Receiving LAP or Title 1 funds?

So Bailey Gatzert, E.C. Hughes, Roxhill.

I'm not sure about Sandpoint.

Yes.

Yes.

OK.

Thanks.

And if I missed anybody else on that list let me know.

But remember one is high needs is is a mission we have.

The other directive from our task force was to think about regions of the city and promoting access.

That's why Sandpoint makes great sense.

And also BF Day.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you so.

Thank you for all these answers.

We're going to be adding because SPP plus gives us five seats for students with special needs and we're moving the Bailey Gatzert over to Madrona so we're not actually losing 25 seats.

Just to clarify correct.

We're adding an additional 15 seats for students with special needs in our preschool program through our SPP.

The three new SPP plus is correct.

OK.

I don't have it.

I just want to clarify some information.

And actually just logistically I feel like we've been talking a little bit muddy between motion and B.

So are we.

I guess where we at.

I want to make sure because it feels like we're going back and forth between A and B.

We're talking about both of them because they're intertwined and braided.

No I understand.

I just remember the motion was for A so I don't know if we wanted to.

Motion A is in the record presently and I need a head nod from my colleagues.

Director Patu we've not heard from you please.

Thank you.

So I'm a visual learner I'm sitting here trying to think you know where all these different classes so SP so SPP is actually is that a general class?

Yes.

So regular and then SPP plus is that.

What is that's the inclusion classroom.

OK.

And then we have the one with the developmental classes and that's the IP IEP.

So so when you have.

OK.

So in each of these preschools they don't all have.

two separate classes in there do they.

We have a regular SVP class and then we have a plus or do we have a developmental classes that actually goes in two programs in one school.

I'm just trying to understand.

Right.

Well we have.

So right now we have developmental preschools and SPP plus classrooms in one school.

The proposal moving forward is to keep some of that but not keep all of that and add some of that outside of where it is right now.

So it's a bit of a combination it's like A B and C.

So if you move one of those programs actually that kind of go hand in hand with the regular program when that kind of take away from.

What what students are actually benefiting from.

By taking those those those two programs.

Well the feedback has been that families and our city would like to have more access to full day inclusion classrooms.

That was the charge from the board to think about that because we had SPP classrooms.

We had developmental preschool classrooms but we didn't have something like a hybrid in between of those two.

So that's where the SPP plus model was built.

But what would be more beneficial?

Wouldn't it be beneficial to actually have them have the two separate programs in one school instead of just having one?

Because you're actually, you're looking at two, you know, you have developmental and then you also have the regular programs.

So you have two separate kind of students that actually you have to deal with.

So if we take one away, how's that going to benefit the kids that really, the student that actually needs those programs?

Well I think our challenge is that we actually need more.

Right.

We need more high quality preschool in Seattle.

And that's the challenge we're running up against.

We have funding for this.

We have funding for this and we have funding for this.

And what we're trying to do is see how we can pull that funding together to build more of a continuum of service for kids because we had the developmental preschool model and then we had grant funded preschool.

But we didn't have anything in between which would be sort of a hybrid of both of those things which is how we landed on SPP plus.

So what we're voting on tonight is actually adding those to some of the programs that already exist in some of those preschools?

Tonight you have two opportunities.

The first one is to continue the programming that we have right now.

The 17 classrooms.

And then the second part is to think about adding seven more preschool classrooms.

You could think of it that way.

Some of them will be conversions of developmental preschool.

Some of them will be brand new seats and some of them will be funding out the second half of the day for Head Start.

OK time check 8 o'clock.

Director Burke and looking at my colleagues.

Director Burke then Jill Geary and perhaps we can wrap it up and take a vote.

So I'm going to try this.

Recognizing that this isn't exactly the way this is structured.

I'm going to go with how I would love this to work out if it's possible.

And that is I would like to see as much expansion of the SPP program as we can afford.

And I would like to see us not disrupt our co-location that we have now but instead we find a way to build a sustainable co-location model that includes partial day with full day services.

And so before we.

Overtake the existing.

Developmental.

Pre-K.

With an SPP plus that we maybe go one more round with our stakeholders to understand how we can weave them together.

Again understanding that that isn't what's in front of us but that's what I'd like to see.

Director Geary.

I want to we don't have anybody from Head Start here and it's a point that hasn't been brought up that the federal government has told us that we have to move all of our Head Start classrooms from half day to full day by 2020. I believe that's the timeline.

And we're doing that incrementally.

So in part we have to do some of this work to make sure that and and and the federal government has said yes you may blend it with other preschool programs so that it isn't wholly funded by Head Start.

So I just throw that out there because that is a point that hasn't been brought up on part of the Head Start and the Head Start rep. And again.

When you talk about what our families wanted and what they said they wanted through the task force was definitely to see the expansion of inclusion preschool.

I don't know how ultimately we're going to maintain 19 developmental preschools as we have now and expand SPP plus.

I don't know where we would get the money to have all those highly trained special ed staff and it basically will equate to having two seats for one student and figuring out how to fund it for a day and a half per each student.

So I'm I personally don't understand how that math works.

It would be nice to be able to do that to be able to maintain two seats for every student in both programs so that they can transition over time from one to the other.

But at some point the number of students is finite in terms of students identified with disabilities that need that specially designed instruction.

The other the other piece is that.

Developmental preschool and I didn't hear this either developmental preschool is our duty.

Fully and solely our duty.

So the elimination of a seat somewhere else doesn't mean that seat is lost forever.

If the student needs the seat.

We under the IDEA have to provide it.

So and it has to be in the least restrictive environment which is another reason why we are trying to build up because there is some argument that by only having having so many developmental seats.

And not more blended seats.

We are not complying with the least restrictive requirement of the IDEA.

So that is why while this move and this transition is difficult.

I don't know how we afford to do it to offer everybody.

The access to all options everywhere over time when we have 19 in one and only four in the other.

OK I've got just a few comments and then I'm going to ask for a vote and then I'm going to ask for the motion to be read into the record for B and then ask for a vote.

Again thank you to everybody in the room.

Special Ed teachers are my heroes.

Please bring the puppets next time.

This is a front loaded initiative to close the opportunity gap and to talk about equity.

When we talk about equity we're not only talking about socioeconomic and issues of race and culture.

And too often we forget that piece of the equity equation.

I have huge concerns about money.

The state does not give us the money we spend.

on delivering special education services.

The feds don't.

The state doesn't.

And our gap continues to get wider.

It's not fair.

It's not right.

It's immoral.

But also in my personal opinion is not fair is a 25 percent hold back.

Former Mayor Murray at one point was considering getting rid of that because we are educators.

We are not just another CBO delivering services.

Given our traction with the city this last year one would hope that will be on the table.

Moreover I am learning how to edit video and I'm going to bring back pieces of this video in six months to remind ourselves what we agreed to do what the SEA agreed to do with our partners at the city of Seattle agreed to do what our extraordinary staff From every layer this building and the folks with their boots on the ground agreed to do this conversation has got to continue.

We need more bodies at the table and we need our parents at the table and rich robust community engagement.

And when we put together the standing committee on community engagement we need to have special ed parents and families at the table.

Roll call please.

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

Motion B has passed unanimously.

Would you please read into the motion.

Option B. Motion B. I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to enter into a service agreement for the 2018 19 school year with the city of Seattle Department of Education and early learning in the amount up to $1,447,510 to open a minimum of four and up to seven new Seattle preschool program classrooms.

This motion if approved along with motion A would bring the total number of classrooms operated by Seattle Public Schools up to 24.

Second the motion.

Colleagues questions comments concerns Director Mack and then Director Pinkham.

And then director DeWolf.

I'm deeply supportive of the Seattle preschool program and expanding our our efforts.

I'm very concerned about displacing the developmental preschool programs that the teachers have come and talked to us about.

And and the parents have communicated with us about how important.

The half day programs are for them where they are and that the moving of the particularly Bailey Gatzert to Madrona has me.

Concerned.

I'm also concerned about the displacement of the educators.

At EC Hughes Rocks Hill or is it OVA I'm confused on which is kind of shifting.

I'm sorry there's another one that's shifting OVA moving but.

I want to support this entire additional dollars because I think it's important.

But I also need would like to have some.

Commitment that it would be reconsidered whether or not we would displace the developmental preschool programs.

Harris.

Mr. General Counsel it's my understanding this is not before the board is that correct?

I'm sorry I don't know exactly what you mean by not before the board.

You someone could.

Whether or not we accept the money for expansion.

It is not within the board's realm to approve the placement and citing of those.

Is that correct.

Well right now under your program placement policy these these are services which the policy designates the superintendent with the authority to cite services.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham then DeWolf then Burke.

So I just asked this question of Keshaw Toner earlier for the proposals again.

So this is just a proposal right now we're at accepting the student money.

Here's a proposed new sites.

Can you hope for the record at least mention and possible displacement of before and after school care.

May I insert please.

It's my understanding there is a policy on the books that has preschool ahead of before and after school care.

Is that correct?

In terms of placement decisions this is a policy that's been in effect for three to four years.

Superintendent Nyland.

Feel free to correct me.

I don't believe that as a policy but it was a very detailed conversation with the board during a work study session and I think it was developed by Dr. Herndon and brought back to the board and so it was more of a head nod consensus.

It's been referred to as a policy dozens of times in this building.

Please.

Flip Herndon associate superintendent of operations and facilities.

I believe Dr. Nyland is correct.

It was a prioritization that the board approved in a written memo.

I don't think we nested it in any particular policy.

I believe we also may have updated that in the community alignment agreement but I would have to check on that.

I would ask then very respectfully that we don't refer to things as policies that are not policies.

Words are important.

And if we could get a history and you know Aaron Purcell is a rock star our district archivist.

If we could untangle this hairball I would be supremely grateful.

I'll get that for you.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham was your question answered to the extent that she can.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Just that because I know if this comes up came up before we're looking at this that before and after school cares were all concerned.

Hey now you're displacing me where we're going to go where I provide the services.

Just want to make sure we are in communication with those agencies so that they know hey we're looking at bringing on potentially four to seven new preschool sites.

your site may be inconsiderate that just that we're being clear with our CBO that our other people are providing our services for students.

Director DeWolf your turn.

Thank you.

My question is for the city folks.

Just a clarification around the 25 percent performance pay given.

I just want to reiterate too because I'm not necessarily a fan of it but is there room for that for their conversation between Seattle Public Schools and the city to to eliminate that or is there any room for that.

I'm personally interested in that.

Yes, there is an opportunity for me to go back just to revisit to see if this is something that we want to revisit as we're building out the next piece of The levy but I also want to just come back and remind us that and if I'm Cashel you can correct me if I'm wrong.

The the performance pay all of the schools that to my knowledge have all I think we're 100 percent from there.

And I don't think we've had to tap into anything else.

Which would suggest that we have a track record to respect.

OK.

Director Burke and then if we could move to the vote please.

So in the interest of moving to something I'd like to make a motion that we table this to the March 21st meeting to allow a budget review of what it looks like to co-locate these programs.

And I would like to have folks that address capacity planning up at the box to address the need to be started on enrollment and capacity planning.

I think that means you associate superintendent Herndon.

What does putting this off due to your all schedules.

And before we go there there is a motion if there's a second then we can pursue it and if there's not then.

Fair enough.

Thank you for that reminder.

We do have a motion on the table.

This is an amendment to the motion.

Is there a second to the amendment.

Thank you.

I thought we were getting out of here.

If there is an amendment that you want to make to motion B motion B is on the table you may want to be pretty clear what your amendment exactly is and get that in formal language so it's clear to staff if it's adopted what needs to happen.

The amendment is to table the decision on this until the March 21st meeting.

Amendment.

Motion B. Thank you.

To be.

To provide sufficient time for staff to do budget analysis.

On.

Budget and capacity analysis on co-locating.

Developmental preschools and Seattle pre SPP plus.

We have the second again now that it's been clarified.

Thank you.

I'd like to just offer something into the conversation that might it's relevant I think is that enrollment for Seattle preschool program is scheduled to open on March 15th.

And so we have opened or approved a classroom later outside of that larger context of enrollment.

But that puts us in a more difficult space because we you all know that when you selected preschool probably for your for your families or friends you did that.

belong you know you have your idea in mind and those enrollment timelines are really important.

It's important for Seattle Public Schools to be in sync with the rest of the community based organizations.

Director Mack and Director DeWolf did you have your hand up as well.

No.

OK.

I Ms. Turner I really appreciate those thoughts on the delay.

We have just approved the existing ones so those move forward.

I think the question about and our and our vigilance about being responsible with our budget as well as capacity of those buildings.

One of the things that I still don't have a clear answer on is What's going on between BF Day and Green Lake because Green Lake is likely to be way overloaded again and how long if we commit to another pre-K classroom in BF Day that will be sustainable because of capacity constraints and we don't have that information for another few weeks.

So from my personal perspective delaying the actual decision to being clear on the budget how it would work and whether or not we truly have the capacity and is a safer more responsive answer and it's to the 4 to 7 not just.

We've approved the 17 and I'm excited to be moving forward on those delaying on the other few I think is worth it to make sure we're doing it right.

Director Geary and it appears to me that Ms. Geary would like to address this as well.

Please feel free to come up.

So two points.

One I believe in reading the bar that there is flexibility that there is nothing that it says that the location determination is still subject to change.

So there's nothing in accepting this money that says we have to put something somewhere.

This is just a vote to accept the possibility.

Two I would like the city to come up and talk about what happened in that first year when we did delay the identification the marketing the enrollment and how we Then as I recall rolled out with some programs that were not as full as we had hoped they had been.

So it was that rough because of how we initiated this whole process.

So if who whoever can speak to the board about that because I remember that was a real piece in terms of recouping the money necessary to maintain the program.

I don't have the data or really good recollection of everything but yes it's really critical to inform parents from the get go what the programs are.

We know we struggle to fill programs I think as late as November I think we're still filling seats and that's lost time and that's lost opportunity for children.

I just wanted to offer a suggestion I don't know if this is possible but you know we are announcing we hope to announce our sites on Friday.

We delayed the announcement to accommodate this meeting hoping that we'd have concrete names.

I would ask if if you are uncomfortable with moving forward with a couple of those sites then withholding those but maybe if you could approve as many as you as you know whichever ones are more confident and saying these are not controversial.

Let's at least name those so that we can go ahead and name those and announce those on Friday and then I leave that up to all of you to figure out how to move forward with the others.

Again Mr. General Counsel we don't have the authority to determine this.

Is that correct?

Sorry.

OK.

Well right right now under your existing policy the superintendent is vested with the authority to make service location decisions.

The board is always free to revisit that question.

But right now on the table is you know first what's essentially a motion to postpone but then also motion B which is just approval of the agreement and acceptance of the funds not the placement decisions.

I remember when we delayed and we opened classrooms and we opened a classroom with three students enrolled.

And it was challenging to enroll that classroom and that was our feedback from our board said please don't put us in that situation again.

When we open programs we want to be serving kids.

And so that's why in our partnership agreement with the city of Seattle we have an agreement that we will make decisions in March around programming for the upcoming year.

To hold us accountable to making decisions and to hold our city partners accountable to committing to funding so that we can have a more predictable system for staff and for students and for families.

And I'm watching the assistant superintendent of budget and finance choke when you talk about three people in a classroom.

Can you give the budgetary consequences of postponing this vote?

Burge assistant superintendent for budget and finance.

I'm not sure that I can do that but I would I would offer this recommendation to the board.

I think that staff have heard you clearly about what you're hesitant on.

I would recommend that you approve the acceptance of the dollars up to X and then that would let us move forward with the ones that we know aren't in question and we can hold those other two off to the side until we do the additional follow up work that you've requested.

Is there a number you have in mind?

I think that you should just I think that the motion as it stood could be passed.

You have given us enough direction that we're not going to simply walk away from that.

We know that there's four or five of the seven that we can move forward with.

They're not in contingent is that correct?

We think that's correct.

And then there would be the others that we would need to hold off on in response to directors Burke's work or comment about budget work.

I'm not sure what that means but I will say to you when we talk about more developmental preschool programs those are a lot more dollars.

We have just kind of settled on the budget so that would we would come back around then and and go over that and plow that ground again.

Maybe for good reason, but it's not going to be without cost.

Director Burke.

I absolutely understand that.

I don't want any sort of perception that there's a concern to be obstructionist because my entry point for you know when I said what would things look like it would if they were perfect it would be more expansion.

So I am I'm definitely a supporter of the expansion.

And but I'm I I learned new information today.

from the testimony from the conversations that we've had that we didn't have in our we weren't able to go deeply in in our in our two by twos.

And so to try to understand how are we really providing the best services for our kids that have the highest needs.

I'm not comfortable that we've really captured that and that we might be slipping away from something that's really providing some great services for our students.

And if we're doing that without a deliberate discussion of how the future is better.

That feels like a gap that.

Essentially a missed opportunity.

So just to put two questions out.

The application for the SPP is opens on March 15th.

When does it close?

We do two rounds of selection.

So there is another opportunity to get into the second round which I believe is in May.

OK.

And all of the sites that we're talking about in question the four sites that have developmental preschools could already be identified as sites.

It's just a question of whether they're identified as one or two.

So in doing the outreach to the community there's still the ability to say these are sites.

Is that true?

No.

Hello.

Inside of the four to seven.

Remember you have a combination of brand new SPP classrooms.

You have conversions of developmental preschool some into SPP plus classrooms and you also have the two head start classrooms.

So that's all within the range of the four to seven as the motion is written.

OK.

OK and I would also ask who would be leading the charge on community engagement since we don't have a community engagement officer or staff person for teaching and learning?

Me?

Is your question around.

Tell me about what is the community the ongoing community engagement going to be for this work.

So my understanding is you have a different job.

Not that.

No I see what your question is.

So my role in this is to facilitate the partnership and a component of that is ongoing stakeholder engagement.

But I think what you've been hearing from this board is we want far more robust community engagement.

Right.

And that's the conversation I had with SEA before this meeting which is where we talked about the idea of formalizing our communication structures into a program leadership team to have that ongoing dialogue with that particular.

Which is a long term goal.

I'm talking about a short term goal here and I don't want to macro manage but the bandwidth issue continues to bite us.

And I've got concerns about that teaching and learning does not have a designated point person for community engagement.

And with all due respect your plate is very full and we need a communications professional to do this and to have robust communication.

So I'm trying to figure out how we're going to pull this off in a transparent robust honest fashion.

Director DeWolf.

And I would just say given that it actually makes me more concerned if we would delay.

Coming from communications experience to doing something where we're having to re-communicate or clarify in the middle of the process doesn't we would be doing a disservice.

So I just want to be clear and mindful of time.

I'm supportive of motion B.

So I'd love to get us there.

Thank you.

Last comment question or concern.

And then we move to a vote on the motion to table till time is certain on B.

Director Geary.

Roll call please.

This is on the amendment.

We go backwards.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director DeWolf.

No.

Director Geary.

No.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

No.

Director Pinkham.

Nay.

Director Harris.

No.

We're back to the.

Excuse me.

Please do the vote.

I apologize.

This motion is not passed by a vote of 2 to 5.

Now we are to the motion be roll call please.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Mack.

No.

Director Patu.

Stay.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director DeWolf.

Yes.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This motion has passed with a vote of 5 to 1 to 1.

Thank you all for your presence.

And again we'll be showing videotape in six months.

Number three amending board policy number 3 2 1 0 non-discrimination act of acts of hostility and defamation and repeal of board policy D 5 1 point 0 0 and board procedure D 5 1 point 0 1 anti retaliation.

This went to A&F on February 5th for.

Yes this went to A&F on February 5th and move forward for consideration.

Approval of this item would repeal an older general anti retaliation policy and procedure and adds anti retaliation provisions to other relevant policies and procedures.

Please make the motion.

I move that the school board repeal board policy D 51.00 and board procedure D 51.01 anti-retaliation and amend board policy number 3 2 1 0 non-discrimination acts of hostility and defamation as attached to this board action report.

I second the motion.

Comments questions or concerns and Mr. Van Duzer.

It's my understanding that this is just a clerical clean up to add to the other good work we've been doing this last year.

Is that correct sir?

Yes Steve Andrews the director of policy and board relations as discussed at intro.

This this is trying to repeal some of our older policies and make sure we have plugged in the appropriate language in the gaps so that retaliation protections stay where they belong as appropriate.

OK.

Has anyone heard any comments against this resolution from the community staff or otherwise.

Seeing that.

Roll call please.

Director DeWolf.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

This meeting is adjourned at 830. Thank you ever so much.

It's an honor and a privilege.

you