SPEAKER_06

Please note that the public portion of today's meeting is being recorded.

We would like to acknowledge that we are on the ancestral lands and traditional territories of the Puget Sound Coast Salish people.

For the record I will call the roll.

Director Hampson is here but not in this room.

Director Harris is also here but not in this room.

Vice President Rankin.

SPEAKER_03

Here.

SPEAKER_06

Director Rivera-Smith.

SPEAKER_03

Present.

SPEAKER_06

Director Sardew.

Present.

Director Song-Moritz.

Present.

And this is President Hersey.

The board is now immediately recessing the special meeting into executive session to review the performance of a public employee per RCW 42.30.110.

The session is scheduled for 30 minutes with an anticipated end time of 5.03 p.m.

following the executive session we will reconvene for a budget work session and two action items related to the fiscal stabilization plan.

Let's go.

SPEAKER_12

Come find me.

SPEAKER_06

We're going to go ahead and get started since everyone has returned from our brief recess a little early.

We are already 10 minutes behind schedule, so I would really appreciate it just for that if we could stick to a 640 in time, that would be ideal.

Obviously, if there are more questions and things need to be answered, I would just say like, let's please have them be concise.

As a reminder, please write your questions down before you ask them.

And let's just keep our time use in mind because we are 640. I know, but we're starting 10 minutes late.

Yep.

So 640. So that being my just keep your your words and in mind as you are saying them.

So the board will now move in tonight's work session on budget.

This work session picks up from our last budget work session held last week.

Following this work session we will move into two action items on tonight's agenda.

I will pass it to Superintendent Jones now to open the work session.

We already did it.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you, President.

We are in a situation where we started last week and we're going to end this week with looking at our budget plan.

We are trying to get to a point where we get you all to approve the budget fiscal stabilization plan.

That's one of the objectives.

So if you turn to the next slide, please, I'll walk through what we're trying to do today.

Again, we want to present the details about the elements of the 2023 Fiscal Stabilization Plan.

We want to finish the discussion of central office adjustments and reductions, outline school-based adjustments, and then discuss special education programs, goal status, and fiscal circumstances, and then ultimately, like I mentioned, approve the 2023-24 Fiscal Stabilization Plan.

And that's all in preparation for submitting the entire budget in June.

I think it's June 21st.

Next slide, please.

So our agenda, last time we were together, we talked about funding our future.

We set up the context for that.

We've talked about our budget development status, what we did to get to a budget development calendar, and the process that follows.

And today we're going to talk about Part two of the fiscal stabilization plan was to talk about the central office costs, school costs, and special education.

And then the next steps, which we'll be talking about, the run-up to the multi-year planning that we'll do for 24, 25, and beyond.

Next slide, please.

As we shared with you last time we were together, part of this process is where we are much more knowledgeable about budget and our fiscal picture.

We have a deeper understanding of our resources at both the division and department levels.

We've learned how to work effectively with our legislators and particularly our Seattle delegation.

And now we are prepared to enter into the multi-year fiscal stabilization planning.

And at the end of this presentation, we're going to be asking you around, what elements do you want to see in this multi-year plan?

And so we definitely want to get your insight into that.

And the other piece is we have an appreciation for the complexity of the annual enrollment staffing and the budget balancing process and how those happen at the same time.

And so we have some new knowledge around how can we sequence those, or if we run those simultaneously again, we'll have some better learning to go into the next time we process that.

Next slide, please.

Just a reminder, I mentioned this last time we were together.

I'm pleased that the board was able to put together with our support a resolution that has given us clarity moving forward.

We had the opportunity to listen to you all and as we shared last time, we made some adjustments to the plan.

Just to restate what those are, we're not going to have school consolidations in 23-24.

That doesn't preclude us from doing something in the future, but for this fiscal year, we're not going to do that for this upcoming fiscal year.

We also heard you talk about the athletic fees needs a broader conversation.

How do we charge students and families fees?

We need to have that based on a bigger picture, a look across the district around what are the implications of that.

We're going to pause on anything like that until we get more direction from you as a board.

And then we heard loud and clearly that the three-tier transportation solution was not palatable for a lot of reasons.

And so I'm very proud of the team that we've come up with a two-tier transportation solution to get us to a place where we can move forward.

And so as you all are aware, we prioritize central office reductions and adjustments so we minimize the cuts at the school building level.

So that's, we do have a balanced budget plan for 23-24 and what we expect to submit you in June is a balanced budget package.

Next slide please.

So Deputy Podesta is going to talk about our budget development calendar and process and he'll take us through the next couple slides and then we'll get into the meat of today.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Dr. Jones.

Again, Fred Podesta, Interim Deputy Superintendent.

Just a reminder where we are in this long process, even though this calendar, we'll talk later, this calendar needs some significant work in terms of how we approach budgets going forward, but tonight we'll finalize presenting to the board the major steps in our fiscal stabilization plan and then ask you to approve it and then also ask for a resolution approving our utilization of the Economic Stabilization Fund.

If you could go to slide 15, please.

because we covered a lot of information last time, so we're starting a little bit ahead.

And this is just a reminder of the plan overall.

We had a roughly $131 million structural gap we were trying to recover.

What's shaded is what we have left to talk about.

We talked about the other subjects at the May 3rd work session.

So we're on the homestretch here.

And if we could go to slide 15, please.

30. Excuse me, I'm sorry.

There we are, part two.

The sequel.

We're joining Hollywood and having sequels to everything we do, I guess.

The worst sequel ever.

But we've got to start somewhere.

Okay.

So this is what we have left to talk about tonight in terms of the steps that we took.

If we could advance the slide, please.

This is about where we left off.

We covered some of the.

All right, so we had covered some of the other central office non-staff reductions last time, so we left off here at contract services.

So departments across the district looked at their contracts, where they expend money, where they expect to spend money, and look for potential savings in how we get telecom services, how we distribute cell phones to staff in the central office.

Our legal department looked at what they're projecting their use of outside counsel in the coming budget year.

I think there was a question that that's not an easy thing to forecast.

We'll try to manage it as best we can.

We had had in prior some consulting support for budgeting that we didn't think we were going to use going forward.

And then again, a lot of miscellaneous reductions across departments and their various contracts.

What struck out here is, since we talked last time, is our academic folks have been thinking about how we were going to administer the SAT test in the coming year, and maybe there would be some contractual savings.

Those plans have changed, so we're not planning to make any reductions there.

If we could advance the slide, please.

Is it possible to mute everybody who's online, if that's where it's coming from?

All right.

So central office.

staffing costs.

We made reductions and made adjustments, moving some staffing to other fund sources.

The reductions were about 69. It's worth noting, my understanding in terms of actual layoffs, this led to something less than 20 in the central office.

We certainly looked at vacant positions.

We looked at opportunities to realign folks where possible so we're able to reduce the number of layoffs considerably.

Even though there is not an FTE associated with the maintenance costs, what we've asked our facilities maintenance folks to do is look at how work orders are charged back to various funds and try to plan projects so they reach a threshold or we can use capital funds.

To do work order work by If they're wait till we have enough work orders on a whole system so it kind of falls into the category of major preventative maintenance and then we can I think get past our accountants and auditors and Appropriately charge things to our capital fund and we've made some and some projections That's where the eleven point nine comes from of the staffing costs But there will be more but those won't be known until the work and the work orders are collected.

So we haven't made a Those people will all be there.

It's where the funding is coming from.

It's not a reduction in staff.

And then we've looked elsewhere.

Anywhere people have looked at their bodies of work, are our grants and other funding sources being charged appropriately for overhead costs and other things, and looked at bodies of work that we could shift to other funding sources.

And then we're looking at a package of adjustments for non-represented staff, some combination of adjusting what the cost of living increase might be, perhaps some furlough days for some management staff, and then we're also going to take a look.

Non-represented staff, the central office have a benefit that allows them to cash out excess leave days.

We are probably looking at curtailing That benefit in which would not really affect people till the end of the next fiscal year and so the exact We have a target we haven't Decided what the exact combination of those adjustments are going to be If we could advance the slide, please And then this is just to let you know.

So we, positions are classified using parameters from OSPI about what kinds of positions.

So within the central office, what this ended up to is a 10% reduction in the workforce for central administration within central administration.

So this means that these were focusing on supervisors, managers.

Positions that weren't directly providing direct service to schools is the point of this.

This is where people look.

Where could we consolidate departments?

Where could we look at adjusting how we're providing administrative services?

So we focused on central administration as a thing in the district, and within central administration, we focused on administrative positions, not positions that touch schools as much has been our general focus.

Next slide, please.

So I'm going to turn it back to Dr. Jones so we can pause and ask you a question and have a place for a little discussion.

SPEAKER_04

So you've seen how we're approaching these reductions and adjustments.

And so we will be implementing these this summer and they'll probably all take effect in the fall.

And so what do we need to be mindful of regarding the impacts of this plan?

I know that was a concern that you all voiced previously, but as you see it from the board perspective, what do we need to be mindful of as we Do these impacts you saw what we what we chose to do at the central office?

Central administration you've seen the other areas that we're adjusting But love to get your your feedback as to what you're what we need to be mindful of what your advice as a board

SPEAKER_10

Thank you.

I'll just quickly reiterate what I said last time about being mindful of the, I think now it's called strategy and climate department where racial equity partnerships and engagement comes out of.

As we look towards all the engagement we're going to be doing this next year regarding the next year's budget and all the issues that happen there.

So I'm just mindful of not wearing that department down too thin because we're going to need it.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

I think as as these roll out a good and well presumably this has already been done, but a good exercise to continue is How any of these reductions might impact our?

alignment of the budget with our overall visions just that I'm sure there are ways that work was consolidated and ways that make a lot of sense but also those positions were created for some reason and it may just be that things have changed and it's not as relevant anymore.

But I think that's what I would really be mindful of is just the impact on the work that was contained within that position that supports our goals and our greater vision.

And in some cases it may be, well, anyway, yeah, so just kind of keeping track of what goes away and what stays and making sure that the work that aligns with the overall, with our ability to achieve our vision is kept intact.

Not necessarily meaning change your mind about these areas of reductions, but making sure that the necessary work is maintained and incorporated in a way that is more systemic and less about an individual person being the holder of all the knowledge and information in a certain area or support.

SPEAKER_02

Can I ask a clarifying question?

Did I catch this right that about 20 staff members are technically laid off?

The rest was due to vacancies or moving to other sources of funding.

SPEAKER_08

That's correct.

It's either 19 or 20 now.

We've been kind of keeping track of while we have implemented a hiring freeze, you know, there are places where we've made exceptions and depending on the bodies of work.

So some folks have gotten other positions.

Some positions were vacant of that 69. So in terms of occupy, as of today, and we're not at the end of the fiscal year, 19 of those 69 are at risk of layoff.

SPEAKER_02

Something to be mindful of, and I'm not sure this was actually your approach, but what it reads like is your approach was to look at where there would be easy ways to have to reduce staffing versus starting at what is our overall objective and adjusting that way.

Because when I look at this table, you know, one of the questions would be we're retaining 15 or 16 staff members because we can fund them in other sources.

But did we ask the question of are those positions that we should be keeping because they're aligned with our goals?

Or did we just keep those positions because we were able to identify other sources of funding?

I don't know that that was actually the way you approached it.

It just reads this way based on how you presented it.

SPEAKER_06

The thing that I'd like for you all to keep in mind are the capacity concerns with either transitioning or letting folks go from layoffs.

I would imagine that a reduction in staff in any capacity is going to create capacity issues for the folks who still remain, and I hope that that doesn't, you know, lead to a potential retention problem in some of our more stacked departments.

So just keeping up with you know employee morale and things of that nature and making sure that those workloads are balanced in the places that have experienced the greatest change.

SPEAKER_13

So as it pertains to the activities related to management, regulation, and control at the district level, can you be more specific or clear about what you mean?

Because it's a bit triggering as the chair of the committee to see those things stated that way.

But I don't know if that's what that means.

SPEAKER_08

We're borrowing language from OSPI in terms of how they classify staff.

For us, it really meant kind of supervisors and managers, you know, that are there, where were there areas where we could adjust the span of control, where we had...

So you're flattening the org structure is what you're saying?

In particular areas, yeah.

SPEAKER_13

Okay.

Yeah, because I think...

As I have referenced the, I think, excellent work that is apropos to this situation that in the teaching and learning audit that was done in 2018, there are aspects of compliance, customer service, risk management, and moving to a more proactive versus a reactive model It appears like there's some great recommendations in there.

So not my advice, but the advice of folks who've actually looked at our systems around how to leverage cross-departmental collaboration as opposed to the silos that have historically existed, because silos are more expensive.

Shared service teams is another one.

So I think in the future, that's definitely Something we would I appreciate the going drilling down another level so that we can start to see how These things are aligning with the actual Goals that we've established as a district So that we can in fact sustain change even as we're dealing with a reduction in Central office staff because I think that's the big fear for me.

That's a big fear and I hear from others when I see something like Reduction in regulation and control because we still want there to be those that same well actually and a more efficient more effective level of support for compliance and customer service and quote-unquote regulation control.

SPEAKER_08

Dr. Jones alluded to the things we learn in a process like this.

So one of the perverse benefits when you start having these discussions is departments start being very frank about where costs, where they accrue costs based on operations in another department.

And if we could work together.

So in the last year, I think we've made inroads with having our special education department and our transportation department be a bit more tightly coupled.

and how with regard and we know that transportation is an expensive cost center for us and what's one of our goals is to have more you know less restrictive environment for students with IEPs with regard to transportation and we can save a lot of money and so I think again it's painful that we're having these discussions but it's forcing different types of collaboration and thinking so there will be some benefits from this and I'm sure and to President Hersey's point, probably did something.

We may unwind a little bit of this here as we see how some of this pans out, but I do think we can find new areas of collaboration that will be more efficient and in the end deliver better services.

SPEAKER_13

Well, and especially to Director Sang-Moritz's point, if you're in fact using that as an opportunity to talk about is this creating alignment with where we're headed and with our with our overall vision and values, strategic plan, goals and guardrails.

And if so, then.

You know, keep if not, then we need to rethink.

SPEAKER_08

And the discussion about doing what's easy when it comes to finding other funds, particularly with regard, you know, we have a huge physical plant.

This was also healthy in that, you know, we just frankly have more access to capital funds than we do operating funds for maintaining buildings where learning occurs.

And by, again, being creative and looking there, I think there were areas where we were able to eliminate artificial constraints that were affecting the quality of the experience that we provide students.

So as hard as this is, there are really some good things that come out of having this exercise.

SPEAKER_06

Quick question Do you feel as though with the reductions that have been made a central office so far that?

Central office is more right-sized and really what I'm trying to get at is as folks I'm sure will continue to retire and find other opportunities or leave for whatever reason are you still in the mode of eliminating positions or are you at the point to where you feel as though you've got the Ship that you need to continue on

SPEAKER_04

That's a great question.

I don't think we are right sized.

Those positions, most of those were key positions and we're having to think on how do we work differently.

I think it's lots of people say, oh, central office is bloated.

You always hear that about headquarters.

But these were real positions.

These were even the vacancies that we're not feeling served really important roles.

I think eventually when we get efficient and we start to look at our processes and start answering some of these questions that you all have said that we need to be mindful of.

we could say that we're right size.

But for right now, this came about pretty quickly.

We started the process in December.

We think that we chose the right areas to reduce and adjust, but I don't think we're too large of a central office.

We can be more efficient, but I don't think in terms of number of people who are providing service and support to schools, we don't have too many, so to speak.

second part of that question is like as folks continue to leave do you feel as though that y'all are going to continue to eliminate positions or will you do you think you're going to be hiring or like are we still in a hiring freeze right we we still are in a hiring freeze uh except for a couple of key positions when we start talking about compliance and and things like that and really really critical positions uh i just don't see us um I see next year as further reductions by just necessity, not because we have excess.

So I just think next year is going to be really tough across the district, not just at Central.

So I'd like to just do a quick summary of what we heard.

We want to make sure that we have enough capacity to do engagement thoroughly and we want to make sure that we are aligned.

These adjustments are aligned to our our priorities.

I've heard be mindful of capacity issues, make sure that workloads are balanced, don't lose focus on the compliance and regulation and control issues, and how are we going to sustain change.

Those are areas that you all have said that we need to be mindful of.

Given that, if there's any other thoughts, we're staying open for your feedback, but wanted to just seed that early on so as we walk through this process, as we implement this, we can be privy to your guidance and your advice.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_13

I would just say, I think Fred actually said it better than I did, but that there's opportunity here to look back at some previously well-researched advice and look at breaking down silos as a way to work smarter and as something that we would learn from and keep regardless of budget scenario.

SPEAKER_04

And Director Hampson, you were referencing some previous reports that still have relevant data in there, relevant analysis.

And so, yes, we'll use those as well.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

So I think we can move on.

SPEAKER_14

I have one more question.

Has all of your senior staff been given a copy of the 2018 audit report because that's really good reading and we paid big money for it.

SPEAKER_04

Yes we we did.

And I believe we sent that out again in October of this year maybe in December when we first started talking about when we had to do these changes, these adjustments and reductions.

So I think it was December that I think the whole extended cabinet got it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

I think we can advance the slides.

And one more.

So as you know, we did focus on central office when we established savings targets.

We were adjustments and reductions.

We were looking for 36 million in the central office and 11 in schools.

This is the staffing part of what was accomplished in schools.

And again, this is a structural change that came in kind of with allocations.

It came about how we administer allocations, not Enrollment adjustments the district has had a practice for a few years of providing half an FTE in Certificated core staff Not classroom staff to kind of help with house administration duties, and we had discussions with pass on you know is this a are these doable adjustments and How, you know, where could we preserve resources in classrooms?

And so we made that cert core adjustment.

We have been staffing a smaller class size in first and second grade.

We get extra state funding for this, but we were staffing beyond that level as well.

So we added one student per class in first and second grade.

We're still well above the CBA and still in the range for a class size reduction that we get in state funding.

We made adjustment to how assistant principals were allocated, and then we've talked multiple times about not Continuing with the TAF agreement at Washington Middle School, there had been a plan in place prior to this to allocate additional athletic directors in high schools.

We put that plan on hold for now, at least for another year, to achieve this package of savings with staff related issues at schools.

And then for non-staff, if we could go to the next slide, we looked at ancillary funds that are provided to schools where there has historically been spending and where schools often have a balance and really Right-sized most of that funding to what and talk to schools about what they use and what they don't use with discretionary funds Mitigation funds we cut back a little bit as we do mitigation funds are used to make adjustments after a staffing allegations to address spot issues.

And then we supplied administrative funding for Running Start and looked at how those funds were utilized and how much was actually related to Running Start and scaled that back a bit.

There's also, that is a place where there's some additional central office resources to help with administrative issues related to Running Start.

SPEAKER_04

And if we could so let's hold back up one slide please.

Slide please.

I just want to see if if you all have any clarification questions on slide 37 and it's in the previous slide 36. Just in terms of what it is.

SPEAKER_03

a question on slide 36 about the .5 FTE CERT core for large elementary and all K-8 and middle schools.

You said you discussed with PASS but was there discussion with SEA as well?

SPEAKER_08

Both of these were discussed with both PASS.

SPEAKER_03

And then was there, so my understanding with some of these is that These were sort of, I'm going to in giant quotes, extra 0.5 staffing, some of which have been sort of replaced by the new allocations for social workers and counselors.

So was there discussion about with schools about what the role, what they have chosen the role of that .5 CERT to be, and if that's a critical need in their building, if we're finding another way.

Because I know not everybody used that for counseling and social workers.

So if you say, oh, don't worry, you're going to get a counselor.

And they're like, but we didn't have a counselor.

We had this other thing that we needed.

SPEAKER_08

There was.

I mean, that's a pretty varied discussion across schools.

And so I'm not sure that we'd say, you know, everybody was uniformly excited about this idea.

Right.

But in general, again, that's one of the things that seemed to be very inconsistently applied and that was over and above.

SPEAKER_03

And was that sort of outside of the scope of the WSS?

Yeah.

So how were the schools that had that .5 identified, and who had them and who didn't have them, and based on what?

I mean, this seems like a reasonable place to look at a reduction.

I'm just kind of curious about the impact.

SPEAKER_08

This really was a It applied for all Across the elementary with a certain enrollment and K and middle school, okay I think it was uniformly applied with some parameter gotcha.

SPEAKER_03

Oh, I see large elementary that makes sense that makes sense okay, so It sounds like that is something to consider when we look at system of well-resourced schools and the redefinition of kind of our prototypical staffing model.

What need that was meeting specifically for large elementary schools and how we might keep that in mind for future planning when we're building back sort of what the ideal model is for different size schools.

Okay, thanks.

SPEAKER_02

Something that is missing from this presentation is the staff school-based staffing that was adjusted due to changes in enrollment so this is agnostic of any changes in enrollment this is a staffing adjustment but it would be helpful to have you know plainly laid out what was the adjustment to staffing based on a change to enrollment and you know I think Yeah and then my other question is I think on the next slide there was an adjustment to equity dollars is that the first line of line school discretionary funds?

SPEAKER_08

Those are discretionary funds that are based on poverty level in schools and we just really looked at historical spending and how schools use them and there seemed to be capacity.

SPEAKER_02

In my conversations with some of the schools a common use of the equity dollars was to apply them towards tutors or reading interventionists or math interventionists and I have a concern that those are supports that would be directly aligned with our academic goals and so I guess, was there any conversation about why schools were not spending the money previously when I know that many schools did choose to use it for academic support?

SPEAKER_08

Maybe there was a different block as opposed to they just didn't want to use it.

They may have title dollars, lap dollars, grant dollars.

Some schools, you know, some things are easier to carry forward than others and we're kind of being preserved.

Those are the kind of, we're going to talk in the end about systemic changes we want to make.

This was really about rights, you know, right sizing.

So with, and your point is well taken about how staff allocations work.

With respect to enrollment, you know, we're really trying to focus in this discussion.

These are the structural changes we made just to balance as opposed to the pre-existing things.

But these are areas where those we're looking at trying to find a number where those dollars weren't being spent.

And then that is a good discussion to have.

I think it's right now we're just trying to see, you know, where schools weren't using that.

There's, I believe, system-wide this is a 25% reduction and we were finding in general those dollars were being spent system-wide a little bit above the 50% level so there's still capacity there we just felt it was a safe it was a safe place based on historical spending and then all those there are many many alternative you know non-general fund funding sources in schools and there's a different story in every building and those are the kinds of things we really need to dig into going forward.

SPEAKER_02

Okay.

Sorry.

My observation is that when I'm getting contact from constituents about changes at their school budget, they're making this assumption that the staffing is being adjusted because of or doing budget cuts.

But in reality, a lot of staffing adjustments are just due to enrollment changes at their school.

And so I would encourage us to continue to reiterate the point that it's less about Having to do these significant budget cuts that we are doing and it's more about Regardless of what financial picture if there had been declining enrollment some of those changes would have happened And I think it would be helpful to have some reiterate or just provide more information about the budget development process in an individual school building level.

So I think a lot of constituents don't know that these are decisions often made by the principal and they're approved by the building leadership team.

I think more information for people about the changes that are happening at the school level would be helpful.

SPEAKER_08

That's great advice.

SPEAKER_14

I think in terms of building leadership teams and directors the rolling forward those funds and not spending them.

I think that that is something that we truly need to look at because it's always been my understanding that the directors are supposed to be looking at that and the BLTs need an overhaul big time.

SPEAKER_04

All right, let's move forward, please.

So go back one slide, please.

So the board adopted an update to policy 0010 in July of 2022. As we start to talk about this next section, when we're talking about special education, inclusive practices, what is your vision for our implementation of inclusive practices as we face fiscal challenges?

And Director Rankin, Vice President Rankin, you can go first.

I see your eagerness, please.

But talk to us.

And then we have Assistant Superintendent Torres here, who's going to kind of give us an orientation to what does it look like now and where are we going?

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

I would repeat something that was in the resolution on this, which is that the civil rights of students are not optional.

They're not negotiable.

And so I would say, you know, my vision of this implementation is that You know, I think there's some mindset and understanding work to do, but that as much as we can from building leadership or from, excuse me, district leadership, emphasize that inclusion is not like a cool thing we thought would be fun to add along the side of everything else that's going on, that it's actually best practice for all students that they learn with their peers to the extent possible.

And so I think also just really being laser focused on meeting the needs of the students that we are morally, legally, federally obligated to serve first.

And and that ties in with you know what I see it.

We're going to talk about in a little bit universal design design for learning training that's happening building support for accommodating different needs and You know offering challenges and challenging instruction without Having to be bussed across town to access it That would be my vision is that that that's really at the core I think that aligns very well with what's in the strategic plan on targeted universalism is that if we think about the most marginalized student in our system it would be a Likely a black student black or native student with disabilities whose home language is not English That would be literally the most marginal who's also low-income.

That would be our most marginalized student so Instead of meeting everyone else's need and then you know getting to that child if if we can we need to start there and start there and build around how to support that student.

And I truly believe that that means that we'll provide better support for all students because even in a group of neurotypical children, they have different preferences and needs and interests and different things that they need to be successful and to feel safe and comfortable.

And I think that just has to be our guiding, our North Star in terms of, and I want to see that reflected in our budget.

And if it's not reflected in our budget, it's probably not happening.

SPEAKER_09

I want to clarify what I think I'm seeing on the slide, and it is my deepest prayer that I'm misinterpreting this.

What I see is It costs too much money to be inclusive.

That's what I see.

Because why would it be a question?

Why would we even be?

And it's not what it says.

So for people on the call who can't see, that is not what the words are on the paper.

But the fact that we're asking the question, It doesn't feel good to me, and this is an extension of what Liza said, regardless of how Just give me a minute, because the COVID brain fog is real.

So the term, for example, targeted universalism, for many people, that's a recent term.

For those of us who've been in the struggle, that's a term we've been familiar with for decades.

And it has been proven over and over and over again, when we focus on what, in this case, children who are not getting what they need, The children who are getting what they need continue to get what they need, and sometimes they even get a better version of what they're getting.

So why are we asking this question, I guess?

Why is this even a question?

It seems like it shouldn't even be something where we have to consider it.

Like she said, in my mind, this is non-negotiable.

There is no negotiation around it.

Because otherwise, I want you all to actually state to the parents of these children what it is you're saying to their children.

We're going to get real honest up in here.

If I were a parent, and I am a parent of a child who was neurodiverse, that's why I'm kind of angry about this.

Because it's non-negotiable.

And unfortunately for me, I had to pull my kid out of public school, because apparently some people thought he wasn't worthy of being focused on.

So I won't support anything that doesn't put the kids who are not getting what they need, have never gotten what they need, as a question or not whether we can afford it.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you.

This question was in the spirit of a guardrail.

Wanted to hear your affirmation and confirmation of us going forward.

Let it not be ambiguous around what your vision is.

Yes, and so the policy, the spirit of the policy 0010 was to do all those things that you've talked about.

And so as we start to prioritize and as we start to implement We wanted to just hear your, not just your conviction, but just what's your ideal state as we move through this?

I know we're kind of in a time of scarcity, but we're also in a time of abundance because it's making us look at what's available to us.

Where are our resources?

And so, as you all have said via policy and from the dais many times this is this is important and we wanted to see what does that actually look like from from your vantage point so there's no disagreement we just wanted to hear the the intensity of how we how we need to move on this thank you

SPEAKER_02

RJ, I appreciate that you, you know, the elephant in the room is that this is a moral imperative in my perspective.

But I do think there is room for a fiscal conversation in the sense of kind of going back to our conversation about breaking down silos.

I do think there is a parallel here that there are opportunities for us to not only serve our students better, but do it in a way that leverages the resources that we do have.

But also, I think to the extent that we can fully understand the fiscal elements of this, that will put us in a better position to engage our state legislators around funding special education.

So I do think it is important for us to talk about the fiscal implications from that perspective.

SPEAKER_04

I think there are 224 days left until the next legislative session.

So we need to get on this immediately.

I mean, tomorrow we need to start to move intentionally around how do we need the support from that.

Hear you clearly around how do we get more efficient?

How do we break down silos?

How can we do more with less to still?

Meet the meet the vision that you all have for this that we all share.

SPEAKER_13

So so thank you The only thing I wanted to clarify is that I don't believe that it's our vision.

It's not my personal vision.

It's not Liza's vision.

It's not Michelle's vision.

It's the community who is above us vision.

We're above you.

They're above us.

So and I mean I think Michelle answered the question very well with her.

She said this is sus and I need to know what you're actually trying to say.

But yeah I just a note.

Let's try to.

Let it be the community's vision when we were looking to hire a superintendent and we did go through a process One thing that I kept hearing community members saying was that they wanted somebody who had a vision I'm like, but it's not superintendents job to implement the goals that are consistent with the vision within the guardrails that are consistent with the values so it's actually your vision so what do you want to see you know what is your vision and what kind of superintendent you know do you see being able to implement that vision not somebody who is a visionary who is going to tell us you know how the world's going to be a better place you're going to make sure the world's a better place because you're going to

SPEAKER_04

implement that the vision that the community has directed us to To make happen All right, thank you so Now I want to turn it over to dr. Torres to gonna walk us through where we are And be as transparent as we can be about what it was our current situation and what's what do we have in store next?

SPEAKER_00

All right, thank you all for having me here this evening and thank you for teeing me up, Michelle, with that great conversation because I think we're very much on the same page as to the way we're seeing this and thinking about it.

I will start by saying that I do spend a lot of time in community as well and so I've heard some misconceptions around the way that certain things are working, the way certain budgets working, the way certain staffing's working, and so My hope is that we can engage in an authentic conversation now and I can provide some clarity over all of it.

Going all the way back to where policy 0010 started some of this, through some of the task force recommendations, through the agreements between us and our labor partners as to how we need to move this work.

Because at the end of the day, what I would say we hear is the same thing, whether we talk to SCA, whether we talk to community, whether we talk to principals, everybody's on board with this and this is the direction we all want to go in.

So we just need to all get to a mutual understanding of the what, how, and why we're going to get there.

And so I'm going to start by talking about the inclusionary service vision and transition.

If you look up there on the left, you're going to see that it talks about aligning staffing to student need for resource-designated pathways.

So essentially, that's work that's in process.

Vice President of SCA Michivikio, in conjunction with Executive Director Gurley, they're running the special education task force this year.

So if you look to the right, it talks about to continue work with task force to develop a staffing calculator.

That's one of their goals for this year is to figure out how could we do something like that.

And if you're wondering what does a staffing calculator mean, what that means when you think of a resource pathway is that a teacher's FTE would actually be aligned to what a student's IEP resource minutes are.

It is a very complex conversation.

It is a very difficult conversation.

So one, I want to applaud them for the work they're doing in service of our community.

But two, I also don't want us to think that somehow we're going to hit June and we're going to have a recommendation that's going to be solid and ready to go.

The goal essentially is to say that in June, we'll have a recommendation for what this is going to look like.

And then going into next school year, we will have some teachers potentially ready to start doing this so that we can think about how do we scale this for our whole district.

When we think about this from a fiscal perspective, what that would do then is literally say our funding dollars are actually aligning to what the kids' needs are versus doing it a different way.

When we think about the maintaining current staffing levels for intensive pathways, the agreement that we came to with SEA and I fully support, of course, is the idea that When you have students with very, very profound needs, let's say tube feedings, mobility issues, wheelchairs, that we need to maintain that staffing as it is, not think about that as a calculator type situation, because at the end of the day, those students are going to need 100% full-time FTE staff.

And so we're in full agreement about that, and we've maintained that.

When we think about aligning the staffing adjustments, essentially what we were saying is that if we're going to do big I inclusion, as the policy 0010 is telling us, we need to do it with everything.

And so the way it used to work prior was that we would do what's called your general education adjustments in October when you do the student count, and then we'd come in later and do the multilingual and special ed adjustments.

So we've changed that practice, and now all adjustments for all schools happen in October.

Additionally, the other piece to this was that Listening to teachers, particularly our gen ed teachers and our special ed teachers, and listening sessions with SEA through joint labor management, what we were hearing was that they did not want us to continue doing quarterly staffing adjustments.

They said it was too disruptive to schools, and additionally, it was getting the resources to the teachers too late.

And so we've adjusted that process as well.

So now there is a monthly meeting where Michael Biles, our Director of Special Ed, meets with members of SEA, listens to teachers, and in alignment with the contract, if there are adjustments needed, we're making those things happen within a month rather than waiting four months for schools to get supports and services.

When we go back to the big picture of the vision, this all aligns.

Think about what it would feel like if you're a parent, you know your kid needs support, but we're bounded by an agreement and it takes three months to get support for your kid.

We got rid of that in the agreement, so that's something important for us to think about.

And the last one is actually something that's more in process, but one of the things that we've been hearing from community, especially for our older students receiving special education services, is that they want more robust conversation around transition and what does inclusion mean for our transition students, particularly where are the services taking place when they're doing their educational pieces around school, and then also where are they at when they're getting their post-secondary training, and that In some ways, they're telling us that they feel like there's some racist implications in there over who gets to go to what placements and what job opportunities they have.

And so that's something that we're currently working on in service of that inclusionary model.

When we look to the right, one of the ultimate goals is to get us kind of closer to the OSPI continuum.

If you were to look at it for special education services, it's quite simple and yet our service models are quite complex.

We have names for everything.

And so ultimately that also ends up affecting the funding and how things get done.

So to the second bullet there, that's where we talk about that created the extended resource continuum.

And so what it reads there is it says that includes resource, access, and SEL.

So I'm going to break it into two pieces.

One, when we talk about resource, in the previous CBA, the model had two different, not necessarily resource models, but resource titles.

There was a resource satellite title and a resource continuum title.

To advance getting closer to the OASPAD continuum, we did collapse that down to just it is resource.

We're calling it resource.

This is what it is.

Those are the students who are eventually trying to get to a staffing calculator model at this time.

And that's where you would have seen some of the increases in IAs at certain schools.

There's this perception out there that every single resource room and every single school across the city had IAs added.

IAs were definitely added.

That was in conjunction with what we came up with as task force recommendations as a reminder that task force involved central office staff, it involved SEA educators, meaning paraprofessionals, general education teachers, special education teachers.

It had past representation.

It had community voice and parent voice.

And what we said was that as we're going to move forward with the inclusion initiative, we do need to figure out where we're going to add paraprofessional staffing to make this model work.

So that was in alignment with what we were thinking at the time and something that we owed it to the community and we did.

On the other side, when you think about access and SEL, If you were looking at the student descriptors, basically if you were to look at a present level performance in an IEP, we were doing some what we called redacted audits, basically, where you were not looking at student name or demographic, but just reading the profile of a student.

And what we were finding is that you would have very similar profiles for both of those students.

If the student happened to be a student of color, particularly a black or brown student, they were getting put into an SEL program.

If the student happened to be a student of privilege or had more higher SES, or happened to be a white student, they were put into an access program.

And so this was something that both management and SEA recognized.

And we came out and it was written in the CBA that there were levels of inherent racism in this practice and segregation that were incurring.

And so we had to attack it head on and we did.

So we made it into one resource model.

So once again, getting us closer to the OSPI continuum, but it is also staffed at the more generous model, which seemed like it was the just thing to do when you think about prior.

We had some of our black and brown, particular black and brown boys, those marginalized students that Eliza's talking about, were being, they didn't have the same staffing model that they did before.

They weren't allowed to be with their other peers.

And so that was part of a justice movement we felt in alignment with the vision and ultimately getting us closer to that OSPI continuum of services.

Next slide, please.

SPEAKER_04

Let's take a moment for that.

Be audible with what you're thinking, please.

SPEAKER_13

I have a quick question.

Well, no, I'll wait if you guys.

My question is kind of more overall, I guess.

But if I can ask, have time for questions at the end of the financial data, that'd be great.

SPEAKER_03

I have all of these just like excitements in response to that.

And I have actual meaningful questions.

Thank you for saying all those things.

And you said it kind of quickly.

So I would encourage anyone watching to turn your captions on and go back and watch it again.

Because what Dr. Torres just said is absolutely critical.

Anyone's imagination that there was racial disproportionality in our special education service models It was identified by the joint task force between SPS and SEA.

It was identified by OSPI It's not it's not any one individual's fault.

It's not something that anyone did on purpose, but it was a fact that students of color with disabilities were had disproportionately less time to and access to general education than white students with disabilities.

And we can do better.

And we can address this and we can fix it.

It's possible.

It happens other places.

And we have the best educators ever.

So I know that we can do it here.

I have some questions about the monthly adjustment windows.

Is that as requested by schools that are like, oh my gosh, we really actually don't have enough people to serve all of these minutes?

Or is that just a general look at every special education space?

SPEAKER_00

It's a little bit of a mix.

So there is a team in the special ed department that runs a big master spreadsheet.

So if they see the disparity, they'll bring it up.

If SEA members see it, they'll raise it up.

One of the things that was built into the agreement to help push the inclusion initiative more is the idea of flexible staffing.

So what will happen is, let's say you're a principal.

Let's say your team is feeling strained.

The first thing you're going to look at is that we do have the ability to flex special education staff across a building.

So regardless of a pathway, regardless of what the educator's role is, whether it's paraprofessional or teacher, that's the first step is to come together with your special ed team at the building level and say, do we have the ability to do this with what we have based on the number of students we have in different programs, et cetera.

SPEAKER_03

So, for example, if someone is designated as being extended resource and someone is designated as teaching distinct and there's flexibility for them to work together, that's okay to do.

SPEAKER_00

Yes, especially when you, if you think back last school year, we had a lot of rub around doing staffing adjustments.

This was one of the ways to help prevent that and keep kids at their schools, keep staff at their schools and have them start to figure it out on their own.

So a lot of times what you'll see is if there was a pathway, for lack of a better term in the moment, that was more under-enrolled and there was more capacity for an educator to help in a different space, that flexibility is granted to them at the school level now to do with their school leader.

SPEAKER_03

And then about continuum versus satellite, and I'm not sure if you said it, but satellite was schools that had resource, maybe had resource and distinct, but didn't have the full continuum of distinct focus, access, and resource.

So the handful of schools that, I know we're eliminating that on everybody's resource, but the schools that were not continuum schools, how do I put this?

Sorry, one second.

Okay, so there are some schools that are only designated for, I'm talking about elementary, only designated for having resource right now.

But they actually have students that if the school If the school were to say, we actually can't serve your child here because they qualify for access, and to go to access, you'd have to go to X school, I know we have some schools that don't want to send their students away.

So they have been trying to keep students, but they're only staffed for the resource level.

And when they would actually, if you look at the minutes in the model that we're moving towards, and if you look at the sort of presumed in class or in general education time model that we have currently, they would actually qualify for more support.

But because they're trying to keep students in their community, they're really pushing the limits to how they can support those kids with the staffing they have designated as a resource.

So what kind of, like how can we address that and support the schools who are Moving towards more inclusion to to be Supported for that instead of limited for that while we're in this transition space is there is There accounting for that is there flexibility.

SPEAKER_00

I would say it's a two-fold process one you have On the slides, it's deemed as universal design for learning training, but I'll go into that in the next slide a little bit more.

So that's one piece, because that's support for schools on how do we do this when you have those parameters.

But the other piece is that, let's say that's happening at a school, they always have the ability to reach out to their special education supervisor, who is in direct contact with the director of special ed school base, who is Michael Bilesma.

and essentially when those cases or those scenarios are happening they're there to provide the support to say how can we do with what we have or is the conversation need to get bigger and do we need to start talking at a JLM level with SCA around do we add programs to this school potentially and it's a very as we know special it's very individualized so to say a blanket that's how it's going to happen we don't know it'd have to be a conversation to look at what the kids actually actual needs are thinking about that flexible staffing model, all those pieces before there would actually be an addition of a program there, but there is an avenue for that to happen currently.

SPEAKER_03

So yeah, my concern is about the schools that have been designated now as extended resource and schools that are sort of still just resource, they have access to that same thing to sort of add.

SPEAKER_00

To have discussions, yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Those discussions are open.

And then my last question is about the AAFTE, which is the, I can't remember what one of the A's stands for.

Average.

Average annual FTE that applies to secondary, where there's a slight change in staffing if you look in the purple book.

You see the staffing recommendations based on presumed contact time that some students have.

So for resource level students, draw in essentially 80% of a general education They're not Canada's whole students.

I'll just I'm just gonna say it They're not Canada's whole students because built into the formula is the presumption that there will be time when they're not in a general education class and so my question is about aligning that with the changes to inclusionary practices so that Basically, we have a structure that makes it harder to have kids spend more time in a gen ed classroom because we're actually shorting the whole school on general ed FTE.

I'm sorry if I just said something nobody wants to talk about.

But where are we, I guess, crossing those transitions so that we're not having these, you know, oh, if you're in access, you bring along 60% of what a Gen Ed student brings to the school in Gen Ed FTE because we're assuming that 40% of the time you're not going to be in a Gen Ed classroom.

I assume we understand what the problem with that is.

SPEAKER_00

I got you.

So what I'll say is that one, very complex question, nothing I'm going to answer in the moment.

What I can say is that through this process and how everything's been going with the whole budget situation for the district, one of the things that we did between me, Fred, Linda, Dr. Pedroza, we set up a consistent meeting.

So now there is a meeting that happens every two weeks.

And it's with special education and finance.

And we sit there and we grapple with all of these issues, all these problems.

So what I can commit to you is that I will make sure that this becomes an agenda item for conversation.

I will say it'll get in the queue.

There's quite a few things that we're talking through from special ed contracts to a bunch of things.

But I will make sure that this becomes something that we discuss to get a better understanding of.

Because I hear you.

You know, if we're going to talk inclusion, let's do inclusion, like what's going on.

SPEAKER_03

Well, and especially for 24-25, when we're talking about a prototypical model of a wealth resource school.

To me, that would include this adequate funding for general education that supports the assumption that students who receive special education services are general education students first.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you.

Are there questions?

Or keep going?

SPEAKER_14

Is that also a question for the joint labor management task force?

SPEAKER_00

Potentially.

SPEAKER_14

Potentially.

And JLM, the acronym you used.

SPEAKER_00

Yes, joint labor management.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Director Harris.

Okay, thanks.

SPEAKER_00

Yep.

Okay, so on this slide, if nothing else.

Ready?

Okay.

Can we go back one more?

Okay.

So then we're thinking about what's in process.

On the slide it's talking about the universal design for learning implementation.

I want to take us a little bit bigger because are we doing the universal design for learning work implementation trainings?

Yes.

But in service of policy 0010, If we think back to how it was passed and what the vision was for it, it talks about big I inclusion.

What we mean by big I inclusion is that all of our students feeling safe and welcome in all environments at all times regardless of any identifier, race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, neurodiversity, any of those things.

While it is in some ways being led by myself and services and through the special ed department, it is actually a general education initiative.

So when we think about that initiative as a whole, when we're talking about the inclusion initiative in special ed, there are three big things that everybody's getting training on.

Universal design for learning is being one of them.

Restorative practices is the second one, and multi-tiered system of support, which is MTSS.

So if you hear MTSS, RP, or UDL, those are the three things.

So yes, UDL, or universal design for learning, is one of the big pushes.

However, it is all three of those anchors.

SPEAKER_01

Restorative practices.

SPEAKER_11

ERP, yeah.

SPEAKER_00

Ready to go?

SPEAKER_01

Okay.

SPEAKER_00

OK, so I was saying those are the three anchors.

So when we say the inclusion initiative and the trainings, those are the things that is not solely the universal design for learning.

Those are the three anchors.

And so for those that can see the PowerPoint, it's talking about that have access to it.

providing professional learning for central office and school leaders on the university design.

So the school leaders across SPS, every single principal and their assistant principals are joining us as they can as well.

They're getting training on those three things.

They're getting training.

We've also been using the text leadership for increasingly diverse schools by Theo Harris and Scanlon.

Please feel free to check it out if you're not familiar with it.

It's a really strong text.

And so those are happening monthly with all of our school leaders.

And then also through the blessing of Dr. Jones, the extended cabinet, this is what every single director, executive director in the system gets once a month.

They get training.

We do some work with Novak Consulting, so it's a consultant that helps, but between me and the Novak team, we're the ones that create those sessions that happen monthly so that we can start to systematize this across the district.

When we think about people like Fred's team where you have some of our finance and HR people, they're also learning about universal design so that they can understand how the decisions and how they do their work impacts what really goes on at the schools.

When we think about the inclusion initiative, we have a list of early adopter schools that are working directly with Novak Consulting.

They're doing a multi-tiered system of support audit.

They're getting universal design for learning training.

They're getting shoulder-to-shoulder coaching.

We have a local coach that's been going in with them.

And so those schools are all in that process now on looking at all of those elements and how they can infuse them into their schools.

And we're in the process now of developing our second cohort that's going to start in the fall.

So we'll be through two cohorts by the time we hit December of next school year of schools that are taking on this early adopter inclusion work.

And then also this is just informational but part of our cpi crisis prevention and intervention training This is more done through the coordinated school health team, but currently there are over um, 60 schools that have been trained So some of the next steps we need to continue those trainings for the universal design for learning for restorative practices for multi-tiered systems of support for our school leaders We're currently in the process of starting to work through how how we are getting our training set up for our educators as well We're doing that in conjunction with the hr team through our PGES educator growth team.

And then one of the things we're doing with the curriculum assessment instruction team now is aligning our instructional materials to the UDL framework.

So what that means is we have them working with our with our NOVAC consulting team to look at our core adopted materials, figure out how to universally design them so that we can in turn support educators by giving them instructional materials that actually They would be able to understand if I had a student that arrived that didn't know English tomorrow What am I supposed to do and actually feel like they have some support around what to do?

Because you're not always just gonna have another teacher.

They're ready to help you right away You should be able to use the materials and feel supported and so that works going on as well We're gonna continue to train our central office staff so that we can get some coaching support going down.

So for example in the student services division we have our own standalone trainings with the NOVAC team on all of these elements.

So that means the multilingual department, the coordinated school health department, the advanced learning department, and the special education department.

Their supervisors, their content managers are all getting training specifically on these topics so that they in turn know how to support schools and teachers and how to do this work.

And then additionally we got to continue to train the rest of our schools into the CPI and trauma-informed practices.

Next slide, please.

So some of the transitional costs when we're thinking about this is our contract with Novak Consulting.

Like I said I'm helping lead a lot of that work but I do have a consultant so I decide with me in doing that.

Some of the other costs if you're thinking about special ed would be around the recovery services.

Those are due to sunset soon and those were primarily funded with ESSER costs but that was something that was very costly for us.

When you think about our contracts through the pandemic and through recovery services we did see an increase in our contracted services that were needed for students and so Part of the way that we're approaching this is that by making these structural shifts, we should in turn start to see some more universal elements in the tier one servicing of students, meaning what all the students are getting, and start seeing some of those needs start to diminish, particularly when we think about if we can get to universal restorative practices, that is a social emotional support that's very strong for kids when done well.

And then the other thing that's gone very well for the department is getting like I said we've been working a lot with our finance team but us getting a lot tighter on our safety net submission if you're not familiar with that it's basically what they would call I don't like the term but it's called a high need high cost student we get reimbursements for that so if you look at what we submitted this year versus last year we have not gotten our final award yet but we've over doubled it so last year we submitted for nine million dollars that was a big increase prior to that I think Seattle's highest submission had been five million this year we've gotten it up to 18 million dollars.

So we're really digging into IEPs and seeing like where are we spending the most money on our kids and where are we holding the state accountable to getting us our money back for servicing those kids so that we can get better funding for special education.

Next slide please.

So essentially, when we think about special education funding, what you're looking at at the top there, those are basically all the revenues that we get for it.

But then we do have our expenses.

And so one of the things to think about is when we think about the initiative that we're talking about, it is a general education initiative.

However, special education is carrying a bulk of the weight.

So some of this funding it is going to technically special education budget lines but it's all in a lot of it is in service of the larger vision that we received from you all over policy 0010 on how to do these things and so we're just sharing the numbers with you if you look at the adopted versus the budget let's say for example you were thinking about the number of instruction rate increases just recognize that When we adopted 22-23 to what we're budgeting for 23-24, there is almost like a double accounting because the bargain was done after the budget was already approved.

And so what you'd see sometimes in the budget is you're going to see the increase for the 22-23 increases to staffing that were needed and the 23-24 increases that were needed to staffing.

It wasn't just one big lump essentially.

So I wanted to make sure that was front and center as well.

And then questions slash next slide.

SPEAKER_04

Director Hampson you had a question.

SPEAKER_13

Yeah.

Yeah that's something altogether different.

Okay.

So lots of really helpful.

information about how inclusion, just to make it short, how inclusion is going down or coming up.

SPEAKER_11

I don't know.

SPEAKER_13

And and we've been asking for that and the I'm going to talk about pieces that are missing.

And that I hope we're gonna get really good at Pretty quickly so that we can Educate our community about this process Because there's some some big numbers in here that we can't ignore so just for starters I Heard some smart goals in These goals, but they're not reflected here I think it's an excellent opportunity to use the concept of a SMART goal.

I think we should always be using SMART goals anytime we're talking about goals, if at all possible.

And I heard you say some things that are components of making these goals in the next steps where you talk about goals, but it's not listed here, and it is really important to if we're going to talk about these things to then set the expectation for, like, what, you said June for, because it just says continue to work with task force, but that's not really a goal.

That's just something you do, right?

So that's some, I think, pretty critical feedback in terms of setting expectations for how we talk about these things when we're going to commit to these things and our community is going to hear them and they're going to go what happened to that such and such and when is that going to happen and by when and we need some certain dates certain by when we hope to be there.

There's a in terms of that broader conversation so for a future budget meeting which we don't have the luxury of stopping having budget meetings once this printing thing happens or at the end of today.

There's a big piece missing here.

And so just get back to all of us on that.

I think my fellow directors would appreciate this information.

But how and when does the inclusionary model also break down the silos around our behavioral health or health supports.

I'm just broadly talking about health supports.

We have school psychologists, we have counselors who we continue to hear our, I think there's a belief that they have the ability to provide counseling.

They don't.

They're teachers.

They can teach social emotional learning, but, and they help with academic progress, but they're not, they don't deal with acute mental health issues.

We don't have a robust partnership.

We have some partners.

We don't have a robust partnership about that.

But I do know that there's a, I would like to understand what our Pathway is to breaking down those silos so that when we are talking about a student's, you know if a counselor's referring to a psychologist That isn't completely separate and independent from the IEP or the 504 because those things just exist in separate universes at this point and I At some point I would like to hear about how that fits into all this because those are really critical silos to break down.

What's the department's behavioral something in behavioral health?

Coordinated school health.

Thank you.

Yeah, because there's the medical part of it as well.

So then on the fiscal part, so the big thing that's missing for me is that I don't understand how these individual, so I see the pieces, I don't understand how they impact the budget, like what some of them might reduce costs, some of them might increase costs, maybe they all increase costs, and we just didn't say that.

So I need to know.

What is that?

And that is specifically what I had asked for was how does this actually impact our costs in this process?

And then when I look at so I appreciate the context of this number of students that we have an increase in the number of special education students in our district and are anticipating to have an increase.

And that's consistent historically.

However.

What it doesn't break down for me here is as a result of these things that you just talked about, Um...

how much of this budget, how much of this cost of this special education is increasing because of number of students and how much of it is increasing because of the additional things we're doing to move forward in inclusion.

On a per student basis, we go from 26,000 in 2021-22 based on this information, 27,000 per student, 27,422-23, 32,023-24.

That's a lot.

Do you know what the state or the national averages are for spending on special education?

SPEAKER_08

Yeah.

SPEAKER_13

And I'm not a big fan of per student information, but I'm just.

SPEAKER_00

Off the top of my head, no.

I can't remember in this moment, but we can pull it.

SPEAKER_13

OK.

Well, that's the context I'm looking for.

And so then there's going to be like the national average I looked up is supposedly 12,474.

Sounds about right.

Who knows?

What I really care about is what does it cost when it works?

And where is the next two years?

Because I would hope, I would expect to see some Equalization of that like or we need to be clear for communicating now.

We're just heading into a $32,000 a year per student that's mushing all of the students special students with special education designation together, you know There's much higher and much lower expenses, but it's that where we're headed and And what component of that, well, so that's a pretty, I didn't do the math of the percent increase, but that's a big percent increase on a per student basis.

Is that what inclusion costs?

Is that what we're saying?

And I do believe we need to be able to say that.

So that's what I'm looking for because if we're doing that and we go to the state and we say, okay, here's the bill.

this is what inclusion costs, we got to have some sense of like, are we going to be able to get that paid for?

Or we're saying to our community, we're going to spend $32,000 a year of your levy dollars to provide the best possible inclusionary model that we can create.

SPEAKER_03

So the shortfall in funding between what districts spend and what the state provides in 2021-22 was almost $5 million.

We're getting 12 million out of this legislative session to make up for our shortfall.

Other districts are also getting but the the the what the actual shortfall is between spending and.

Funding is about two thousand dollars per IEP.

Across the state.

The thing and not to go down into too much.

SPEAKER_13

Can you tell me why what's relevant about that.

SPEAKER_03

Because you were asking about averages and...

No, I know.

SPEAKER_13

I just want you to put it into context for me because I don't know exactly what to do with that.

SPEAKER_03

Oh, well, so what I was going to say is that the problem with this is that it's the shortfall in funding between what districts spend and what the state funds.

And the state doesn't have...

Part of what I am really excited about that I think is connecting to what you're talking about, like what does it cost, is what we know is what people spend.

But the state doesn't actually, like districts have, districts make different choices about how they serve IEPs.

They have different instructional models.

They have different numbers of staffing.

It varies wildly across the state because there's actually not a ton of state guidance or requirement connected to student outcomes about expectations for the funding.

It's based on this arbitrary multiplier that we've talked about that feels like it should be enough.

And it isn't.

So something that I think we need to do as the largest district in the state as part of this year and looking into next year is be able to really well define for legislators what our costs actually go to and why they matter.

Because it's easy to say, well, you're just outspending your means.

And it's just as easy for us to say, well, you're just underfunding us.

But until people are willing to have the conversation about the impact on student outcomes, about how best practices are implemented, and about what the cost of providing those services are, it's really, really hard to say anything other than, well, I know what the difference is between what is spent and what we get.

SPEAKER_13

Okay, you just repeated what I said.

SPEAKER_02

I think something that would be helpful on this particular side is to know these numbers relative to the overall enrollment so we can understand what our position is relative to the cap.

I'm wondering how do we come up with a projection for 267 more special education students?

What is the thinking behind that?

And I did some different kinds of calculations from Director Hampson but my observation is we've got $44.5 million more in expenses.

with 267 more special education students, that's $167,000 for each of those new special education students.

That seems quite outsized.

And I'm not trying to say that that's not money that we should be spending, but I'd like to know the narrative, the why, because that will be really informative in terms of how we should be thinking about future budgets and our ask to state legislators.

And I think I have this lingering fear that the changes that we're making to staffing at our schools, for example, increasing class size ratios, is there any risk that we're just creating a hole for ourselves in terms of increasing the number of special education students because we're not adequately serving our students because we have large classrooms?

I don't know.

I'm not an educator.

It's just a lingering fear that I have.

SPEAKER_13

Can I just tag on to one thing that you said right before that last comment or question?

You're basically, you're looking to disaggregate.

You took some of the math I was doing, and like you said, you did another step.

And that's helpful, because that starts to get us to be able to see, OK, the cost of implementation, which we've been asking about, because we knew it was going to cost money.

But how much of that is one time versus ongoing, which I think might go to your next question.

So I just want to make sure I said that.

to demonstrate what are one-time costs like training that you don't necessarily have to do on an ongoing basis.

SPEAKER_00

And so we'll have more information for you on future sessions because that's part of when I was saying we did we're doing those finance meetings with Linda and her team that was actually one of the questions that I asked as I was preparing for this is that we need to get a little bit deeper into the forensic pieces of this and I also want to point out something that I was saying earlier is that this is a gen ed initiative, but we are carrying some of the funds on this side.

So for example, if you think about all those training contracts for the universal design for loaning, those are pretty much getting run through the special ed department right now.

So even though it's extended cabinet training, it's for all school leaders, it's for CAI team, we're kind of leading it in the cost.

So I hear you clearly and I agree, because we need to know what are, for example, the costs that are going to the support we're getting from the NOVAC team that are going to be gone within two years versus what are the costs to kids that are going to just this is where we're at because we're getting to a more stable model and this is what we're ready to fund.

And I think the other piece to it is as we get forward in thinking about advocacy with legislature, It's important to note where we were at years ago with our special ed department.

Think about we were almost in federal takeover.

We were almost going to lose our federal funding.

Our wisdom audit was not great.

You think about our disproportionality results back in 2018, we were just significantly disproportionate in the way we were identifying kids in 5 areas.

We've gotten that down to 1 area.

So it's.

I guess what I'm sharing is that our data showing is that our investments are paying off.

So I think that forensic accounting is very important because we need to know how much of that investment do we need to continue versus how much of it is done and we've gotten to the finish line.

So thank you for that feedback.

SPEAKER_02

I like that you reminded us that this is a general education initiative.

So I'm wondering about what kind of, you know, to use your term forensics, we've done about our general education.

Where are weaknesses in our general education that is leading us to a position where we have an increasing number of special education students?

And maybe that's a different approach that we can take, especially since, you know, going back to my concern that, Are we digging ourselves a hole because of the cuts that we're making in general education?

SPEAKER_00

So in general When a person qualifies for special education, it's because they have one of 13 different disabilities.

And so ultimately, when the number's going up, what that means is that the number of students we have that live within our city, there's just more people with disabilities.

I feel that in your question, the concern is that if we're not doing adequate tier one in the general education setting, are there students that are potentially getting identified as having a disability that do not have a disability in fact?

And that is some of the work that we're working on around disproportionality to make sure that we're controlling for those things.

And that's why I pointed out our reduction in significant disproportionality.

And I also point out the training we're doing with our with our curriculum team around how are you providing adequate materials, how are we doing training with teachers to make sure we have strong tier one instruction so that we're not potentially identifying students that should not be identified or placed into services.

SPEAKER_03

I just have to add to that that low academic achievement is not an indicator or a correlation with disability.

And so there's misidentification that happens sometimes already.

SPEAKER_04

So, so that that was robust and maybe we can hit this question really briefly, but you all have seen pretty much everything.

We're going to go transition very quickly to the multi year budgeting.

We'll kind of give you a high level of what we're trying to do with that for 2425 and beyond.

But wanted to see if you had any thinking around, as we're finalizing this 23-24 budget, what have we learned that will help us with future planning?

I think we can maybe skip this question and we'll have an opportunity at the end to have some more guidance from you.

Okay, next slide.

SPEAKER_08

Next steps, please.

And Fred, I can take these quickly because we've covered a lot of these topics and I also would like to take us back to what we're trying to accomplish tonight about 23-24 and getting kind of approval for this plan going forward.

And we really want to thank the board for adopting a resolution they adopted on April 26 and really said, directed the superintendent to go back and realign our budget processes to address these issues.

And if we could go to the next slide.

That really starts with a calendar.

We need to make a running start into the future years with the we should celebrate that we have a balanced budget.

This interrogation of our cost centers and our alignment I think is best directed in going into the 24-25 budget because we are balanced right now.

And how are we going to address these things going forward?

And so that's why we're asking approval tonight.

Can we start to tie a bow around the coming year and really look at a multiyear plan to see how how the investments we're making in inclusive practices and our other goals, what the arc of those are going to be over the fiscal year beyond the one that we've been talking about all year.

And we really need to, you know, the way our budget calendar works now is we start in October with really high level, frankly, hang ringing about, hey, this is where we have a problem.

And we didn't really bring solutions to the board Until it's almost too late to do anything about it, and so we need to use the summer to Get those high-level strategies brought together and in the fall say these are the big moves.

We're going to have to make and Tease that out in detail in the coming year rather than Continuing to litigate the budget that we're trying to close right now I just think that would be a better investment of our time and the work that we need to do is whether it's special education or transportation or any other issue where our revenues and expenditures are not aligned.

Understand all the questions that you've asked tonight.

We have cost pressures.

We're not immune to inflation, whether it's special education or any other program.

in the district are facing those cost pressures.

Part of that growth in special education were across the board adjustments we made in our labor contracts.

They're not exclusive to special education.

They just get their share.

And then we have other emerging needs, whether It's student safety, other ways we're dealing with public health issues in different ways.

And so I just would really lobby to put that investment in this multi-year plan.

and provide the details in conjunction with enrollment forecasts and other projections to tease out these details going forward, because I think, again, we do have a balanced budget for 23-24, and that's just a plan, but how are we going to do the years after, which gets significantly more challenging, and we'd like to direct all that thinking towards that, and we'd like to start right now.

Dr. Jones has been kidding with us that, you know, the budget season starts on May 11th, assuming we get past the exercises that we're asking you to support this evening.

And we can keep going.

And we, you know, we've talked about well-resourced schools, that's a piece of this.

How we're going to address places where our expenditures and others are not aligned and looking at those, that programmatic needs and the financial analysis.

And the mix of those things is really what we want to bring going forward, and that's where we really like to direct our efforts.

We need to have a community conversation about some of these things, and I'm going to let Bev Redman talk about that a little bit in the next slide.

SPEAKER_07

All right.

I'm bringing it home, Dr. Jones.

Here we go.

All right.

When we're thinking about engagement for 24, 25 and beyond, you're really talking about making the most of right now.

Conversations begin right now.

So if we dropped anchor at this particular point, school year 23, 24, we're exercising some ambidexterity in terms of our communication and our community engagement efforts.

With one hand, we are informing individuals, informing our families about what's happening for next year, because decisions, as we've talked about it, are happening now, and we're making those decisions, but we're also forward-thinking.

With the other hand, and really talking about 24, 25. So as a reminder, as I always like to say, and on repeat, no, there are no school site consolidations or closures planned for next year.

But the conversation regarding what happens in the future, we have to use this time now.

If we wait until the fall, if we wait until the spring, we have already missed our opportunity.

So if it feels like we're running behind.

We need some tailwind.

We need to begin to move and have that engagement now.

So by June, we should be well underway in terms of our engagement efforts.

We have a responsibility to have that conversation regarding well-resourced schools.

What does that mean as a container?

What we're looking for in terms of a conversation with our community is coming up with what is the optimal element, what are the optimal designs, what are the optimal sizes, what are the optimal resources, programming, all of that that should be existent in every one of our buildings.

in order for our students to thrive in their classroom settings and in their extracurricular engagement.

That's the container.

Now the conversation with the community is what does that look like?

aligned with our community values so that we can give you the best recommendation and give to Dr. Jones the best recommendation for 24, 25 and beyond.

And then again, deliver to the board in enough in a timely manner so that you can do excellent work.

It's hard work, but we're talking about excellent work.

So that's a little bit about how we're handling communication and community engagement.

And a nod to what Director Rivera-Smith said, it will require collaboration across all.

So it's not going to be just one department.

It's got to be everybody picking up that burden for engagement.

Dr. Jones?

SPEAKER_04

So I'm feeling the heat from President Hersey looking at me like, hurry up.

I'm joshing a little bit.

So we can do this later.

We can do it now.

But what elements would you like to see in the 24-25 plan and beyond?

I'm seeing move forward.

Yes, please.

SPEAKER_09

What I want to ensure is that it's clear to the community that because they make a recommendation that doesn't mean we adopt it because that has been sort of a misleading tactic in our community for decades and then parents are angry.

And then again, just, I think it will be useful.

How do we define Seattle Public Schools, well-resourced schools, and give an example of what that looks like on the ground?

People can work with examples.

They can create a picture.

Because I'm sure lots of parents have ideas, I can tell you.

There is a community that has an idea about what a well-resourced school is, and it's not 500 kids.

It stopped the construction project and used that money for the school.

And that's not going to happen.

So we don't want to mislead people.

And so I think the strategy around how we communicate and setting them up, what are the expectations will go a long way.

SPEAKER_04

Heard that, that's tremendous advice.

So I would like to set up some more time very soon.

And we don't have to do that necessarily in this forum, but we want to hear from you an extension of what Director Sargi said around what elements do you want to see in this plan, including structure, advice, policy, all of that.

We have to talk about fees and what kind of policy support and structure do we need going forward.

President Hersey is back to you and we have a couple of votes that you all need to take and thank you all for your time today.

I'm really proud of this team.

We brought a balanced budget plan forward and we know that our next years are going to be challenging but there's also opportunity in here to get where we need to go and realize our vision.

So thank you so much.

SPEAKER_06

Just also on behalf of the board want to say proud of the work.

I think that From the perspective of what these budget sessions used to be to what they are now and the nimbleness that y'all have approached You know a stance of continuous improvement is is well received so from me, and I'm sure other directors Good job We will now move into two action items on tonight's agenda.

The first item is approval of the Board Resolution 2022-23-16, Authorization of the Use of the Economic Stabilization Account.

May I have a motion for this item?

SPEAKER_03

I move that the Board approve Board Resolution 2022-23-16, Authorization of the Use of the Economic Stabilization Account.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the District.

Sarju seconds.

SPEAKER_06

Approval has been moved by Vice President Rankin and seconded by Director Sarju.

I will now pass it to Interim Deputy Superintendent Fred Podesta for the staff presentation.

SPEAKER_08

A component of the fiscal stabilization plan that we've been discussing for quite a while and was authorized or was described in the resolution you adopted at the end of April was utilization of part or all of the economic stabilization account, as it's formally known.

And as you know, we're proposing to do that.

We need that authorization before a budget can be adopted in July.

And the policy also requires us to have a replenishment plan.

So this action would have the board authorize us to use the fund and pencil in, frankly, a plan that we've discussed as part of these work sessions.

Five-year plan that would replenish the plant that we would build at the budget of six point six Projected six point six million dollars in each budget year to try to get back to a three percent parameter in the fifth year of thirty three million dollars and this just other authorizes us to Write the budget assuming this plan to use the funds and start repaying in the 2425 fiscal year

SPEAKER_06

Are there any questions?

Are there any questions from directors?

To answer your question, Chris, public input during regular meeting.

If you have something that you want to share with us, please send us an email.

Appreciate you being here as always.

Indeed.

Good.

SPEAKER_02

I want to ask a clarifying question.

So we're not approving, you can use less than potentially.

It's authorizing the maximum, but you could potentially use less than.

SPEAKER_06

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Go for it.

SPEAKER_14

I think I'd like to make a comment if I might.

We have been talking about the so-called rainy day fund, the economic stabilization fund for freaking ever.

And I certainly have gotten emails about it.

I've certainly been reading about it on social media.

And I appreciate that this is a little different that we're taking a vote in a special meeting quote unquote work session.

But to suggest that somehow listening to one way communication is going to inform my vote when the house is burning down.

I'm sorry I I am not offended by that and usually I am.

potentially obnoxious about how we do intro and action and schedule our meetings.

So to the comment that we haven't had public engagement, I'm not the least bit bothered.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_06

Okay.

Ms. Wilson-Jones, the roll call, please.

SPEAKER_12

Director Rivera-Smith.

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

Director Sarju.

Aye.

Director Song-Moritz.

Aye.

Director Hampson.

SPEAKER_13

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

Director Harris.

Aye.

Vice President Rankin.

SPEAKER_03

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

President Hersey.

SPEAKER_06

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

This motion is passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you very much.

The second item is approval of the fiscal stabilization plan for the twenty three twenty four budget.

May I have a motion for this item.

SPEAKER_03

I move that the board approve the fiscal stabilization plan as attached to the board action report and authorize the superintendent to make any necessary modifications to the plan to maintain a balanced budget for final adoption by the board in July.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

Sarju seconds.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you.

Approval has been moved by Vice President Rankin and seconded by Director Sarju.

I will now pass it to Interim Deputy Superintendent Fred Podesta for the staff presentation.

SPEAKER_08

And again, we've been talking about this plan in the last two work sessions, so I think it's been well introduced.

This is an added step that because we're taking such significant actions using the economic stabilization account, major reductions in the central office, And all the things we've been talking about, we wanted to get, you know, the will of the board on record that you support this approach.

As we talk about this process going forward, we would try to do this not a few weeks before adoption of the final budget, but at the outset.

So we're getting this direct, and I can't say whether we'd ask for a vote or not, but that we get clear direction at the front about the big options, the big moves, which is what this plan is.

For us, this will kind of allow us to move into the out years immediately if we can get support for this tonight.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, since I wasn't at the meeting where we approved the resolution, I just wanted to sort of, you probably discussed it, but throw in a reminder that this is an additional step that Board members wanted to bring forward that it's it's not it hasn't been the practice to have this You know, usually there's iterative work sessions and then the you know, various options are discussed in somewhat ambiguous Terms and then the final package is the final package and the board has to vote according to state law to adopt a balanced budget so this was What you know at the actually enthusiastic suggestion of our superintendent to have this opportunity for an additional level of transparency in in a situation where we're looking at this big change to our existing budget as opposed to rolling one year from the other with some you know maybe minimal impacts to add this level for us as a board to to say yes continue on this path very definitively understanding what that path actually is instead of saying that sounds like something that we'll be okay with by the time July comes around.

So I just kind of wanted to remind you know Myself and ourselves and also anybody who may be listening that this is an additional step that that we wanted to take us as a board To really help ourselves and everybody understand where the where these reductions and changes were going to come from as we look at passing a balanced budget in July

SPEAKER_13

Any per the motion stated any additions deletions or changes will be communicated to us.

How.

I mean obviously we're going to approve.

We have the calendar to approve the budget but we don't want to just see them then.

So if things come up what's the plan for communicating with the board.

SPEAKER_04

So our plan is to, in intro, have those items identified.

But prior to that, I think it's a reasonable expectation for this board that if there is anything of significance that's going to change between this plan and what you'll actually receive on the 21st that you should expect to see that from us.

But the intro will be where you'll see all of it.

But we don't, in continuing this spirit of transparency, clarity, and collaboration, we would love to be able to present those things to you before you get the budget on the 21st of June.

SPEAKER_08

And at this point, we're not expecting significant modifications from this to the budget that will be introduced on June 21st.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

SPEAKER_06

Any other questions?

Okay Miss Wilson Jones the roll call, please I can go back right even though I called for it Is that a legal issue?

SPEAKER_02

Go ahead.

I have a comment.

I think I'm still struggling because I don't have a good grasp on the fiscal implications around special education.

And for me, that is something that really must be answered before I will vote with any confidence in July.

So I'm just going to put that out there.

SPEAKER_05

All right.

With that being said, roll call, please.

SPEAKER_12

Director Sarju.

Aye.

Director Song-Moritz.

SPEAKER_02

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

Director Hampson.

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

Director Harris.

Aye.

Vice President Rankin.

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

Director Rivera-Smith.

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

President Hersey.

SPEAKER_06

Aye.

SPEAKER_12

This motion is passed unanimously.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you everybody for being here tonight.

There will be no further business to come before the board.

The regular board meeting stands adjourned at 7.05 p.m.

SPEAKER_14

And good of the order we have the scholarship celebration right here tomorrow at 6.30 and I'm sure hoping that all the senior staff will be here as well as board members to celebrate these extraordinary young people.