School Board Meeting Date8192015

All right.

We came pretty close to time.

Maybe a minute or two late.

And so we've completed board comments and now we will move on to the action items.

So let's go ahead and begin.

The first item item number one is amending board policy number 2015 and this is coming from C&I.

I move that the school board amend policy number 2015 selection and adoption of instructional materials as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

All right.

The item has been moved and seconded.

And if we could now hear from the committee chair this is coming out of C&I.

I don't see our committee chair here.

I don't know if directors Peters or McClaren might be able to speak to it in his absence.

I could.

All right why don't we hear from Director McLaren.

So this was reviewed on several dates April 6th May 11th and June 8th and on June 8th the committee reviewed the motion and moved it forward for consideration by the full board.

All right.

Thank you.

Alright so with that let's ask if there are any edits since introduction that staff would like to speak to please.

Good evening Shawna Heath Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction.

There are three changes that were made during intro and action.

These changes were made due to legal counsel advice.

The first change that was made was on page 3 and excuse me.

Page 5 I believe and yes and continues on throughout about rank ordering.

In order the legal counsel advised that the board needs to accept each recommendation that gets put forward.

If we offer more than one it needs to be rank ordered allowing for an accept or reject.

There is a request to require two.

That is assuming that there are two viable options.

So that's the first change.

The second change is just to clarify a bit more based on again legal counsel advice the role of the instructional materials committee.

The language has been changed on page Three, to reflect that the committee's role in the past the IMC has been a process approver but the role will specifically to be to take the recommendation of the committee and to determine and move that recommendation forward as their recommendation and not the committee recommendation.

The final one is a non-discrimination policy and I wanted to ask legal counsel John Sirkley to speak to that.

Good evening, John Zirkle, Acting General Counsel.

I concur with the two points that Ms. Heath just mentioned about the reason for the policy change is that state law requires that the recommendation come from the instructional materials committee and that the board accept or reject it.

So the change was that if a whole bunch are just passed forward without rank ordering them, that's really not following the spirit of the law that requires you to accept or reject them.

So you can reject the first or the top one and accept the second, that is an acceptance and rejection.

So we drafted that to be in compliance.

We have been sued over policy adoption, so we wanted to be very careful that we gave you a policy that we believe is legally sound.

The third point is with respect to, there were some questions on the non-discrimination provision that's in the policy.

It was formally written.

We have it now matching the language in the district's general non-discrimination policy so when we change that policy language we don't have to go back and start changing policy language on non-discrimination in every policy.

So I know there are some concerns about making sure that we look at some issues from the military about people who are dishonorably discharged because of sexual orientation.

We certainly don't want to discriminate on that.

We have provisions in place to not discriminate based on sexual orientation but I want to make sure that we thoughtfully look at those issues so that if people are dishonorably discharged for other reasons that we do have the ability to look at those and not hire those individuals or to look at issues holistically although this policy applies only to curriculum adoption.

If I can answer any questions or turn it back over to Ms. Heath.

All right thank you.

So with that what questions do directors have?

Director Patu.

I just want to clarify, John, I just want to clarify this question.

Now I notice on there that we can actually deny it twice if we don't pick, you know you have the first choice and second choice.

Now if we denied it twice, how does the process end up in that, does that mean that you have It goes back to the committee and they have to decide on another material in order for us to adopt?

Yes so if you rejected both of the proposals assuming two were put forward then it would go back to the adoption committee to look at what other materials are available and then forward that to the instructional committee for review to forward back to you for approval.

So I notice it says on there that we only approve we don't select anymore.

The law requires that the recommendation be made to you and that you either approve or that you disapprove is what the state law writes so yes.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Director Paisley.

This is also for John.

As a follow-up to Betty, Director Patu's question.

In the recent math adoption the board did we follow that procedure or did we do it differently because as I recall we chose the third option.

So I can't speak to how the board, I didn't go re-look at what happened.

I know that we were challenged for the adoption.

Prior to that we weren't challenged on the adoption that happened a year ago.

So my goal and objective was to draft a policy that I felt was legally sound for the current board members to move forward with its current adoption.

OK so I'm just the reason I'm asking is because it could happen again where the adoption committee has three top final curricula there or whatever you want to call them.

And the board the majority of the board prefers number three.

And so you're saying that we don't have the option to adopt number three.

I would have to ask Shawna to see how it's written.

I believe it's recommending two to the board not three in a rank order so they would not be recommending a third choice to the school board.

So if you wanted a third choice you believe was out there that you understood was out there you would reject both proposals put forward ask that staff go back to the committee and bring new recommendations to the school board.

Thank you.

Director MacLaren.

Comment a couple of comments.

The issue that Director Peasley just brought up is one that I've been talking to a couple of people about and have considered it.

And I'm I'm perfectly content to to go with the language that you've presented today.

If over time it develops that there's a lot of there's a lot of energy around expanding that that number to three then it can happen then.

I also wanted to thank staff for for inserting headings throughout this document.

It is a long document and I think that makes it much more accessible.

Other questions or comments we can start to move into comments if people wanted to make any.

Director Peters did you want to make comments or have questions?

Well I'm going to bring forth a small amendment to this item.

Is now the right time to do that?

If there are no further questions then yes.

Okay so let me just ask whether I should be explaining the rationale or whether I should read the wording first.

So you need to make a motion.

All right.

All right.

Here is my motion.

I would like to amend policy number 2015 in the following three locations.

Page 5 on the second to last bullet amended to read recommends two instructional materials options in rank order unless there is one or fewer viable options for a district wide adoption after taking into consideration feedback from all interested parties.

On page 6 the first line would be amended to read, submits two rank ordered recommendations unless there is one or fewer viable options to the IMC with a pro-con analysis for each set.

Page 6. Fourth, into fifth line would be amended to read and shall recommend two rank ordered sets of proposed school board adopted instructional materials unless there is one or fewer viable options to the superintendent and school board.

And that is my motion.

Alright so is there a second to this motion?

I second it.

Alright so let's open up discussion on the amendment and if you wanted to succinctly explain what you're trying to do that would be appreciated.

Right when this was introduced to us back in June or July it originally said two materials would be brought forth and then it got changed to up to two and we discussed that briefly in the curriculum and instruction committee meeting the other day.

And what I realized was that means that it could be two, it could be one, it could be zero.

And so it didn't really assure that we would have two recommendations brought forth to us.

And I know from discussions with other board members last year that there was a lot of interest in having two or possibly even three materials brought forth.

And so what this language does is it ensures that there will be two pretty much for the most part with some possible exceptions.

And so this is language that was actually created by Michael Tully and I think it does address the desire to bring forth two materials that the board members have expressed interest in.

Alright so questions.

Director Peasley.

The only adoption that I'm aware of where this has been an issue was the math adoption and we've had a social studies adoption and science adoption and so I think to require two recommendations is. is something that only applies to the more sort of controversial adoptions.

And so I'm not sure that it's a necessary point for all adoptions.

Director Blanford.

I'm wondering if the appropriate staff person can give us a sense of the implications of the amendment.

How it will change things.

So I don't know if they've had an opportunity to see this.

I know I haven't so I'll leave it to you to feel like you're in a position to answer to it.

Maybe you are.

So the language prior to the amendment was up to two recommended adopt materials.

So the implications aren't.

Terribly significant.

The only issue at hand that we are trying to address is if there's only one viable option or there aren't any viable options so something that just won't work it's not complete it doesn't align with standards etc.

We wouldn't put two forward so it doesn't shift putting forward two.

The board still has to look at the first rank in the rank order.

And then if they reject that then they can go to the second one.

So it is possible that the second material put forward won't even be considered because the first one would be accepted.

Other questions or comments.

I was going to ask a follow up if you don't mind.

I think I got that.

And I'm reflecting on the conversation that we had in the curriculum and instruction meeting last week.

I think it was on social studies where we were talking about the fact that we didn't have very many options to start off with.

And this seems to me to be encouraging us to have to forward to the board at least two options where possible.

But I'm wondering if there's not enough options for us to consider.

It sounds like the language of this still allows us to consider the one option.

going forward.

Is that correct?

Correct.

If you read the amendment unless there is only one or fewer viable options so that I believe and that that allows for the committee to forward that there are no viable options to recommend.

That would be the potential.

It could also mean that if there's only one again that doesn't if if the others don't meet the guidelines and the principles within the policy then the committee could say this is the only viable option.

And how are we defining viable based on the based on the guidelines and the screening tools that the committee sets forward.

Director Martin-Morse.

I'm a little bit concerned and trouble and the reason I say that is seeing this at the dais of the day.

I think procedurally I think that's for sloppy governance quite honestly.

If I had seen this on Friday I could have at least had some inkling but to see it right now I mean I think it puts us on a trajectory that is not good for us as policy makers to do this kind of work this way.

Thank you.

Director Peasley.

Just to continue that thought was this discussed in committee as a possibility?

No.

So I mean this was.

I'm sorry was that question answered?

Okay so was this particular scenario or modification or option discussed in committee and why was it thrown together at the last minute?

So let's let the committee chair speak to what happened in the committee and then you can Director Peters answer the other part of it.

At the risk of saying the wrong thing because I noticed that Director Peters was saying yes it was discussed and I don't believe that I don't remember it being discussed so I'll let you explain the nuance of how it was discussed.

Okay here's how it went down.

The way it was introduced it said two would be recommended and then when it was brought to us in committee last week that had been changed to up to two.

And I distinctly remember saying to staff what does that mean?

That's a change I noticed from when we last saw.

What does that mean?

Does that mean we can have two?

And staff said that means we could have two or maybe one or maybe zero.

And so that was the discussion that we had and I pondered that because I knew that previous board, I know that Director McLaren, Director Peasley had expressed interest in having two or three brought forward and so I thought about that and then I contacted the committee and staff and I said You know I'm not sure that this addresses this, this doesn't assure that we have two.

And so there was a bit of emailing back and forth and then there was some work with staff and Michael came up with this wording that he said would be acceptable and legal and meet everyone's desires and then I was told in the interest of transparency that I should introduce it as an amendment today rather than us slipping it in as a last-minute change.

And so that's why we're doing it in this way.

So it may seem like last minute but it's really part of an ongoing conversation we've been having for about a year and it did, it was begun in discussion in C&I.

Go to Director Blanford please.

I would only disagree with that in that I thought we were talking about the amendment, the language of the amendment and I don't believe that that was discussed in curriculum and instruction.

I'm seeing it.

I'm seeing it.

I think I saw an email that said something to the effect of there is an amendment coming but I didn't see anything that said what the language of it is.

And so that goes to the point that Director Martin Morris was making earlier about receiving materials in time to be able to consider them fully hopefully in committee before they're forwarded on to the board.

Well for what it's worth I didn't know there was going to be an amendment until I got here today at 410. So I didn't know that either.

Director Paisley.

I've read this over and over I don't see that it makes any difference.

It's basically saying the difference is up to two or two unless there is one or fewer viable options.

What is the difference?

So are there other comments that people want to make?

Director MacLaren.

As the third member of the C&I committee.

Nobody seems to recall that I was saying what about the possibility of three.

But at any rate as I stated as you presented I've thought about this and I.

I am concerned at the precedent of introducing somewhat confusing language because there is a fair amount of language in the various pages of this and since there is very little difference I am reluctant to agree with this amendment.

Other comments?

New comments.

I would I would make the observation that so just by way of background I was the one that asked for the legal review on this when it came forward earlier and I asked for that because I'm very familiar with the RCW around the instructional materials adoption.

It is extremely prescriptive.

I mean it pretty much tells us exactly how to do it.

And I didn't feel at the time that what we were proposing initially was going to meet that standard.

And I would say B right now.

I feel like we're trying to move away from the intent of what the law is trying to do.

The law is not trying to give us an opportunity as a board to cherry pick adoption materials.

What they are looking for us to do is to get a committee together comprised of educators and members of the public to follow a process and make a recommendation to the board.

And so trying to figure out how to get more than one or more than two I don't believe in my heart that we're trying to follow the intent of the law.

So I'm extremely uncomfortable with it.

And similarly I would just make the point that there's nothing that stops the committee.

We can approve something tonight if we want or if we do.

There's nothing that stops the committee from reconsidering it again next month and make the change and reintroduce it.

So that's my 10 cent speech on that matter.

So I'm not seeing any other hands come up.

So I think at this point we've discussed it.

We've had questions and comments.

So let's take a roll call on the vote of the amendment.

So the vote would be aye if you want to amend it to the language that's being proposed and no if you want to go back to what was originally introduced.

Is that right.

Theresa.

What staffs brought forward and that came through the committee.

All right.

So with that let's go ahead and take a roll call please.

Director Blanford.

No.

Director Morris.

No.

Director McLaren.

No.

Director Patu.

Director Peasley.

No.

Director Peters.

Yes.

Director Carr.

No.

This motion did not pass by a vote of 1 to 6. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So with that let's go back to the original motion.

Again it's been read into the record and seconded.

So I any further questions or comments on the original motion.

Director Peaslee.

I just wanted to thank staff and the C&I committee for doing this work because I think it was work that had to be done and it does give us a little bit more flexibility.

So hopefully if we end up in a controversial adoption situation not so many feathers will be ruffled but who knows.

Other questions or comments.

OK seeing none.

Let us take a roll call on this motion and again we're back to the original motion as introduced and seconded.

Director Martin Morris aye Director McLaren aye Director Patu aye Director Peasley aye Director Peters no Director Blanford aye Director Carr.

Aye.

This motion has passed by a vote of 6 to 1. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Action item number two.

Approval of board policy number 6500 coming out of NF.

If I could have read into the record and seconded please.

I move that the school board approve policy number 6500 risk management as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

All right and if we could hear from our committee chair on this item please.

Yes this did come before the audit and finance committee with a recommendation for approval by the entire board.

Thank you.

So I'm sorry I already clicked into it now I'm not where I can see it.

Has this been edited since introduction?

No edits since introduction.

So with that why don't we open it up to questions from directors or comments if there are no questions.

Everybody's diligently looking forward so I'm just going to pause for a second.

Doesn't look like I'm seeing any questions or any comments on this item.

So with that let's go ahead and call the roll please.

Director McLaren aye Director Patu aye Director Peasley aye Director Peters aye Director Blanford aye Director Morris aye Director Carr aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right item number three amending board procedure 3520BP to increase student meal prices for breakfast and lunch starting 2015 16 school year.

I move that the school board amend board procedure 3520BP as attached to the board action report to authorize a 25 cent increase in student meal prices starting with the 2015 2016 school year as follows.

Elementary breakfast $2 an increase from $1.75.

Secondary breakfast $2.25 an increase from $2.

Elementary lunch $3 an increase from $2.75.

Secondary lunch $3.25 an increase from $3.

I second the motion.

All right thank you.

And so again has this item been changed since intro?

Please.

Pegi McEvoy assistant superintendent for operations yes it has been amended since It was introduced on July 1st.

We have gone to the audit and finance committee and received a recommendation from them.

And that has been included.

All right.

Thank you.

And that was the step that I think I skipped.

And that would be to hear from the committee chair please.

A&F.

Yes this did come before the board, before the committee on the 13th of August with a recommendation for approval by the entire board.

I noticed this one also came through Ops so would the Ops chair have anything to say on this one?

It was discussed and it was also approved by the committee to move forward.

Alright.

Alright so with that let's open it up to what questions or comments directors might have.

Director McLarin.

Well I just want to register sorrow that we have to raise the rate but the rationale from the board action report is quite clear.

Any other questions or comments?

Director Peters.

I have a question for Peggy.

So to understand why we need to do this, how much of the lunch costs are covered, or the meal costs are covered by federal dollars?

And do they cover, does federal money cover all of the costs?

Thank you for the question.

That was one of the questions that came up at the Audit and Finance Committee.

And if we look at our indirect and our direct total costs the federal subsidy or reimbursement for our costs is at about 71%.

Director Blanford.

I too was disappointed that this has come before us to raise prices.

I'm wondering if you can share with the public the other reasons that were shared in the committee that require us to increase prices.

So certainly thank you.

We have an increase in warehouse costs, food commodity costs and we also are implementing incrementally the minimum wage law which does require that we alter and adjust our staff salaries.

Thank you for that.

Other questions or comments?

I just want to add even though those costs have gone up just to add to the public over the past several years and it's been four years since we've raised 2011 since we raised the prices and at the same time the costs have gone up year over year but the reimbursement level has stayed pretty much flat.

And so the difference has to be made up by the district in terms of our general fund to close that gap.

said even more pointedly if it has to come out of the general fund it means it comes out of our schools.

So I too am saddened that we have to raise it but I think that's the right thing to do.

All right.

So I'm not seeing any more comments or questions.

Why don't we go ahead and have the roll call please.

Director Patu aye Director Peasley aye Director Peters aye Director Blanford

Aye.

Director Morris Aye.

Director MacLaren aye Director Carr aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right we're going to move to item number four.

And this is for intro and action.

I will just note for all of our benefits as well as for the public amending board policy 60 22 and approving resolution 2015 16 dash 3 establish economic stabilization account balance coming out of Audit and Finance.

I move that the school board 1 amend and rename board policy number 6022 minimum fund balance as economic stabilization account and number 2 adopt resolution 2015-16-3 economic stabilization account as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

All right and this item does not appear to have been adjusted or amended since.

Oh I'm sorry this is interim action so of course it hasn't.

Okay so let's hear from the audit and finance chair please.

This did come before audit and finance on the 13th of August with a recommendation for approval by the entire board.

Thank you.

So why don't we go ahead and hear from staff now.

If you have any comments that you wanted to make since this is both intro and action.

OK.

Kathy Techno accounting manager.

So this is sort of late breaking news in the fast paced accounting world.

So so there were some adjustments that needed to be made and the decision wasn't you know the The decision wasn't really made until just last month and we have to have a policy and a board resolution in place by August 31st so that we can present our fiscal year 2014-15 statements correctly to get a clean audit.

So this, it's related to the Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 54 and it has to do with the classification of fund balance and through their determinations the minimum fund balance definition that was used by most of the world OK, was not adequate to put it into a committed fund balance.

So because, well, they had their own reasoning, but a lot of it was because people were using it just to accumulate resources and not for a specific reason.

So in order to set up a separate committed account in the fund balance, this needs to have more specificity to it.

So it needs to be intentionally set up.

And it needs to have intentional reasons for using it.

So those are listed in the policy that's being presented.

And so it doesn't.

It doesn't really deviate from the spirit which we have used the minimum fund balance because we have that the range has been set by the board the amount has been approved by the board and before any of that amount may have been used.

that was discussed with the board but this makes it this needs to be more formal and it needs to show so that it's disclosed to the public that there's key information around this that is economic stabilization and that's a specific reason for having it and then the board has to pass a resolution for a specific use of it and the uses are defined there.

So the percentage is not changing but if we do not make this change in policy and have this resolution this minimum fund balance would no longer be allowed to be classified in committed fund balance and it would flow into the unassigned fund balance.

So so and this has to be in place before August 31st.

If we try to maintain the classification that we have right now we will not get a clean report from SAO.

All right.

Thank you.

Questions from directors.

or comments.

If I tracked it I think what you're telling us is that it's no change to the intent of how the board set up the reserve account but it's effectively pulling it off into a separate account and walling it off from the rest of the committed fund balances.

So that there is a very clean segregation and then the resolution to go with it to clarify the use and intent.

Correct.

Okay.

Then if that money is used there has to be a board resolution for that as well.

Okay so from where I sit that raises the bar and I like that.

I've always had this kind of uncomfortable feeling that they were all kind of lumped in one reserve account.

And so I for one absolutely like it pulled out and crystal clear and clean that that is a reserve account in and of its own making.

So.

So I like their change and I'm happy to support it.

Other questions or comments from others.

Director Patu.

So who actually comes up with the resolution.

You do or do we.

Well it's included in your information.

The resolution has some standard language and it's here and it says that you will that essentially that the school board approves an economic stabilization account equal to 3.25% of the budgeted non-grant expenditures, which is the same percentage amount that was used for the minimum fund balance.

But the new accounting standards require that there is a board resolution because the highest governance needs to approve this.

This is Ken Gotch, assistant superintendent for business and finance.

Another way to also answer your question is OSPI drafted model language for all the districts in the state to use and Kathy is just simply using the recommended language from OSPI to use to help create this document.

Thank you.

Director Martin Morris.

I think I think what Director Patu is actually asking is who comes up with the resolution for the spending.

And that's us.

So if we have an event that requires us to spend the money in emergency to draw on those funds we would then draft a resolution that says we are going to draw the funds from this account for this purpose.

Under the guidelines that are laid out in our policy we can and this is what we're going to use it for and why.

Thank you.

Very similar to what we did with the SPED emergency where we needed to draw on some funds to support ourselves in that case we came to the board the board authorized us to use that in that specific way.

In fact I like it so much that I would ask that the committee take a look at putting the community schools fund in the same account.

I've been very uncomfortable with the fact that that's sort of commingled in the rest of the capital fund and going back a number of years we had an experience of people starting to draw down on it not in a big way and for very legitimate purposes but I would love to see that money pulled out and put in that economic stabilization fund right along with this general fund money that we're setting aside.

Yeah it would be something that yeah.

Oh absolutely.

I'm just putting my request on the record.

I'm not going to be here for very long.

I want it on the record.

All right.

So any other questions or comments.

All right.

So with that again this is for introduction and action.

So let's go ahead and call the roll please.

Director Peasley aye Director Peters aye Director Blanford aye Director Martin Morris aye.

Director McLaren aye Director Patu aye Director Carr aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

All right.

So now we are to our last but not least introduction item.

Sorry got carried away with the intro action.

The last action item and that is the Seattle preschool program service agreement.

City of Seattle Department of Education and early learning and this is coming out of the executive committee.

So if we could hear the motion read in and second it please.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to accept Seattle preschool program grant funds from the City of Seattle Department of Education and early learning in the amount of $647,991.

and authorize the superintendent to enter into a service agreement with the City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary steps to implement this action.

I second the motion.

All right.

And this is an item that came out of the executive committee the committee moved it forward to the full board for consideration.

There were a number of items that were still in work back in June when we considered it.

And so the staff has continued in partnership with the city continue to mature the work.

So I'll just note for the record there's a proposed amendment.

The process we will follow is we will consider as introduced as read into the record with questions and comments and then we will go to the amendment.

Am I interpreting your notes properly.

Thank you.

Glad to get that right.

So with that why don't we.

So I've told you the report from the committee and let's go to this most assuredly is an item with updates since we introduced.

So I could invite someone from the staff to the dais I mean to the podium to speak to the changes please.

Greetings directors.

I'm Cashel Toner I'm the director of early learning for Seattle schools.

First of all I just want to pause for a minute and thank you for the opportunity to further consider the possibility of Seattle schools partnering with the city of Seattle to offer preschool services funded by the Seattle preschool program.

This really is a remarkable moment for Seattle schools.

This has been long long hard work.

But it's courageous work because it speaks to our collective responsibility to help all of our students whether they be small people or bigger people at the end of their experience in Seattle schools be able to realize their full human potential.

And we know that that starts in preschool.

So you can see many people who have worked on this project.

Some of you are up there.

Some of you are back here.

Some of you are over here.

But most importantly probably think back to the public testimony you heard tonight.

I am so proud of some of the parents who came and spoke to you tonight from Bailey Gatzer community.

That may be the first time that they've come to a place like this and shared their honest feedback.

And I know because we've had jumpstart there this week and I've spoken with lots of the families there that they feel heard, they feel responded to because of your courage to launch that program in January.

This proposal is complex.

It's two large organizations, the city of Seattle and Seattle Public Schools coming together around a common goal.

serving families kids and doing work a little bit differently.

Because we know if we want a different end result we have to do things differently along the way.

You heard from preschool teachers kindergarten teachers who have shared their own personal experience with you.

So as we work through these conversations that we're going to get into in a couple of minutes to talk about the revision the revisions and the particulars of these documents.

Remember those voices because those are families whose lives were changed because of a decision you made to open a classroom at Bailey Gatzert this year.

This proposal at its core it is asking for this organization Seattle Public Schools to accept city levy dollars to replicate the success that we've had at Bailey Gatzert at Van Asselt and original Van Asselt and to continue funding the Bailey Gatzert program for one year.

We have the potential to serve 60 students in a high-quality experience in the fall.

So as we have these conversations where we talk about documents, we talk about revisions, we talk about exhibits, talk about all of those things, remember that we can influence the lives of 60 families and school communities and we have that possibility.

So I'm frankly really excited about this.

This has been hard work.

I've learned so much.

I've learned so much from my colleagues.

So thank you.

Heartfelt thank you on behalf of the Department of Early Learning and thank you to our city partners.

Yep you're here.

Thank you for being here tonight because we have we've learned from each other which is a healthy sign of meeting that common goal of helping kids meet their full human potential.

So OK now let's get to the meat of this.

Ready?

So we are going to talk about the revisions that have been made to the actual documents.

I'm going to have Ronald Boy and John Cerqui talk to those things and then we can have a discussion.

And the next thing we're going to talk about are space concerns and I'll have Flip Herndon speak to that.

And then we'll also talk about the financial model.

OK we'll talk about The plan and revisions to documents and I'll have Ken Gotch speak to those things.

All right.

So let's dig in.

All right.

So let's talk about the revisions to documents.

As you know the first document that we've really been working on I think we're on version 15 and that is the service agreement.

From the service agreement comes a series of exhibits.

All right.

So some of those things are have been revised and we're going to talk through the structure of those things and the rationale for why we did that.

Ronald Boy, Assistant General Counsel.

I'm just going to quickly go through the revisions that we made to the document.

And I want to just say briefly that, of course, this was a very short timeline for developing such a robust group of legal documents.

We are aware of the fact that a lot of changes have been made, and I predict that we will continue to make some revisions to these documents.

When we gave you the current set of documents, we knew that because of the timeline that we had to provide them to you, that we weren't able to do a line-by-line analysis of all the documents.

We just did not have that ability to do it.

So we are continuing to revise and we'll make sure that before they are executed if they are that that will be done to make sure that they are as accurate as possible.

But when you look at the service agreement the main changes to the service agreement were that we made the determination in working with the city that we wanted this to be the really the action.

oriented document.

So boilerplate information came out and went into the general terms and conditions which is now an exhibit.

So the termination clause which we are all concerned about is now in general terms and conditions.

And we also had some additions to the service agreement such as a quality of performance clause dealing with the circumstance of what will we do if we have a classroom that isn't performing up to standards.

We determined that the best way to handle that was to meet with the city, develop a corrective action plan and then we would be following that corrective action plan to get our classrooms up to the standards that we all have the expectations for.

The exhibits of the document were also added to the service agreement and I think that it's important to note that these exhibits are part of the collection of exhibits that are available to the city for the SPP programming and that there were some exhibits that did not apply to the district, others that did.

So we are using exhibits A, B, D and E and I think it's important obviously they're not as you'd expect in sequential order through the alphabet.

These are the titles of the exhibits and these are the exhibits that are attached and part of the overall agreement.

We will also make sure that the term of the that this agreement this service agreement is expected to be a one year term.

We'll make sure that is clear in the final document if we do get to that point of execution.

Are there any questions about that portion.

Questions.

Director Peters.

When you say that portion do you mean, which portion are you referring to?

The entire service agreement?

I think I was asking if there were any questions about what I presented but feel free to ask.

Well I'll start with exhibit C since there's been some questions about that.

So you're saying exhibit C does not apply to this agreement?

I think there is a reference to exhibit C in exhibit B and it talks about the performance metric.

Yes, and we are aware of that discrepancy, and we've changed that wording if we do get to the point of execution to make sure that things line up.

As I said, we weren't able to do a line-by-line analysis of the documents before they were presented to you.

So those things have been corrected.

At this point, our expectation is that Exhibit C will reference now Exhibit D in the agreement.

And in the very end the last line of the section 100 exhibit B will be changed to service agreement for the term.

Okay so the performance metric where does that exist in these documents that explains the performance criteria on which the 25% hold back is based?

Is that somewhere in here?

And that goes over all that financial information that was provided.

Are you ready for a question about page 3?

Of the service?

Sure.

There was slight change in some wording there between the July version of this and this one where it says now, okay page three it says the city and district will work collaboratively to achieve agreement with SEA, that's our educators union.

In these three areas recognizing the need for timely completion.

So my question there was the city.

I think that's something that's been added.

Can you clarify to what extent will the city be working in agreement with our union?

Does that affect at all any kind of negotiation with the union and how involved will the city be with our teachers union?

The expectation is that we will be working with our teachers union.

Of course there will be times where if there are conflicts that occur that we will need the city's input on to the conflicts because unfortunately I think that the The realization would be that because it is an SPP program, they do have a voice in that.

So it's our agreement that we would come to those discussions with our union and also share the city's concerns just as what would be expected to give everyone a full picture of what's going on.

But they would not be sitting down with the union and negotiating, no.

Okay just one more then I'm done with this point.

On page 6 under payment there used to be a paragraph about facilities that said that renovations and expansions undertaken by the district for the purpose of providing the city's preschool programs The district would be eligible to apply for city funding for these.

That has been struck.

So does that mean from now on, does that mean that if the district makes any changes to its facilities to accommodate the city's preschool program it will not be reimbursed by the city for those costs?

Or is that language somewhere else?

we have is our vision of these agreements are that our partnership agreement is the umbrella agreement.

Partnership agreement has that language in it already.

So under the service agreement where we were trying to break this down to this document talking about the preschool services that we would be providing under the SPP program.

It wasn't necessary to be duplicative of the partnership agreement.

And we just felt it wasn't the correct fit for that.

Additionally we would still have those funds available to us.

I think in reality though this is a one year agreement.

We have no plans at this point where we have a need in this next year to make capital improvements to the potential three preschool classrooms that we're looking at providing services in.

And if we were in the future to do that, not only is it covered within the partnership agreement, but we'd also have an additional agreement that would be discussing that project with the city as well.

So thank you.

Let's go to oh I'm sorry I thought I saw your hand go up.

Director Peasley.

I knew somebody over here had a hand up.

So I just would like to ask you to clarify a couple of points.

There was there were some blog postings in the last couple of days and it appeared that there was some misinformation.

put out on the blog so I would just like to ask you to clarify a couple of points.

The blog posting implied that we are basically not voting on the service agreement.

So can you speak to that?

What are we voting on?

Director Peters John Cerqui Acting General Counsel.

So when I reviewed the recommended motion that's being put forth to the school board as well as why this is coming to the school board it's coming because we're accepting grant funds under 6114 that are over $250,000.

So the legal requirement is to bring something to you so we can accept the grant funds.

The way the motion is worded is that you are authorizing the superintendent to accept the funds and then you are authorizing the superintendent to enter into the service agreement and Below that, the attached agreements.

So in transparency, we've attached those documents for you, and you're authorizing Larry to enter it.

But what you're really approving is the acceptance of the grant funds.

And that's what we're here today is to ask you to accept the grant funds.

OK.

I think you've already answered the question about the cancellation clause which was cut from the service agreement because it already exists in the general terms and conditions.

There are ongoing concerns about SPS financial liability resulting or financial risk resulting from the 25% hold back.

We discussed this at great length in a couple of different committee meetings and we have been told that for this one year the Gates grant will cover any possible gaps resulting from that part of the agreement.

We also discussed the need for a more sustainable formula.

One of the ideas that came up is the possibility of charging a facility use fee to create a fund and this was raised recently so it probably is not in the bar because it was raised very recently.

But we did ask that staff do come forward with some sort of a proposal to address this particular problem.

And what I'd like to ask you now is what is the timeframe for coming forward with a proposed solution?

And I'm not talking about for this year, I'm talking about for subsequent years.

So I appreciate those questions.

Before we get to that topic I would like to just finish about the one thing I need to call out around the bar language on page 3, exhibit B is referenced when exhibit D should be referenced.

So I just wanted to surface that.

And now we can get to, I think I heard about three questions in there so make sure that we are answering all of them.

The question is very simple.

When will staff bring a proposed solution to covering the 25% hold back?

And I'm not talking about for this coming year because we understand as you've told us that the Gates grant will be available to cover any funds that the city does not come forward with.

which is something that some of us are not happy about at all.

Some of us are not happy about the 25 percent hold back agreement at all because it puts Seattle Public Schools funds taxpayer money at risk.

And we understand that the risk is low.

As as I stated in our committee if the risk is low why is it even a part of the agreement.

Particularly since the requirements are very clearly laid out in the agreement.

So all of that we have discussed at great length.

My question right now is very simple.

When will staff be coming forward with a number of possible ways in which to address this 25% hold back risk?

So, first of all, thank you for your question.

I appreciate your concerns around the funding model and I've heard your concerns and I appreciate you communicating those.

So, thank you.

The next thing would be that this agreement, what we're looking at this evening is a one-year agreement.

What we will do is monitor, progress monitor the milestone programmatic milestones and monitor our success with those.

That information will then inform decisions around next steps.

And one of the commitments we've made in the work around this is to have an ongoing learning conversation with with the city of Seattle.

So speaking to specific time frames.

Okay I would just like to say that that does not answer my question.

So I hope Charles has an answer.

Charles Wright, Deputy Superintendent.

So if the board approves the proposal tonight, the city's process, and I'm going to get some of the dates wrong, but the application process for round two comes into action in the next couple of months.

So we will be coming to committee to share that timeline for consideration of year two And then we will also be coming to share what number of classes we recommend.

And inside of that conversation, we'll be sharing the proposed funding model.

So it will be within the next two to three months.

And the next committee meeting will lay out the timeline for when the city will be making their decisions and when we'll be coming to you with information.

Does that help?

Only slightly because I still am not hearing that staff is committed to finding a way to create a fund of money that can be drawn from to cover any possible hold back by the city.

So we are very committed.

What we are focused on right now is year one because that is where all of our attention has been and as soon as that decision has been made then we will shift to year two and beyond.

And just as we were getting ready for the executive committee meeting, I also began running some scenarios.

It's not too hard to project out a couple of years, looking at how long the Gates Fund reserve would carry us forward to year two, year three, and then started looking at if the program got larger, what would be the impact of that.

I know as some of my earlier modeling, I started looking at some of the salvage that the program would generate each year.

Maybe that would go into the reserve fund.

So, we've been looking at those scenarios and this has got to be one of the most well-funded grants we've ever done.

If you think about it, I can't think of another district grant that's got this kind of funding commitment behind it.

So, you're off to a very good start with year one.

Very solid foundation.

You're going to have a lot of money carrying over into year two.

There's likely to be some salvage.

You're not going to spend every dollar that's there.

So, I guess for me, I'm seeing Your question is being, when can we come back with specific proposals?

I think we'll be ready in a month or two.

We've been running the data.

We've looked at the scenarios.

Okay I very specifically asked in the last executive committee meeting for an accounting of how much would need to be charged in the way of a facility use in order to create a fund that would adequately secure or that would adequately address the risk of the 25% hold back.

Will that be brought to us and when?

So I'm going to redirect the question because.

It's related to year two and I agree with you that it's urgent and I too am interested on working this on an aggressive timeline.

It's not however on the timeline for the item tonight.

So I would ask that we continue to have this on the appropriate committee agenda and that we're getting reports on an ongoing basis here over the next couple of months so we can bring this to rapid closure.

Is that fair?

That's fine.

Thank you.

Because I think we're all interested in a permanent solution that is workable for both Seattle Public Schools and for the city of Seattle.

But I just don't think we're going to get there on that kind of timeline here tonight.

Again because that's focused on year two and not on year one.

Director Blanford.

I'm just curious about the committee assignment for the discussion about year two.

Yeah so I don't have an answer for that right off the top of my head.

This one cuts across every committee.

Is that the reason why it went into executive committee?

It did.

Because it cuts across all of them.

It cuts across so many of them that we're to a point that I'm not going to send these folks to every single committee and get conflicting direction.

So typically when it starts to cut across a lot of committees we take it into executive committee.

I don't necessarily want to keep it there but at the moment that's where it is and I would like to have a discussion with my executive committee cohorts and understand what we think an appropriate assignment is.

I'm not challenging that assignment.

I just hadn't heard of that of it going to executive committee rather than one of the other committees.

And it seems like there have been a few times when we've received items that have gone to multiple committees before coming to the board.

So whatever is most expedient I understand fully that staff going to three different committees is probably not the best use of their time or ours.

But I also think that there is.

Those of us who are not a part of the executive committee I think some of us I'll commit to myself being one who definitely doesn't see a lot of the machinations that are going on in the iterations and it would be good to know more about the philosophy that undergirds the proposals before we actually see them.

Sure.

And that can certainly be addressed via work sessions too.

Right.

So more to come.

All right.

Other comments.

Dr. Nyland would you like to speak.

Please jump in.

At the risk of taking us down a rabbit hole I do want to clarify around this issue that staff have done a lot of work on creating the idea of a reserve account and the grant funding essentially is perpetual for at least the three schools that we are talking about.

So it does not require a grant in year 2, year 3, year 4, year 5. It front funds the model and after that we get the funding from the city, which then takes care of that responsibility for year two etc.

Then we get into the performance criteria which we'll probably get into in a few moments and because we're in the business of professional education compared to preschool providers we have a leg up on meeting those requirements.

Admittedly there's some small small risks that we might not meet one of those targets.

It would not mean that we would lose the whole 25 percent.

It would mean after multiple warnings we might miss one of the indicators and we might be a few thousand dollars short.

We also have other opportunities to add to that fund and rent certainly is one of those potentials.

It would take us several months to change the policy and then to change the lease agreements with those providers to put that in place.

I think that's probably at this point in time overkill.

in that we don't need a huge reserve.

We're not trying to stack up money.

We want the money to be used for the benefit of students.

And I believe that we do have a prudent plan that will carry us forward for multiple years.

And then there is always that out that we are only doing this on a one year basis.

And so we'll have the opportunity to look at it again if there are problems along the way.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments on the main motion.

Before we move into the amendment.

Other questions on the main motion.

Director Peters.

Just two questions.

One of them has to do with the grant that we got from the Gates Foundation for Bailey-Gatzert.

I'm a little confused because I hear everyone talking about using that sort of as a tobacco fill, this 25% and that was not my understanding of that grant.

So I thought the purpose of the grant was to start up new classrooms and the first one was at Bailey-Gatzert and the other ones would be elsewhere.

Is that a misunderstanding of the purpose of the the Gates funds because I want to know are those funds truly available for that 25% if we don't meet those metrics?

I'm not sure I don't know if that's a question for Cashel perhaps because I think she brought the Gates grant to us.

I'll start off and then I'll ask a colleague to join in if you so desire.

Okay so first of all the grant is called P5 schools aligned with the Seattle preschool program.

And the intention of the grant was to help our organization partner with Seattle preschool program.

The first phase of that looked like launching a classroom at Billy Gatzert and that had lots of benefits.

First of all it served students and it helped us learn as an organization and as a department about all of the nuances throughout the six months that we've had that program and we're able to transfer that learning and be able to have the possibility to launch two new classrooms, one at original Van Asselt and one at Van Asselt.

So because when that grant was brought forward there were several moving parts.

The city had yet to vote to see if that Seattle preschool program would be funded and so now that that has happened we have a possibility to move forward in the mission of that grant which is P5 schools aligned with the Seattle preschool program.

So the second phase of that if we move forward with this proposal would be to launch two new classrooms and then have Seattle preschool program fund the majority of the costs for Bailey-Gatzert and then that triggers us into the next phase of that partnership which would allow for us to have professional development and staff again grant funded to be able to support those classrooms to make sure that we are on target offering a high-quality program.

Would anyone else like to add anything?

John Cerqui, Acting General Counsel.

I did look at the grant.

Well someone had asked that question previously and reviewing it the grant specifically in year two entails that there would be the Seattle preschool program and the grant funds are to support implementation of the Seattle preschool program so in my opinion reviewing the grant it is an appropriate use to use that fund for other purposes but to also support implementation of the Seattle preschool program.

And there was an email from the grantor to Ms. Toner in such interpreting that that would be an appropriate use.

So I believe that using the funds to pay for 25% if it were to be withheld, but I think Dr. Nyland is correct, it would be more of maybe missing one milestone if at all, would be an appropriate use of the grant fund.

All right.

Other questions or comments?

Before we go to the amendment it occurs to me that our friends from the city have been sitting here very patiently without any sort of acknowledgment from up here.

And so I wanted to just take a moment and ask.

So first of all our city council president Tim Burgess is here and I didn't know if Tim might want to come and make any brief comments to the group.

Looks like no.

Thank you for your work and for being here.

Appreciate your participation here tonight as well as the team from the Department of Education and Early Learning and Holly Miller I didn't know if you had any comments you wanted to make at this point in time.

All right.

And we did hear from our SEA president during public testimony so voice of educators is on the record.

So with that I'm not seeing any other questions or comments about the main motion.

And so I think now according to my instruction is the time that we would move to consider the amendment.

So I'm going to ask Director Peters to read the motion for your amendment and hear a second and then we'll have you speak to your amendment.

Point of clarification.

Yes.

I'm sorry before Director Peters did you say that there is no opportunity for comment on the main motion?

No.

Okay.

No I was just looking for anything anybody wanted to say before we move to the amendment.

Oh no there will be comments time before we go back to the.

Perfect.

If it gets to that point then we would have opportunity yes.

I just was looking to move us forward.

Director Peters.

Okay my amendment to the Seattle preschool program service agreement the motion reads as follows.

I move that the board amend the Seattle preschool program service agreement as attached to the board action report.

That's it.

Okay that doesn't have the specifics in there.

Should I now explain the specifics?

No we need a second to your amendment.

Second.

Okay all right so now if you could explain your.

Sure I'll explain the specifics and I'll explain my rationale.

The specifics are basically instead of joining the city for three classrooms we join them with one and that is one that would be a new classroom at original Van Asselt.

And then the other stipulation of my amendment would be that we do not accept the 25% hold back but we require that the city reimburse us 100% for our services rendered.

So this is my rationale.

The purpose of my amendment is to allow the district to participate in the city's preschool program because there is no question I don't think from any of us about the value of preschool.

But without over committing district classroom space or putting district resources at risk by accepting anything less than 100% reimbursement for services rendered.

There's two main points that I'm trying to address.

One of them is the 25% hold back.

This does not guarantee reimbursement to the district even though there's been talk about how likely that will be, we don't know.

And we saw recently with the family and education levy where there were two schools who did not get all the funding they had expected to get, Sandpoint and Emerson and the mayor had to intervene so that they got fully reimbursed.

It was a similar type of arrangement where there was a performance or there were some stipulations attached to the money that were not fulfilled when two principals left the school.

I wouldn't like us to be in a situation where full reimbursement did not happen for the services that we were offering.

And the reason why this is problematic is that the school board has a fiduciary duty to safeguard the resources of the district and keep them focused on our primary mandate which is K-12.

For those reasons I maintain it would be an abrogation of the school board's duties as stewards of finite SPS resources to enter into an agreement in which we would promise to offer complete services and free valuable space in exchange for an assured payment of only 75% of costs.

So as I stated at the July 2 board meeting and I'm sorry I was probably hard to hear because I was calling it in literally phoning it in but I was there.

Seattle school district is not just any preschool provider or partner.

But it is the largest and most significant educational organization in the city.

And as is becoming increasingly apparent the chief provider of space and resources for the city's plan.

The mere fact that the vast majority of proposed SPP sites for the next school year will be in Seattle public school buildings is a clear indication of this.

Therefore, if the district provides in good faith as well, services as well as free space, why should the city withhold 25% of reimbursement to the district for these costs?

And so I've asked, I did ask the city to remove the withhold, the hold back contingency from its agreement with the district.

I have brought this up numerous times.

I even wrote a letter to the mayor asking him this and I have not heard back.

So I find that that puts us too much at risk.

All right the other main point of my amendment is to address capacity issues.

Something that we have the board has made clear with the district from the start is that we have serious capacity challenges in our district.

From the beginning of the conversation we've made it clear that we have a capacity crisis and our primary mandate which is K-12 remains not fully funded.

Therefore any collaboration with the city regarding preschool must not commit space or resources that the district needs for our primary mandate.

Well between the time that this was first introduced to us in July I think it was, some things have changed.

One of the things that changed was the mayor announced that the city is going to be working with other providers who will be joining the city's program and seven of them are currently located in Seattle school buildings.

So, this is not something that was conveyed to the school board.

I read about it in the Seattle Times and that's how I first learned about it.

And so, why that matters is capacity is a serious issue here and we've said from the beginning that we have to be careful what space we commit to anything other than K-12.

So, we learn in July that the mayor is going to and the city is going to be able to work within our seven buildings already.

So, this humble proposal of three sites now becomes part of ten sites.

And so, that gave me pause.

Because we already are in a situation where we may have to call back some of our preschool classrooms because we need them for our K-12 students.

And so what I'm proposing is we participate in the city's program.

with a building that is not needed right now for K-5 classrooms.

It is the original Van Asselt right now has a variety of different programs in there.

It is not a standard K-5 so there definitely is space there that will not be competing with other capacity needs.

And so I'm saying yes let's move ahead there.

That would also allow us to participate and see exactly what the demands are on the district, its resources without over committing our space.

Plus we will be offering the space at no cost which has been discussed elsewhere tonight according to our policies.

Yes we do have policies on the books that do that whether we need to review those policies and revise them that is a discussion we should probably have but what this means is we will be offering free space to the city and I think that should also count against the 25% hold back and make it further I'm trying to modify my adjective here.

I mean to be honest I thought it was somewhat surprising that the city would not guarantee 100% reimbursement knowing that we would provide the services and we would provide the space.

So as far as Bailey Gatzert goes, that classroom will still be there.

We have a classroom, we set it up, it's not going to go away.

And I know some of the public testimony here tonight, some people thought that if we don't pass this that that classroom will go away.

No, it will still be there.

And as far as the other Van Asselt building, there is a space there, we had a provider there until recently and we could put another classroom in there.

So, what I'm trying to do is bring forth an amendment that allows us to participate without putting our assets at risk and without over committing our space.

And I would like to remind everybody that we do have law policy and a strategic plan that says that the school board must properly steward our resources and we must have sound fiscal controls.

And that is what I am trying to exercise here and give us the opportunity to do that.

The one other point I'd like to make is a procedural one since it was brought up earlier tonight.

Two other points actually.

The procedural one I'll come to last.

One of them is we right now don't even offer all day kindergarten for all of our families.

We don't cover that.

Some families have to pay for that.

So we're still not meeting the needs of all our K-12 students.

Also we are using portables in a lot of our schools including some of the schools where the preschools will be located.

And I'm very concerned about a situation where we put our preschool children on site and then our K-5 students get relegated to portables or K-12 get relegated to portables.

That is a reality of our district.

And finally with the procedural matter this agreement that we spoke about just previously did change a lot since July.

It changed even after the executive committee meeting last week.

So that the version that was added to the agenda on Friday was different and did not fully go through committee.

So, if we were to follow the procedural rules that some of the board members have cited earlier this evening regarding my earlier amendment, we should not be able to go forward with that until it goes through committee because some of those changes none of us saw until Friday.

And as far as committees, this will be my final point right here, is that As Director Carr aptly said, this preschool plan does touch on every single one of our committees.

And because it's so significant, I think it should have gone through other committees.

I think it should have gone through Audit and Finance, it should have gone through Operations, I mean it involves our facilities, and maybe even C&I because it does involve curriculum.

And if we had done that, we probably would have had fewer questions at this point.

But as Director Blanford mentioned, You know a number of us are not in the executive committee, we are not members of it so we were not a part of any of these discussions.

So that is, with that I ask my colleagues to support an amendment that allows us to move forward in a way that is responsible and responsive to both the needs of our preschool children and the needs of our K-12 students.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So let's open it up to questions or comments on the amended motion.

Director Peaslee.

So I have a question.

Hold on.

Hold on.

I did something wrong.

She got a second.

I did second.

Oh all right.

All right well that seems okay so we I know we've asked this in the past with the caveat that only if staff feels that they've had an appropriate amount of time to look at the amendment but is there someone on staff that's had an opportunity to look at it and would care to provide any comment.

I mean I know I just was asked to ask it but in the past when I've been on the board we haven't asked the staff to provide an analysis on the amendment because it didn't come from them.

So if you feel like you would like to make comments you're welcome to do so.

I don't want to hold anybody back from doing that.

Sure.

I think that a couple of things to surface.

This has been a fast moving process but something I think that you should you might want to consider would be the framework that has been laid forward by the city of Seattle is the funding model of the 75 percent 25 percent.

So you may want to discuss how that framework over works with or has a possibility to work with the amendment.

So we have city staff here that could speak to that or you can have a conversation about it.

OK.

So let's open it up to comments or questions from directors.

I saw your hand go up.

Well I'll go to you because I saw you first and then we'll go to Director Peasley.

So a couple of things.

First of all I'm as risk averse as the next person.

In year one because of the structure that I am seeing I don't see a risk here.

We have dollars from a very open and liberal grant from the Gates Foundation which was given to us for the explicit purpose in helping us build up the capacity for preschool in the city of Seattle in consort with the city.

So the dollars are covered.

There is no risk here.

Even if we had to pay and you know the risk is small but even if that did happen the dollars are there for year one and this is only a one year agreement.

We have it covered.

The other part that I'm hearing is around the capacity issues.

First of all, Bailey-Gatzert, again, one-year agreement.

The program is already there.

I think we're set and solid.

Original Van Essel, same case.

Even the new Van Essel.

Everything is covered in terms of the impact on the capacity that we have for year one.

The only thing that we're voting on here and I got to remind people of this is the authorization to accept the dollars to move forward to help the kids of this city.

That's what we're voting on here.

The nuances of.

the agreement and the details of the agreement.

What we're also saying is that we trust our superintendent to work in the best interest of our students to finalize those those agreements like we do with any grant that we accept from anybody.

So you know I'm sitting here a little bit Crazed in the sense everyone says we want to do right by children in this city.

Let's do right.

Let's use common sense.

I've been on this board for eight years and it is rare.

that we get the opportunity to make this kind of significant impact and change.

These do not happen very often and it'd be crazy for us to dilute or do anything that will hurt the trajectory that we are on to make a difference.

I do not want to look at those 60 faces and say well you know adults decided not to do that.

You know let's not let's not make adult.

Can you wrap up please.

Impact something that's going to help children.

Thank you.

Director Peasley and I would just ask if we could set a precedent if somebody said something and you agree with let's say I agree and not repeat if we could please.

I would just like to say that in our meetings over this we we discussed whether or not those spaces were available or whether they were needed for our for K-12 and it was determined that in fact those spaces are available so I don't believe that there is a capacity issue with those three particular spaces.

I think that modifying the agreement at this point in the form of changing to getting rid of the 25% hold back which I mean I understand the reasons I agree with I don't like it either but I don't believe that this is the appropriate manner to.

renegotiate those terms.

I think that basically this would be a unilateral imposition in something that is supposed to be a mutual agreement and I would like to ask John Cerqui to speak to that and to state whether or not it would hold up if the city doesn't want to agree to that at this point.

Good evening once again John Cerqui acting general counsel.

If you voted to approve something that did not have the 25% withholding that is your action that you are asking the city to agree to it but there has been no indication in the city that they would agree to it so then there would be no deal and there would be no three preschools would be accepting no grant funds.

They would have to go back and deliberate as to whether they wanted to operate the program in that manner and it would no longer be in your control to accept it.

Thank you I think Director Blanford was next and if there's any others that wanted to comment.

I actually was going to ask basically the same question but to the city folks that are here.

I was going to ask if there was any reason to believe that it would scuttle the deal and we would have to start over again or what would be the implication of changing the language around the 25% hold back.

Good evening, I'm Tim Burgess, the President of the City Council.

I would just make two observations.

First, this performance incentive that you're talking about, the 25%, this has been an existing program between the City of Seattle and the School Board for 11 years.

So there's nothing new here.

The city is not prepared to give up on that issue.

And I think I heard earlier today from Mayor Murray's office that he has the same position.

It's worked well with the city and the school district and our community-based providers for 11 years.

And it's the city's position that we should continue with that.

Go ahead if you have a follow-up.

So not as much a follow-up as just a comment in my mind based on the fact that we heard from our superintendent about the low risk associated and the mitigation that is involved in being able to take the Gates grant dollars and apply it to any any holdback that we would receive and the fact that we've heard from the president of the council as well as the mayor that this issue is one that is instrumental and integral in the agreement.

I feel strongly that I would oppose the amendment as it is currently configured.

Other comments or questions?

Director McLaren.

I just want to point out that the inclusion of the seven other preschools in Director Peters discussion is I think misleading because my understanding is that those preschools each have separate agreements with the city.

None of them is a Seattle Public Schools preschool partnership with SPP.

And so the three schools that are in this agreement would represent a pilot of this relationship which I see as very as critical to building out the Seattle preschool program.

I think that to have the pilot in three different schools will give us a really powerful opportunity to find our way to check our processes and our fulfillment.

And further I see even I freely admit that because of capacity issues it's quite possible that over time we may not participate as much as we would wish in the Seattle preschool program but nonetheless these three classrooms represent the opportunity for Seattle Public Schools with its high level of expertise to set the standard for the Seattle preschool program as it unfolds towards not only the four-year goal but the universal preschool goal.

So I think that's an important facet of this conversation.

Other comments or questions?

Director Peters.

I just want to make a minor correction to Director McClaren's I think misunderstanding what I was saying.

Those seven other sites I recognize are not to be run by the school district.

They will be run by CAUSE, CDSA, YMCA.

These are private providers who will be participating in the city's program.

They are located in our school buildings.

And that is something that was not shared with the school board.

Like I said we read about it in the Seattle Times and the reason why that matters is from the very beginning we've had these sensitive discussions about how much space can we commit in our buildings at a time when our capacity is going up.

So that's the point I was making and so if we add these three more then that will be 10 Seattle school buildings that will have the city's preschool program in it.

And in some respects that's a wonderful thing but we have to acknowledge that that also means a commitment of our space to something other than K-12.

That's the point I was making.

Thank you.

Director McLaren.

With due respect I would point out that each of those existing preschools has already come to agreement.

I'm sure the building leadership team of each school is heavily involved.

Our facilities department and the commitment is for one year.

And so I don't see any any danger in our capacity challenges with these two things going on simultaneously.

The seven independent programs and the three pilot Seattle Public Schools programs.

So I just wanted to jump in and make a couple of clarifying points.

First of all those seven classrooms also have a 90 day cancellation clause in their contract.

Dr. Nyland can attest to the fact that he and I met with the mayor yesterday we again reiterated the significant shortage of space that would always continue to be a challenge until we're out of these capacity challenges that they needed to be ready with a backup plan for those individual classrooms and that this is going to be a continuing challenge until we work our way through the capacity shortages that we have.

So I We'll look to President Burgess or Holly Miller to shake or nod their head that I think that we've fully informed you that we do have a capacity crisis and that it's going to be a little touch and go as we go through these coming years and it'll be a little bit fluid.

We'll work our best to work our way through it.

I would also comment that From an executive committee perspective the two pieces of work that aren't done yet that the staff continues to work actually three.

One is the funding model and you know we can have a conversation not tonight about whether you know what committee we assign this work to but getting to a funding model that's sustainable and de-risks it for us.

So that was one item.

Dr. Herndon has taken a cut at a first pass at how we would prioritize the allocation of space.

So in the event that space becomes tight in a school that we're sort of prioritizing the different needs in the same way across the district.

So that work is underway.

And then thirdly getting to a place where we have an overarching policy that addresses preschools in general but also address the Seattle preschool program.

And so those are all bodies of work that we need to continue to pursue under the idea that if we approve this tonight there would be a year two and we would want to have that body of work underway for year two.

But it isn't necessarily all something we have to have done for tonight.

So any other comments or burning questions or burning comments on this proposed amendment?

I'm not seeing anybody raise their hand so I think with that Teresa are we good to go to a vote on the amendment?

All right so we're going to take a vote on the amended language which Director Peters has introduced but and explained because the substance of it of course was in the explanation not in the motion itself.

And so with that are we clear on what we're voting on.

I think everybody's clear.

All right.

So why don't we go ahead and have the roll call please.

Director Blanford.

No.

Director Martin Morris.

No.

Director McLaren.

No.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

No.

Director Peters.

Yes.

Director Karr.

No.

This motion did not pass by a vote of 2 to 5. Thank you.

All right.

So that takes us back to the original motion as read into the record and seconded.

And so are there any remaining questions on the original motion.

I know we had conversation at the outset so if we could hopefully not repeat that ground that would be great.

Are there any other additional questions.

All right.

Why don't we move to comments for directors that would like to make comments regarding how they want to vote.

We'll go ahead and open it up to that.

Why don't we start with Director McLaren.

So I've already alluded to the fact that as a former preschool teacher and math teacher I am strongly in support of this.

I want to talk a bit about my experience as a board director witnessing the process that we've gone through.

So, I've had, I've seen up close because I not only am on the executive committee but I also am on the family and education levy committee which has merged with the department of early learning.

So I've seen up close how huge a challenge this is and how both city and district employees have stepped up and performed yeoman service to understand all of the component parts and to create all the necessary bridges and agreements that can allow us to serve students well and set the stage for building out a large student and family centered system.

I've appreciated many of the questions that have come from community members and colleagues.

You know the old trust but verify thing it's really been helpful to have lots of eyes on this because it is huge and complex.

And so we can, we are all partners in looking at these agreements.

And I am confident that the people who are carrying out this work are acting with integrity.

Over and over again I've watched them deal with unanticipated issues, with their own mistakes, with other people's mistakes, and they've always come forth with humility and forthrightness.

And I have complete trust that they will continue to carry out this work with integrity and in the spirit of cooperation and with the best interests of our students at heart.

So we are all, I have great respect for these people and for our citizens.

We are all holding ourselves accountable here.

I also want to say that I've looked at it a lot and even though I know there have been these discrepancies basically this is a carefully constructed and sound agreement.

It gives ample opportunities for us to reconsider and renegotiate the different components or exit if necessary.

So Seattle Public Schools and the city are partnering to support our students and this is what the community is asking us to do.

Thank you.

Director Patu.

Although I have actually supported Director Peasley's amendment for the fact that between the two of us there was a lot of unanswered questions in terms of this whole agreement from the beginning.

But as I hear the voices of my community and the parents that really talked about the need for the Southeast community to be able to have a actual preschool for our kids.

I'm going to vote yes.

The fact that you know they've been say they've been they've been on my case too far and I feel like I really owe it to them.

You know they're they keep saying our kids need preschool and I understand our kids do need preschool.

We are tired of kids coming into public schools especially the southeast three or four years behind and not ready for school.

So I think this is a step forward.

If we provide our kids with preschool at the beginning we have hope that our children will actually be able to come in ready to learn.

So I am going to vote yes on this on this amendment.

Thank you.

I would just like to set the record straight it was not my amendment.

It was Director Peters amendment.

It's not an amendment.

I would also just like to speak to Tim Burgess's remark about the 25% whatever you call it performance whatever.

I realize that this has been the arrangement between Seattle Public Schools and the city in relation to the levy money.

This is not the same situation.

We have been We have heard from many people in the community that they do not want K-12 funds diverted to preschool given the fact that we are underfunded and given all of the unfunded mandates that we are continuously given by the state including the latest one which is to reduce class size.

All of this costs us money.

So we cannot put our funds at risk even a small amount even for a small risk and this is why it is extremely important to me and to other board directors and to many people in our community that this 25% hold back be adequately addressed with some source of funding that is not coming out of our K-12 budget.

So I just want to make that very clear.

Also in our levy programs our families and ed levy programs we have been dinged and there have been financial consequences resulting from this arrangement.

So this is why we are concerned and this is why we hope that you will act in good faith with us as your partner to understand why we have these concerns and why we need to address them.

That being said I am fully in support of preschool and I will vote in favor of this but I do want to make it very clear why I keep saying this over and over again.

Thank you.

Other comments from directors?

Director Blanford.

August 19, 2015 is in my mind a joyous day for Seattle Public Schools and the city of Seattle.

I think back to when Councilman Burgess led a trip that many of us went on to the East Coast to have the opportunity to look at model early learning programs and the partnership between early learning programs and school districts and cities to address achievement gaps.

And the folks that we talked to and we talked to practitioners, we talked to community members, we talked to teachers and school administrators, we talked to senior leadership, we talked to mayors, we talked to philanthropic partners and they gave us sound advice about what we should be doing in order to construct a program that would be worthy of the students that we serve here in Seattle.

And as I reviewed the documents I see a lot of what they told us to do actually embedded in the document.

I have heard a lot about the challenges that are associated with this around the 25% hold back and I've heard that I believe addressed appropriately by our superintendent and the senior leadership.

I've heard questions about staff, about spacing and how much space and capacity we have and I believe that in the short term those are addressed as well.

I think if we continue to grow at the rate that we are growing we may have to make some adjustments to the plan.

I've heard questions about about the reserve fund that is necessary to keep this going and I believe that those questions have been answered.

And so the details I think are sufficiently addressed but I think the bigger issue is around what we are about as an institution that serves children in this city.

We as board members had the opportunity earlier in the year to look at our data around achievement and opportunity gaps.

and it was overwhelming.

We have a large achievement gap and for some of our population, some of our demographic groups, it's not shrinking.

It's not shrinking at the rate that we want it to.

And the information that's in the bar is very compelling.

It says that if you want to close your achievement gaps, one of the best things that you can do is to provide early quality high quality early learning services to kids that are most in need.

Those are kids that live in the community that I live in right near Bailey-Getzert.

Those are kids that live in Southeast Seattle.

And so we have this opportunity and we need to seize on it.

And so with all that said I'm more than happy eager to support this proposal and I want to thank all of the staff that have been involved, all of the city staff and leadership that have been involved, all of the community members that have come and shared their particular perspectives, those who have been involved for a long time.

In this in particular my dear friend John Bancroft who has been doing this work for Seattle public, for kids in Seattle for decades now.

And I hope that we are able to deliver on the promise.

Any other comments?

All right we will go to Director Peters.

Well as I said from the start the issue of whether or not to provide pre-K or the value of pre-K is not a question here.

But I do remain concerned about what we are committing to in terms of our resources.

I do think it is not prudent and responsible of us to enter into an agreement where we do not, we are not guaranteed 100% reimbursement for our costs.

And that is the sticking point for me on this, one of them.

I'm also disappointed that it looks like the city's preschool plan is not necessarily adding seats but it is absorbing existing seats.

And I know we discussed this at the last meeting and I guess it's a matter of, I was told it's a matter of quality over quantity.

So, that these existing classrooms will now offer six hour days and different curriculum and different quality of teaching and that's well and good but I am disappointed as a taxpayer that we are not adding more seats because I would like, that's what I would like to have happen.

So, the Bailey Gatzert classroom will not be new seats, it will just be the city appropriating some existing ones.

That being said, you know, the district is now going to be.

working very closely with the city and we will be providing space and it will greatly influence our direction.

And obviously for the children who get to benefit from preschool I hope the best for them but I do think we need to be mindful of the fact that we have to make sure we stay focused on our primary mandates that we don't run into conflict with our competing needs for space.

And my understanding is we may already need to reclaim some of this pre-K space we are talking about tonight.

I wish a more risk-free, less risk was written into this agreement.

I wish the city had been more willing to compromise with us.

I feel that this agreement benefits the city and covers the city's risks and leaves us at risk and I don't think that's a sound agreement and that is why I am unable to support it tonight.

All right.

Any other comments because once I make mine we're going to go to the vote.

So last call.

All right.

So I just want to say I am thrilled to be able to vote yes on this action.

I think the comments director Blanford made were spot on.

And from where I sit of course we should do this.

It's absolutely the right thing to do.

This is a key strategy for closing the achievement gap over the long term.

And I would call out the SEA.

They have been in on this from the beginning.

They went on the trip that Director Blanford referred to.

They have been excited.

They've been supportive.

And the reason that they have been is that they too see what an opportunity this is. for our students for our educators for closing the achievement gap.

So I want to say thank you to Jonathan Knapp and to the SEA and all of those that came to speak tonight and have been supportive throughout this process for the work that you've done and the support that you've shown.

The voters they approved this measure with nearly 70 somewhere around 70 percent support.

I think was the number I heard the mayor quote yesterday.

What an overwhelming message from our community that supports both the city as well as the school district and a huge thank you to them for their generosity for giving us the opportunity to to embark on this journey.

So again another strong message and another big thank you to our voters.

I know that there's been this has been a long process we've moved through it fast over the last what eight months.

A lot of questions here tonight and I know that for some in the public and maybe even in this room that's been a frustrating process.

But I would tell you that.

My colleagues and I have to balance a lot of competing needs.

As was pointed out, there's never enough money for every decision that we make.

There's somebody else that is competing for those same resources.

This is a tough job and the questions that directors have raised are all very legitimate.

and are worthy of answers.

So to that end, I thank them for the work that we've done so far and state my commitment that I'm in this to see it through to the things that are still outstanding like the funding model, the guiding principles on how we allocate space, the overarching policy that still needs to be worked.

And so I'll state my commitment publicly that I'm going to continue to work that hard until the very last opportunity that I have.

I also want to say thank you to our staff and to the staff at the city.

I know we really put you guys through the paces and I know there was at least one executive committee meeting that was particularly tough for you guys and Apologize for that but thank you for your work and for working together to see this through.

And then lastly I would just say a huge thank you to Mayor Murray, to President, Council President Tim Burgess and to your colleagues at the City Council.

Particularly our mayor and President Burgess have had vision on this matter.

They've they've reached out.

They cast a wide net to try to bring everybody along.

Again it's you know we're moving fast.

This is new ground.

But what a huge opportunity for the children in the city and for the future of our city.

So thank you for leading us on this journey and I look forward to joining along.

So with that let's go to the vote.

Director Blanford aye.

Director Martin Morris aye.

Director McLaren aye.

Director Patu aye.

Director Peasley aye.

Director Peters no.

Director Carr aye.

This motion has passed by a vote of 6 to 1. Thank you.

All right, so as people are starting to re-situate in the room and maybe some of them will be heading home, let's go ahead and if people need to take a little bit of rolling break here, I see a couple people are doing so.

If we could press forward with the introduction items and be mindful of keeping at least four of us up here at a time.

All right.

So the first item is amending board policies number 10 10 and 12 40. This is coming out of the executive committee meeting and I will turn it over to our board office manager Teresa Hale.

Thank you Director Carr.

Good evening Board and Superintendent Nyland.

Again Teresa Hale, Board Office Manager.

This evening I'm introducing an item to amend Board Policies 1010, Board Oversight of Management and 1240 committees.

On March 11th of this year the Board met in a work session to discuss selected Series 1000 policies which included 1010 and 1240. And then the board met in an executive committee of the whole meeting on June 4th of this year to specifically review these two policies and provide feedback for possible edits.

The body of the edits in the policies incorporate the input that we receive from directors at these two meetings as well as other edits to you know match current board practices and to update the department references for changes that have occurred since these were last revised.

Specifically to policy 1010 there were minor edits to the list of points that are addressed at our oversight work sessions.

A more comprehensive list of the oversight areas that will be reported to the board through the oversight work sessions and then revising the process by which the list of annual reports is approved each year.

In 1240 we called out that our committee meetings are board special meetings and there were also revisions to the charters for each of the board committees to better reflect the focus of each committee.

I would note that something that I called out in the executive committee meeting, each charter list was reordered.

to create more consistency between each of the lists and also to group similar items but the reordering was not called out in the track change edits because the content itself was not changed, it was just reordered in the bulleted list and that's all the information I have for you.

All right and I will add that this came through the executive committee and we do recommend it move forward with recommendation for approval by the full board.

So with that questions or comments.

We're missing a couple of folks up here but at least one of them is on the executive committee so she has seen those.

I'm sorry I stepped away for just a second.

Did you go through both of them?

Yes I did.

All right.

So questions comments.

I'm not seeing any up here so I think for the moment certainly directors have a couple of weeks here to get questions if they have some coming forward.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

All right the next item is board policy number 3405 and that's coming out of C&I.

And if someone, oh look at this you're already there.

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to Pegi McEvoy.

Thank you Pegi McEvoy assistant superintendent for operations.

Policy 3405 is a new policy for the school board.

It is a policy that guides our local district on our school environment and promotes student health, well-being and the ability to learn.

The wellness policy is a requirement that was established by the Child Nutrition and Week Reauthorization Act of 2004 and was further strengthened by the Healthy Hungry Free Kids Act of 2010. This is a new policy for us and one of the reasons that we did not take it up until just recently is because we were waiting for some additional guidance from the USDA.

They have some proposed legislation that they had opened up last year for public comment the comment period closed in 2014 and we have been waiting for the new recommendations to come out.

As of the end of 2014 it still hadn't come out so we had gone ahead and established a wellness committee that would take a look at the current policy recommendations They did make, come forward and made recommendations to the superintendent on both nutrition as well as physical activity that those recommendations were then brought to all the different departments for review.

They were reviewed and there was some changes made based on our reading of the USDA regulations and based on WASDA's model policy.

It's interesting because as we moved it on and forward to the committee we also at the same time sent it back to the task force and the wellness committee so that they could make some comments also on some of the changes that we had proposed.

We do have Carolyn Kramer who was on the committee here in the audience and she and I had a conversation earlier today.

about some concerns that the task force slash committees had related to the current proposal.

You will notice that there's eight bullets that are within the wellness policy and they speak to some specific core beliefs that are required by the USDA legislation.

As we established those you can see the first one talks about equitable access to healthy foods and water.

Students should be given adequate time to attain and consume meals.

Students should receive quality evidence-based health education.

Students should have adequate opportunities to be physically active before, during and after school.

Students should be provided equitable access to healthy foods and opportunities for physical activity with appropriate accommodations.

Foods that do not meet the USDA smart snack standards should not be marketed or sold on school grounds during the school day and that school staff should be encouraged to promote healthy nutrition and support physical activity and not use food as a reward for celebration.

An additional goal or core belief was that schools should have a wellness goal within their CSIP plans.

That one is beyond any of the recommendations from WSSDA.

The language that we have in front of you states that we should be doing a lot of things and we got comments from the task force that they felt like that language may weaken the policy.

And so they shared that with us yesterday and so we're having conversations and we're going to go back and review that.

Additionally they also had some questions about the final paragraph which talks about the superintendent or his designee is authorized to develop policies procedures and guidelines.

they had been working off of the OSPI recommendations and the CDC recommendations and if you read that guidance they actually not only say should the community be involved in the development of the wellness policy but also should be there for ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

When we look at the WASDA policy and when we looked at the USDA regulations they did not say that.

They stated that they wanted the community involved in the wellness policy.

So we are going to go back and look at that and see if we can reconcile the differences in those pieces.

So as we come forward for action please note that we will be talking with the community and we may be coming back with some of those revisions for you.

Thank you.

So let's open it up to questions.

Let's go to Director Peasley first.

I'm just wondering I see recess mentioned here and physical activity all over the place.

So what are the implications of this in relation to requests for more recess time?

Let me defer to Lori Dunn.

She was led the physical activity task force which was part of this committee and she can speak to that.

Good evening.

To answer your question that you just stated.

The policy has is the overarching policy and then it would refer to the superintendent's procedures actually how it would be implemented in system.

So.

So it's TBD.

Correct.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Director McLaren.

I think you said that it was the CDC that had a recommendation about family and community involvement.

Was that the body that you mentioned?

So we, there are many bodies that are making recommendations about this particular policy.

OSPI and CDC seem to be more aligned in recommending that there be broader representation, not just on the development of the policy, but also the ongoing monitoring.

Whereas if we read the USDA, who is the sponsor of the recommendation, as well as WASDA, they speak to having the wellness committee develop the policy.

Thanks I would appreciate if you could forward to the board perhaps the CDC OSPI recommendations.

I was fortunate enough to attend a family engagement Institute at Harvard last month and I really had the world of family engagement turned upside down in a very good way in my mind.

And I I am now understanding that it's possible and desirable that that we should plan that family engagement really does embed in.

all the different aspects of our of our organization.

And there are I don't I don't that's why I'm wanting to look at what they recommend because of course it's not simple and there but there are there are schools and districts that that have worked on this really hard and they have some very fine models that are quite practical.

What I would concur and also we have I believe it's 4110 that directs how we use committees and authorizes the superintendent to establish committees, task forces, and working groups.

And so how we operationalize this after the board passes the policy and we create the superintendent's procedures we'll be looking specifically at that also.

Thank you.

It was pointed out to me I forgot to ask for the recommendation from the committee so Director Blanford please.

The curriculum and instruction committee heard this or considered this item on August the 10th and recommended it to the full board for approval.

All right and I will note that we were also looking for the solution to the problem around recess and lunches and we didn't find it in this document.

The question that was asked earlier was one that was asked in the meeting and what we were told was that it would be to be determined particularly in the superintendent's procedures.

I think I saw Director Patu's hand.

Actually number one I'm really pleased to see this policy because I really think it's something that we really need to address because so many of our kids actually depend on school lunch you know because a lot of them don't have food at home so the core of them eat at school and it says according to this data that kids of color are more higher rate in being obesity.

So I'm really pleased that this actually kind of give us an opportunity to see this and that we're actually working towards this problem because I think it's something that's been ongoing and we kind of forget that you know they go hand in hand.

you know when you're talking about our kids we're supposed to educate them and provide them opportunity.

Well if they're obesity and they're going through a lot of health problems it's hard for us to teach them anything.

So I'm glad that this is something that we're actually looking at and I'm very pleased.

And I would add that this does build on some of the good work that the district has already done about competitive foods and advertising.

Director Peters please.

I also want to bring in something that we discussed at C&I and that is that you told us that the lunch recess community the group that is advocating for you know full lunch times and recess they did you were in conversation with them and they did help inform the work that went into this.

Absolutely they were part of the task force and part of the input for the policy.

I want to thank you for including them because that's the perfect melding of having the community come forth with their concerns and working towards something constructive.

And also there was a study done by UW wasn't there relating to.

these issues that also informed the work that went into this.

Is that correct?

Certainly the University of Washington was a piece of that as part of the task force they had looked at for instance the amount of time some of our students were actually able to sit and eat their lunches so that was informing some of the thought process as we were developing this.

And I would just like to do the correct accolades for who really has done the work of this although I'm standing in front of you it is Lori Dunn, it was Wendy Weyer and certainly Pat Sander.

Thank you.

Director Peasley.

Just a really small question, I don't know whether this is intentional or not but it says students should have equitable access to healthy foods and portable water.

Should that be potable water or portable water?

We actually had a conversation about that.

and I had a conversation about that today.

The legislation says potable water which means drinkable water however we also want to have water that can move around with kids so that they can have access for it.

So we are going to go back and reword that so that it reflects both of those things.

Thank you.

So is the intention, I mean obviously we pot potable water into buildings so that's I don't want to I mean I would suggest it's a given but but and so is the intent to do have both in there because I had seen that too and I thought is that a typo.

Yeah so the legislation actually speak specifically about potable water and that's why that language is in there but you're absolutely right if it's drinkable it's potable.

I think that the other piece is that our students move around is that water accessible to them and so the intent is to make sure that they can have water when they need it.

Other questions or comments?

All right, thank you.

Okay, I'm going to look left and right.

We have six items to go.

Do we need a five-minute break or do people want to take a pause?

Okay, keep going.

And people can step out if they need to step out.

So we will go to item number three, authorization for consent decree and settlement.

And so we have John Cerqui coming, not coming, he's at the podium.

Hello, John Cerqui, Acting General Counsel and with me is Nazik Youssef, the Assistant General Counsel.

I'll hit four points and then I'll turn it over to Nazik.

My second point is that this is a settlement of a lawsuit so I'm asking authorization for the superintendent to resolve a lawsuit that was filed by a blind parent that our website and math program were not accessible.

I want to remind the board that we did have an executive session.

This is current litigation so we did discuss this in details with the pros and cons of continuing with the litigation.

And to my knowledge, this is the first K-12 resolution.

They've had it at higher ed, but this is the first K-12 resolution.

So although we are entering into a settlement, if the glass is half full, there will be some compliance issues that we'll be providing to our parents and families that will hopefully get them more engaged in our educational services.

This does not resolve the counterclaim in the lawsuit by Edline.

They were the company that provided the website initially that was not compliant.

So this only resolves the lawsuit that was filed by the parent and then there was an amendment by a nonprofit.

So it does not resolve our contractual claim that we have against the original website provider.

And I'll turn it over to Nozick to explain the contents of the consent decree that we've attached.

Hi, so the consent decree, which is included for your reference, would last for three and a half years.

And I'll summarize the key points and obligations that would be on the district.

The district would hire an accessibility coordinator for three and a half years.

And that person would be charged with evaluating and monitoring the accessibility of the website and technology used by students and the public.

The accessibility coordinator would also oversee the implementation of the consent decree.

and would conduct the audit that's referenced or at least cause the audit to be conducted which leaves it open that the accessibility coordinator could also hire someone out, hire that out.

Conducted accessibility audit of curricular and supplemental technology and digital content acquired from third-party vendors for students with disabilities and develop a corrective action plan that would then be implemented.

The district would test its web for accessibility issues for that three and a half duration every three times a year every four months and also if there was a big rollout or change in the website then we would do additional testing including using individuals with disabilities such as blind users.

for big changes to the website.

Training of designated staff would happen for three and a half years.

It would happen primarily during the 2015-2016 school year but if new individuals were hired into those positions they would be trained for the subsequent years.

The district would modify its procurement practices to put in additional safeguards to vet technology that students or parents would be using for accessibility issues and that process has already started.

And then attorney's fees would be already negotiated at $80,000 and those would be paid and then monetary damages to the plaintiff for $5,000.

So those are the key points of the consent degree.

And implementation of it is estimated to be between $665,000 and $815,000.

Happy to answer any additional questions.

And before we open it up for questions I will just share with you that this came through the executive committee and we do recommend it for approval by the full board.

As John Cerqui pointed out we did have an executive session on this topic.

Other questions that weren't answered in the executive session.

I think we're we're good for this evening.

Thank you.

All right that takes us to intro item number four of eight.

Highly capable students program annual plan coming out of C&I.

Welcome to the podium.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm Stephen Martin supervisor of highly capable services and advanced learning programs.

I bring before you tonight the highly capable students program annual plan as required by WAC 392170. This plan when approved by the board allows OSPI to release grant funds of approximately five hundred thousand dollars to help the district support its highly capable programs during the 2015 16 school year.

Are there any questions?

Committee recommendation.

This item was heard by the curriculum and instruction committee on August 10th.

Move forward for full consideration by the for consideration by the full board.

Sorry I always do that.

Move forward for approval by the full board.

Are there any other questions?

Yes Director Patu.

Can you tell me exactly what a percentage of highly capable students are kids of color?

I can't tell you that off the top of my head.

Because I know in the past we've had very low percentage.

Yes.

And so I'm really curious to see what has been done to actually to bring those numbers up.

Well, part of the initiative you heard earlier with the Rainier Scholars.

We've been using some of their, the students that are recommended for their programs and we identified an additional 30 students of color this year through that initiative.

We're also investigating talent development programs which is also a Rainier Scholars type model and we'll be implementing those especially in Title I schools.

Because one of the things that I'm hearing from a lot of our parents is that it's so hard to get a hold of someone to actually to sign their kids up and there's no follow up.

And I've heard this from many parents of color.

So I'm really curious to find out.

I know you're trying to follow Rainier scholars but what are we doing as a district to promote more students of color to actually become part of this program.

Well, one of the initiatives is to test all second graders on the COGET screening form who attend Title I schools and schools with high ELL populations.

And that has yielded again a number of students whose parents did not recommend them and whose teachers did not recommend them.

But we can recommend based on their scores on on those tests.

So we tested about 2000 kids this year second graders in those locations.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

I will, Dr. Nyland is walking into the room and so in some ways he is the appropriate person.

I don't see Carmen Romm here.

The question that Director Patu asked actually is an answer in the past would have been answered for anybody in the community if we were continuing to publish the data profile book.

And whereas I'm not always in agreement with Chris Jackins on that issue which he raised earlier today I am in total agreement.

I believe that we when we publish that it is something that researchers, community members have the opportunity to get a copy of it and know our data.

And if we are interested in transparency which we say we are we need to do as many things as possible.

to have our data out for people to see and so my hope is that we figure out a way in the future to continue to publish that data profile book.

I found it really useful when I was a researcher and even more useful as a parent of a Seattle public school student and I know there are lots of parents and community members who would like to see that book published again.

Director Peasley.

So I know state law changed a year or so ago requiring that we make advanced learning available to students in their neighborhood assignment schools who didn't wish to join.

program.

So what steps are we taking towards that and also do you happen to know how the COGAD screening, how many students, how many more students were identifying using the COGAD screening?

I can get that for you.

Director Martin Morris.

I can't help but notice in the application or the form that we're sending to OSPI it's still listing the Iowa test of basic skills.

Are we still giving that?

Our department gives it in the absence of other testing data.

It's actually used generally throughout the country.

We don't give that as a district.

We use the MAP scores and we'll be using the SBA scores.

But in the absence of other scores, we administer, our office administers the IRO test of basic skills and we just gave some today.

We are doing summer testing now for students who join the district after the testing window which is the first month of school.

Well the testing window is a lot more open than that but that's the referral period.

And so students who join Seattle Public Schools after October.

are offered the opportunity to test during the summer so that they can be placed in program this fall.

So we are giving about 100 assessments of that kind and if they come into our district without any MAP scores or other achievement data then we administer the ITBS.

Okay so one other question and this I believe it was last year maybe it was two years ago Your department produced a heat map for advanced learning by showing us where all of the students live that are participating in advanced highly capable programs throughout the city.

Will we see that again?

Because that was a very telling map and I think which spurred a lot of the things that went on because there were things that happened.

This is before you were here that jumped right out at least to several directors that participated in that meeting.

So I would I think it would be very valuable for us to see that heat map again.

We could initiate that enrollment planning produces those and I will ask them to produce one for your information.

Other questions?

All right thank you for your time this evening for waiting until nearly 9 p.m.

and we will move to item number five.

We have four more to go and then we have a closed session so kind of keep that in mind.

So item five I'll turn it over to you.

Good evening directors.

interim director of grants Michael Stone.

I'm here to present and introduce the YMCA contract under the family and education levy for $371,000 that will be focused on the list of schools that are listed in the bar.

This would have been introduced and brought to you back in July when we had the other three contracts but we just got received some more data from a couple of schools that they are going to choose the Y for some programs for this year.

All right and this came through committee and it would be Audit and Finance.

And it did indeed come before Audit and Finance and we are recommending approval by the entire

Thank you.

Questions on this item.

It's looking kind of quiet up here so we will call it good.

So thank you for your time.

All right so let's move to item number six and this is also coming out of Audit and Finance approval of employee benefits contract.

It is.

Good evening Adrienne Byrd Pina executive director talent management.

And this is to seek your support for supporting authorizing the superintendent or his designee to engage in contracts with our benefits providers.

And it supports policy 6220 because it exceeds 250,000 and also policy 5530 for employee benefits.

And this is for the 2015-16 year.

All right and this came through audit and finance?

This came before audit and finance with a recommendation for approval.

All right thank you.

So questions from directors?

Director Martin-Morris.

It's not more, it's more of a statement that is that the list which is in the bar of which organizations we are contracting with and the type of plan.

You notice the list is fairly lengthy and duplicative in the sense that we have multiples for medical and many choices and I know the staff is working on what we can do to shrink that down and get some economies of scales by doing that and that work is underway.

So I just wanted to make sure that was publicly known.

Thank you for your work on that.

Thank you.

All right I'm not seeing any other questions up here so we'll thank you for staying with us this late and we'll look forward to seeing you again at action.

I get to stay.

I have the next one.

Oh you do okay well then you aren't going very far.

Alright so the next one is approval of a compensation bulletin for management staff also from A&F and I will turn it over to you.

Exactly this requires board action because we need to update the compensation bulletin for management staff and staff recommends the salary schedule attached that you have to the compensation bulletin be increased across the board for non-represented staff by 1.8% starting September 1st, 2015 due to state-funded cost of living adjustment.

And then staff also recommends an additional increase of 1.2% Effective again September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2017 due to state funded one biennium salary increase for 2015-16 and then 2016-17.

And finally staff recommends a salary step increase for nonrepresented staff effective September 1, 2015. And some of the relevant background information, the cost of living adjustment hasn't been realized for this group of employees since 2008-2009 and in addition non-represented management staff had a salary reduction through furloughs in the 2011-2012 in 2012-2013 school years.

So the board action only addresses a salary schedule increase for management salary schedules and state funded cost of living adjustment increases agreements rather increase agreements for represented staff are dealt with within their collective bargaining agreements.

All right and this came from Audit and Finance.

This indeed came from Audit and Finance with a recommendation for approval.

Alright so questions from directors.

I have a question.

So I'm trying to connect the dots between this and the class and comp study that was talked about earlier.

Are management positions not included in the class and comp study?

They are included but we are in the midst of that study right now and at this point we have no idea what the end result data may show us.

OK so this effectively adjusts it for known authorized increases that have been contributed to by the state legislature.

And then something that comes out of that may have other impacts yet to be determined.

But but this is the known stuff.

Correct.

All right.

I think I'd correct that.

This may come back in a different form because we're having those conversations.

This may come back in a different form.

OK.

All right.

All right.

It's late and I'm not sure I can process that but I will before we have to vote on it.

Let's put it that way.

How's that.

Because I'm sure that I'm smart enough to eventually get it.

All right.

Other questions.

All right.

We won't reveal.

the state of my mental capacity at this point.

All right so thank you.

Thank you.

And now we are to the last item on the agenda and that is BTA III award for architectural and engineering services.

Laurel Hurst.

Welcome.

Thank you Richard Best director of capital projects and planning.

We are bringing this item to you tonight because board policy 6220 requires that services above $250,000.

Seek board approval.

We are in the process of negotiating with SM Stemper Architects, an architectural and engineering contract for mechanical improvements, fire suppression system improvements, and Americans with disability improvements at Laurelhurst Elementary School.

I may have complicated this for our project manager because I did note to him that Laurelhurst would potentially be on a future BEX levy either BEX 5, BEX 6, BEX 7 subject to board approval.

But I did not want to spend approximately $3 million.

I wanted to be very purposeful on the spending of that so that we wouldn't be removing that when this school is renovated in a future BEX levy.

I think he has engaged the architect in some conversations concerning master planning and that is why we do not have a final number before you tonight.

I also may have further complicated this matter when I did ask both the project manager and the project architect, the selected project architect to potentially look at moving the covered play area at Laurelhurst elementary school.

As you know the community has raised concerns regarding lot coverage and are currently appealing are the City of Seattle's Department of Planning and Development's decision to allow us to place one portable.

We exceed the 35% lot coverage and what I wanted to know is if we were to remove the covered play area would we then be in compliance.

The answer that has come back to me is no we would still be slightly over the 35% lot coverage.

But we are going to continue to explore that as a potential solution to this problem with the neighborhood community and so I've asked for some dollars to be included in this architect's agreement for him to do that exploration with the structural engineer and so that's why we do not have a final number to present to you tonight in this contract.

So I'll open it up to your questions.

All right thank you.

And this came from operations?

This motion was reviewed at the operations committee on May 21st and the committee moved it forward for full board consideration.

Correct.

All right questions Director Peters.

When you say remove the covered play area what exactly do you mean by that and would that gain space or how would the space be used if that were removed?

There is a covered play area between the main building and the gymnasium which would be to the east.

of the main building we could remove the covered play area and then that would reduce our lot coverage and potentially allow us then to place additional portables on site without seeking a variance from the Department of Planning and Development.

So that's what we were exploring.

It would create additional playground space which is the neighborhoods concern about our placing additional portables on that site.

The current covered play area is not used for playground.

It's I would say is a large storage area at this time.

It's not in the most conducive place location on that site for use.

Thank you.

I do have a quick question.

So you said it still doesn't get quite to the threshold of the 35 percent.

Does it get you closer such that the variance might look a little more appealing or is it still pretty far off?

Correct we are just slightly over 35 percent with the removal.

We are currently approximating 38 percent removal that covered play area would get us slightly over 35 percent.

All right.

Other questions.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So we are at 9 0. OK I'm not using the clock on the wall the machine says 9 0 4. Teresa am I reading the adjourned statement and then going in.

OK.

So the meeting stands adjourned at 9 0 4 p.m.

and we the board will now be going into closed session as allowed per RCW 42.30.140.