School Board Meeting 1182017 Part 3

I would like to note that the annual disclosure of financial or conflict of interest forms for the board and executive administrative staff are now available on the board's website.

So we now move to the action portion of the agenda.

Okay.

Let's see.

It'll answer, correct?

While we are checking something else I want to point out that our agenda tonight is not overly long so hopefully we can get out a little earlier tonight than we have in the past.

But I will never preclude people from asking questions and getting the information they need to make informed decisions.

We have a clerical question.

Have we approved the personnel report and the minutes?

So we've got some reinforcements coming in to help us with this.

All right we now know where we need to be and that is on the action items.

So the first item is the annual approval of schools per WAC 180, 16, 220.

I move approval of this action would approve each school within the district as having a learning improvement plan that is data-driven, promotes a positive impact on school learning, and includes a continuous improvement process pursuant to WAC 180-16-220.

I second the motion.

I'd also like to hear from the chair of the appropriate committee curriculum and instruction regarding this item please.

This was presented at C&I November 14 and on December 12 we moved it forward to the full board for consideration.

Director Blanford.

Point of clarification when the item was introduced it was introduced as having a school learning plan or a learning improvement plan rather than a school improvement plan so I'm wondering what we are calling it.

When you said when it was introduced?

When it was just introduced it was introduced as approval of this item would approve each school within the district as having a learning improvement plan that is data driven.

But I see the language on the document that we have.

as saying a school improvement plan and because there was a lot of conversation about our SIPs our school improvement plans.

I'm just wondering is it a learning improvement plan or a school improvement plan?

Perhaps somebody from staff can clarify that for us.

And I believe I may well have misspoke.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Mike Strosky chief of schools I just did a dance move.

Isn't it a bit of both?

It is a bit above but it's a school improvement plan.

Okay.

It's a school improvement plan.

All right.

CSIPS.

Okay.

All right.

Does anybody have anything, has anything changed since this was brought to us in introduction?

No it has not.

The one thing I would say is we have continued with our following up with our schools.

Last time we had 42 told you we were following up, now we have 14 that we are still following through on and schools are continuing to respond to our executive directors.

So there has been no significant changes or changes to what was proposed two weeks ago.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Director Patu.

I just wanted to ask, I know the last when you introduced it we talked about how consistent we are going to actually be able to monitor to see whether each school is following through their plan and just wanted to find out so how often are we actually going to monitor these plans at each individual school to see whether they follow their plan.

So ideally what should be happening is each time an executive director is meeting with their school principal that they should be meeting some part of their school improvement plan.

So I would say each time that a principal and an executive director are meeting that they should be at the center of what it is that they are talking about and doing.

I would also say that any time that central office leaders are interacting in our schools that the school improvement plan should be at the center of what it is that they are talking about and doing at the schools.

So at the very least our executive directors should be doing that.

I would expect our representatives from curriculum and instruction would also be interacting with our schools in very significant ways in the future regarding school improvement plans.

Thank you.

Director Geary.

to build on a conversation that I had previously about what we are providing our students by way of advanced learning opportunities in our schools.

We have heard from the public that when you compare the different CSIPs they vary wildly in terms of the care given to the description of advanced learning opportunities from school to school.

I haven't had a chance to go through and individually compare all those but now after sitting on the board for a year and confronting the array of issues that one has to think about sitting up here I am starting to understand more and more the importance of better defining what those opportunities are in our schools if we expect Children who have qualified for highly capable opportunities to stay in their school and keep the energy and talent that they could bring to a school in their local community which would be my hope and goal.

but I also recognize that parents who have these students and they are looking out for what is best for those students would be looking at the CSIPs very carefully for the school that their child is intended to go to in terms of assignment versus the opportunity that they are going to be given somewhere else.

And that if that portion of the CSIP is very bare and doesn't speak to them in terms of especially something that is designed for advanced learning opportunities specifically in highly capable students then they would choose naturally Even though they may want the neighborhood experience they may be fearful that their child needs are not going to be met.

And there's nothing in some of the CSIPs that would assuage that fear.

And so while I don't intend on saying no to this now I would like to see us checking in regularly and making sure that we are building up that part of the CSIPs and I will put everybody on notice now that if that isn't done next year I won't be inclined to approve this and that I think there has been discussion in terms of supervising principles and measures for accountability and this is certainly one that can be looked at in terms of are we holding everybody accountable for this piece of information and offering it to our community and including it in the CSIPs as we should.

So that is my comment.

Director Harris.

Thank you Director Geary for your segue.

This is an issue that's been going on for several years.

I recall well spending an entire day on the CSIPs when I was a member of the public and highlighting all of the variances and I remember that Mr. Stone had to return from home to address those concerns.

Last year Director Geary I said I would not vote for another year's worth of CSIPs that were inconsistent, were not clear, were not vetted by their BLT's and I'm going to hold up that end of the bargain and I will be voting no.

We can do better We should do better.

This has to be our roadmap for our parents in order to know what their expectations can be.

We've had these conversations before.

We can do better.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

I share the passion and enthusiasm around CSIP's as a tool for district and building improvement.

And prior to this meeting I wanted to, I actually went back into last year's meeting and looked at the minutes and the video to try to see what sort of points were brought up by the board, how we've done in the last year.

And so I'll just paraphrase.

In board comments last year Some of the things that were new is that last year's CSIPs for the first time included budget breakdowns for all schools.

That was a new thing last year.

All schools, all CSIPs were linked from the individual school websites last year also.

So those are both quantum improvements and there was a lot of feedback from directors that we had made some really great incremental improvements but that there was more to go.

Other feedback is that for example the existing collective bargaining agreement references the CSIP 21 times.

So it is a fairly important thing relating to professional development, staffing, building level functionality.

And other comments were that directors noted the idea of improving the efficacy of the tool, the culture around the tool.

proposing that we incorporate a CSIP policy and procedure to provide board governance and guidance towards consistency and also the appreciation for a peer review process to ensure the efficacy.

So when I look at that as our guidance from last year and now we look at where we've come to this year we have a different tool There was a lot of feedback that the existing tool was limiting in how building leaders and BLTs could could document their strategic plans and transformation plans.

And so the new tool has been implemented, communicated and updated by all buildings and one of the other things that was one of the commitments as Director Geary had mentioned was to incorporate advanced learning in all CSIPs.

I understand that that has been a really broad change in direction from some of the work that's been done in the past and it's taking a little while for building leaders and for that to be ingrained in the culture.

So I recognize that moving a mountain takes a little bit of time.

I also would like to see this process continue to improve and my expectation is that it absolutely will.

One of the things that I hope will bring more strength and more clarity to this is the work that's going on right now around MTSS and as we put more formality around our MTSS offerings both interventions for struggling students and for advanced learners that that provides our buildings with more clarity on what sort of things, what sort of specific language, what sort of specific initiatives they can put into their CSIP that can really benefit those students.

So I look forward to seeing more of those things next year and also looking at accountability structures for how the CSIP can be used to provide to incorporate more of an accountability measure.

But I intend to support this.

And I commend you again for the work that's been done and to all the building leaders and executive directors for helping shepherd it through.

Director Blanford.

As I'm listening to this conversation I am very I'm very aware of the distinction between management and governance.

And I think it's important for us those of us up on the dais with the exception of the superintendent obviously to be thinking about our roles as the governance body of this large institution that is Seattle Public Schools.

And so not wanting to issue any kind of a threat as someone who has also spent a lot of time as a community member researching and being involved in the CSIPS I'm more interested in progress being made over time because I remember the bad old days where CSIPS were not well regarded by principals and other stakeholders and I know now that we are making progress and thinking to the future the things that I would be interested in knowing would be from you Dr. Starosky What should we expect to see?

What is going to be different between our potential approval of this item tonight and when it comes up this time next year?

My hope is that the process will get better.

It will be happening earlier that we will be able to improve it very specifically with what Director Burke called out as the peer review.

I think that's something that in the past we've implemented about six or seven years ago that was really beneficial for buildings and stakeholders for both external to SPS people internally and then also curriculum and instruction special education just all the departments were involved in that so I would expect the incremental change to be the next step would be peer review and input.

And also as we stop changing our expectations and get more consistent with what the expectations are I'm confident our building principles will hit those.

I'm confident that as MTSS gets more clearly implemented and we have common formative assessments districtwide that the CSIPs will become more robust.

Director Burke and Director Geary also mentioned about advanced learning.

This is a big huge container ship we are trying to move here and the container ship has been mostly focused on our students who are not yet meeting standards.

That's where the CSIPs have been primarily focused.

And now rightly we are attempting and trying really hard to be clear about our advanced learners as well and we'll get better at it but I would say this spring my hope is and my expectation is that we will move the CSIP process up earlier So that our building principals who are doing and planning for their professional development for the coming year that we should be bringing our CSIPs to you forward in September.

That we should be able to get going on that October at the latest because they are already doing the work.

The work is already happening, the professional development is already happening.

And so that's what's best for our buildings, our teachers and our kids.

that's what we're going to do and that's what we intend to do this spring.

Can I follow up?

Yes.

So I heard in your response a shift in focus at the behest of board members and that prompts in my mind a question you know there are discourses that we frequently hear in education around zero-sum paradigms that if you focus on one thing that it works to the detriment of the other things that you've been working on in the past.

So I'm wondering if you can give us assurance that your focus on advanced learning is not going to come at the detriment of some of the other initiatives and priorities that we've had in the past.

Now it's my intention in my insurance 100% is that not to happen.

It's actually what we're trying to do is add on an additional focus, be disciplined in calling out what's already happening in a lot of our buildings.

That they can be intentional in calling out what they're doing for advanced learners but not at the detriment for our underserved students are traditionally who our CSIPs have been focused on.

That will not happen.

Director Geary.

I would only add that my comments and I told this to Michael earlier that what I'm thinking about ALO advanced learning opportunities I'm also thinking of EOG and that part of what we're trying to do is make sure that the opportunity and the expectation of meeting that opportunity and taking advantage of that opportunity without having it blatantly labeled or tracked.

is being focused on in every school.

This is certainly not to me to divide away from our fundamental goals of lifting our students up but making sure that we are being very very mindful that by offering an opportunity and calling that opportunity out we are conveying the message that we have an expectation that it will be taken advantage of.

So to clarify that and I didn't include that in my original This is very important to me.

This is all about the opportunity and the visual of that opportunity and the expectation that goes with it.

Okay I'll weigh in here.

So included with this packet is some policy including performance management and it describes the districtwide performance goals and says the Board of Directors believes that with districtwide performance goals and adherence to our instructional philosophy goals we will achieve continuous improvement and all of our students will achieve academic success.

So by that I understand that we are committed to all of our students.

And so continuous improvement applies to all of them.

And that is why I believe that we need to make sure that the CSIPs address all the students and make sure that every student is experiencing growth.

I mean Director Blanford's comment, I'd like to think that we don't have to play any kind of zero sum equation here.

And I know we're always stretched for resources but we are committed to all the journeys that we stayed in our logo.

I believe it's more than a logo.

And something I just want to draw to people's attention is the fact that there is such a thing as underperforming advanced learners.

In fact it's unusually, I mean strangely common.

and if we've got kids stagnating at any level then we are failing them.

And so my understanding is we meet our children wherever they are and we help them grow wherever they are.

And so I think we need to have that reflected more in the CSIPs and it might begin with even in the bar.

I think our expectations have to start from the top And so in the bar it does say provide, it says each building CSIP will, and this is on page two of the bar, it says use data, connect school-based activities, fully comply and then it says provide supplemental and or individualized services for underperforming students targeting specific areas where the students are performing below standard.

So, but there isn't anything about students who might be above standard but aren't advancing.

So I think this is where we need to have more language so we know that we have, we're focusing on all of our students that are dedicated to growth with all of them.

And I know that we had a member of the community take a look at the CSIPs in his spare time and he found a number of them where advanced learning was not addressed at all.

So we just need to do that especially as we are trying to provide services for all of our students in every school pretty much.

We have to make sure that there is a commitment within these very important documents to all of the students.

Director Geary.

Sorry to go on about this, it's important to me.

To anybody who would like to see an example and I'm not calling this out for any other way but to see some of an example of what really can be achieved I invite you to take a look at Rainier Beach high school and look at their CSIP and see how comprehensive it is and I understand they've had help with that.

and encapsulating that vision but it really seems so robust and really would give somebody reading it an opportunity to understand the learning that is being provided.

So take a look at your own school CSIP, take a look at Rainier Beach's CSIP and then I think it will give you a really good idea if you are curious out in the public what all this talk is about those are sort of an easy quick way to get an idea of what could be.

Are there any other comments?

Okay well my final comment will be along the lines of what Directors Geary and Burke have said and that is we are still not there yet in terms of where we want these reports to go.

We have seen progress though and so I just want to encourage that kind of progress.

All right if there are no more comments then Ms. Ritchie the roll.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

No.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Motion passed 7 to 1 to 0. I'm sorry sixth one.

Okay we now move on to item number two approval of transportation service standards for 2017-18.

This went to the operations committee.

Which heard the item on December 15 and moved it forward for consideration.

I move that the school board approve, excuse me.

No that was me I directed it to you first so don't worry.

I move that the school board approve the recommended transportation service standards based on a three-tier delivery system as attached to the board action report for the 2017-2018 school year that includes arrival slash department times, departure times supporting the additional 20 minutes in the instructional day and authorize the superintendent to implement the standards with minor modifications as necessary.

I further move that the school board authorize the superintendent to seek external funding to support a two-tier schedule and if external funding is available by May 1, 2017 implement the attached two-tier schedule in place of the three-tier schedule.

I second the motion.

Pegi McEvoy assistant superintendent for operations.

When we came before you at introduction we did acknowledge that you had made some amendments to the student assignment plan and that we would be considering that and updating our transportation service standards.

So they have been updated since introduction and our director of logistics Kathy Katterhagen is going to walk you through those changes.

Kathy Katterhagen director of logistics and so the transportation service standards appendix A other exceptions reflects the changes in the amendments.

In other exceptions we are removing the Green Lake Elementary grandfathering because they will be retaining areas 41 and 42 that was approved by amendment 1B.

We are leaving the Hamilton students that were enrolled in the 2016-17 school year that reside in area 126. and they will receive grandfathering in the 2017-18 school year.

And then we did not add the amendments for the grandfathering of the rising eighth graders that was not approved.

And this is reflected in the bar and the other minor modification that we made was also in the appendix B1.

for the schedule of the three tiers with 50 minutes between tiers and all tiers starting 10 minutes earlier and ending 10 minutes later.

We added the ending 10 minutes later that was missing in that title so we made that correction and added that.

Those are the only changes that we have.

Director Patu.

Can you actually tell me the beginning time for tier 3 and what's the ending time?

Tier 3, I have a 925 AM and an end time of 355. Thank you.

Director Blanford.

It seems as though the second part of the motion is a pretty significant operational issue.

Being able to receive funding and then what the implications of that will be for changing our tiers and so I'm wondering if you can walk us quickly through that.

You are right that is a lift for us and I can talk a little bit about where we have been as far as talking with community members and our partners about what that looks like as far as the fundraising and then I can speak a little bit about operationally what that means to us.

So we know that this is going to be a very short turnaround to raise a lot of money, May 1 is a very tight timeline.

So prior to the board actually voting on this we did some preliminary conversations with other people who have had development offices that actually can do fundraising.

What they have said to us is we cannot do bake sales fast enough.

in order to raise $2.3 million needless to say.

So we looked at a couple of other opportunities or at least tried to explore them for instance would it be possible to put stickers on the sides of our buses that say powered by you know bell time changes and unfortunately federal law precludes us from doing that so can't do that one either.

So the current recommendation right now is to do direct asks and so the vision and what people were talking about is having the thermometer and actually seeing how fast we can get donors Also, talking with some of our city agencies and see if there is some additional funding that might be available there.

We know that we have cameras out in front of our schools, we also know that the city's committee that speaks to student safety was recommending that we start a little bit later if possible so we want to start having those conversations.

Again May 1 is the deadline but one of the other things that was recommended is that no matter where we put these fundings if we don't raise the money by May 1st that we continue to do it so that eventually we can get to 2.3 million maybe we can't change our bell times by the 17-18 school year but perhaps if that's not possible then we'll continue to do the fundraising so that we can do it the following year.

As far as operationally we are going to be having our staff looking at what would it look like if all of our third-tier schools moved into either first-tier or second-tier.

So we'll be doing that routing at the same time so that we would be ready if in fact we needed to flip the bell times into a two-tier system.

Also talking with our schools, I've already reached out to all of the principals to say let's start thinking about this now so that you will have an option A and an option B.

Right now the default is three tiers.

But, if we can get to a two-tier, what would it take in order for that to be successful for you?

What kind of communications do we need to do?

How do we work with all of your after-school partners?

What does that look like?

So, we've started those conversations.

Don't have the final plans, but it's in progress.

Director Patu.

So I guess I want a clarification.

So you are saying that if we raise the money by May 1 we will be able to go down to tier 2?

That's correct that's what you are voting on right now today.

Oh is that what we are voting on?

It says here tier 3. It is tier 3 unless we raise the money by May 1st and then we would move to a two-tier system.

Okay.

You can't go on GoFundMe?

to raise money?

It's funny you would ask.

There is, people were talking about that so what does that look like?

Again we'll have the formal plan, one of the things that the development office all said to us is don't get out in front of your board.

Make sure the board has its vote and then we can really start formalizing things.

I saw a whole bunch of hands there I'm not sure.

I think it was Geary, Blanford and then was it Burke?

In that order.

I just want to say thank you on behalf of the schools that have been contacting the board directors about remedying the tier 3 issue and continuing to be creative however this comes out.

We appreciate the hard work you've put into it.

Well thanks to the logistics team and all the partners who have been working very hard

Did your panel of fundraisers, did they handicap this?

It seems to me that the ask, rightly or wrongly, is more of an operational, I can imagine a funder looking at it and saying well this is operational, it's not a special project and therefore knowing a little bit about philanthropy I know that it then becomes challenging for someone to want to get involved.

So I'm just wondering if you if your panel gave you advice that this is a solid ask or something that you can ask but it's unlikely that you're going to get what you want.

I think that they said that definitely it would take multiple partners in order to get to 2.3 million but that they thought it was a strong ask in that it is one time with future investments moving forward and the fact that we have such strong community support, family support to move to a two-tier system there isn't a lot of debate about that.

That they thought that it is something that people would be interested in.

And if I can follow up, is there any assessment of the fact that We are asking for lots of things from different people in our community.

We've got a levy coming up, we are making legislative asks.

Was there any assessment of where this ask fits, ranks in the list of all the asks that we are doing?

We didn't have that conversation that certainly is something I know that the superintendent has been thinking about and the cabinet has been thinking about so as we're going through strategically what we want to make sure that we're doing is not derailing any of our other asks.

And I ask that question for that very specific reason.

Being a former executive director I know that if you put too many things out there then people get confused and you end up not getting what you want.

So prioritizing your list is really important and I think it's important to state this for the record.

that when I'm asking these questions it's not because I am in opposition in any way.

I was on this dais when we were voting on this in the first case and felt very strongly that that third tier we were doing them a disservice by by having a third tier so I'm highly motivated to try to get us to two tiers but I'm also looking at the language of this action and really concerned about how viable the second part of this action actually is.

And I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the conversations that we've really been having more in private as we've been trying to strategize this.

Director Burke.

I also want to say thanks and build on the idea that this is a widely supported idea by the board to find a way to get to two-tier.

I think that it just it's a little bit disheartening to think that we would go to this work to flip our bell times and you know something which gets us national recognition to still have some folks left out of that benefit.

It's very disheartening and then also when we look at it in terms of student safety if we say our student safety is paramount and we look at how we are stretching out the day and on top of that we look at the potential disruption that we are causing for some of these families and actual costs that they are incurring.

All of those are things that are just really strong proponents for me of going to a two-tier.

So I hope that that's something that we will continue to put a lot of enthusiasm by.

I heard that, read something about the city's pronto bike share program that just went away.

And then also I guess I'd like to be thoughtful as a board if our funding landscape does change that as we are looking at prioritizing things coming back on that we include this in the discussion.

So that it gets prioritized at the same level or at the same process as all of the other critically important things that we want to look at funding.

Director Pinkham.

Yeah and thank you for your work.

Just hopefully maybe address some issues that were brought up by public comment as far as like bell times changes expected to improve attendance and hopefully increase revenue.

Has there been any data on that collected?

And then possibly if we do get to or push more of the two-tier would that also then bring additional revenue for the future?

So we did do when we changed the bell times at the start of the school year the school board had asked us to come with early preliminary information about attendance tardiness particularly around first period for our adolescents we did provide that data and our plan is to continue to analyze data.

We were looking at the end of the first semester to look at attendance and be able to compare it from one to another year.

And do you have an idea about how much revenue that may generate, the potential?

I think that has to do with seat time and I bet it's probably not much but I am looking to assistant superintendent Berge to come up and speak to that.

Assistant superintendent for finance JoLynn Berge.

Having not been here when those discussions happened I'm not exactly sure what additional revenue there might be.

The state funds for you get a full FTE after five hours a day so I don't know that there would be additional revenue.

I was caught off guard by that statement and don't know that there would be additional revenue from going to two tiers.

I don't think so.

Okay so the later start times didn't necessarily really impact five hours for FTE?

No an FTE is based on, right the state, most kids go for six hours so I think what you are talking about potentially is if a student was chronically tardy and maybe missing some time, yeah I think that I would think there would be little of that.

I don't know, I could not say that there would be any.

So it's not going to be thousands of dollars or?

I couldn't say that there would be any at this point, sorry.

And thank you.

And my other point and just hold it for the record as far as you know some emails beginning from community members where they feel like their voices weren't being heard when they're saying hey we to see the 20 minutes added at the end of the day.

Looks like that's more addressed in the two-tier.

So can you at least provide some feedback for our community out there about the decision that was made?

So right now the schedule is to add for the three-tier 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after but we definitely were listening to the community and the community was the first-tier families really wanted the first-tier to start at 8 a.m.

or later so in the two-tier scenario we are starting at 8 a.m.

and there is 60 minutes between each tier so the second-tier starts at 9 a.m.

Director Burke.

This is a quick question a little bit more in the weeds on the actual transportation service standards.

What's the language?

The unused space or surplus space or what's the?

I don't know the language but it's in there somewhere if you have extra space on buses.

Space available.

Thank you.

Can you provide some sort of guidance for me or for the board on what type of space available we typically have on our buses just thinking about the conversations we had around the student assignment plan and boundaries and families that might be looking for choice assignments that would be pining for potential space available on buses.

So we have as we have been trying to create as many efficiencies as we can within the transportation system we have made sure that our buses are as full as possible and that the routes are to the maximum.

However, we do know that we have to offer bus seats to students based on the transportation service standards but we also know that students don't always ride.

And so occasionally seats do become available so as soon as we do our October 1st count then we can start releasing those seats that we had reserved for those students who were eligible for transportation.

Families then can walk into any routes in order to be able to jump on those buses but it doesn't mean that we reroute the buses and go to their neighborhood to go pick them up if we have space on the bus.

Thank you for the clarity.

Okay well I'll go away in here.

So Assistant Superintendent McEvoy thank you so much for your resourcefulness on this.

As you might recall you and I have had many conversations about this topic in the last three years.

In fact the very first amendment I think I ever wrote was one to try and change the third tier so it wasn't starting quite so late and finishing quite so late.

I think we got a five-minute compromise there.

And every year I told families, we told families this is temporary, we're going to fix it next year.

And the following year, oh no wait we're going to do bell times, we're going to change them and that didn't happen for another year.

And so then everything gets settled and then there was talk about two tiers and then we add the 20 minutes to the day and here is where we are.

So I'm really struggling with this because I have, been hearing from a lot of families in the third tier about what a hardship this is for them.

Because we passed this along on to them.

And so there's families who are not able to, the students are not able to go to doctor's appointments, are not able to partake in any kind of after school activities because they are getting home after 430, 5 in the dark.

There are families who have to burn the candle at both ends, they have to have before school care, after school care and we are really taxing our families with this.

So in terms of the cost benefits of having two tiers I think we might not see it directly in our budget but I think our families definitely would see it in their budget and their quality of living.

And so I definitely can only support a two-tier option at this point.

I cannot support anything that would make any families start school in a third tier later and finish later.

So that brings me to Director Blanford's point which is how likely is it that when we pass the hat bus schedules are the things that people get excited about funding.

And I'm worried about that frankly.

And May 1 is not that far away.

So I'm concerned that what we're really voting on here is a hope, a wisp of a hope that really is going to land us in a three-tier situation still and put our three-tier schools somewhere later than they already are.

And so I cannot support that.

So, I stay up late at night sometimes and sometimes I can't sleep over things like this and so I decided to take a look at the law pertaining to this, the RCW and the WACS having to do with student transportation.

I'm sure you know the number by heart, 28A160.

There's a couple of ideas in here I wanted to float by you and see if any of these are viable.

For example, one of the big mysteries about transportation is that we have to put forth some money but we do get reimbursed by the state.

Is that correct?

That is correct the following year we get reimbursed.

Okay what I noticed in this document under RCW 28A 510 that it appears that the state reimburses on a monthly basis is that correct?

I'm seeing September 9%, October 9%, November 5.5%.

So it's not like we would have to front the 2.3 million straight up.

And it's not like we would have to wait a year to get reimbursed all in one sum.

It sounds like it's a gradual cycle.

Is that correct?

Assistant Superintendent.

Finance.

JoLynn Berge.

Potentially but so the funding formula for transportation is you get funded for the prior year costs or the expected costs.

So we would not receive funding for this until the following year.

right at all.

We would have to, that's the whole issue with the budget.

Right but may I interject and just say but aren't we currently receiving funding from last year and we're receiving it every month in these proportions.

So we're constantly getting a stream from the state except there's a one-year lag time is that right?

That's right.

So can we work with that in any way?

I mean it sounds like we don't need to front the 2.3 million straight up we just need to have enough until the reimbursement comes in and maybe, no okay this is where I'm asking for direction.

So staff has done the analysis, no we would have to front it for the entire year for 17-18 that's not currently in the budget plan and it would increase the deficit and that's why staff was not able to bring forward that recommendation to go to a two-tier at this time.

Okay so on the same page and here's another thought.

It says that any school district may petition the superintendent of public instruction for an emergency advance of funds which may become apportionable to it but not to exceed 10% of the total amount to become due and apportionable during the school district's apportionment year.

The sticking part is the superintendent of public instruction shall determine if the emergency warrants such advance and if the funds are available.

So it sounds like the state could potentially give some sort of advance of some of the funds if we were able to prove there was an emergency.

Potentially, the state's not likely to see our choice of going to two-tier as an emergency.

As an emergency, okay.

I was just looking for anything I could find.

As have we, as have we.

And I think that you know staff are working very hard to get there.

We know it's an issue for our families and we're hoping that everyone can just hold tight with us.

Okay, just the constituents ask us about this and I had never actually delved into the specifics of how the funding happens.

There have been conversations at the state level about trying to create a safety net type of situation for transportation similar to special ed.

because there are startup costs for many programs when someone wants to start a head start program or another program like that especially educational service districts have struggled because there is no way to front those costs and so anytime that you want to start some type of a new service or there's a new requirement for a certain component of children like foster kids or McKinney-Vento kids those are costs that we end up having to front because the state doesn't have a mechanism.

So I think it's a good conversation that we can continue to have but for right now we are clear in the budget office that we would have to front the entire amount in 17-18.

Okay well then I just have three final points.

One of them is apparently we only have 11 schools that are in the third tier at this point is that correct?

I think somewhere around the bar it says that.

I think it's 12 we had yeah I think also North Beach who wasn't on the opt-in list last time but is in tier 3.

So if there is anything that you can do to bring them into the second tier you know I would obviously support that.

And then it is frustrating to see this new schedule take us one step backwards in terms of what we did with the bell times and so that is another unfortunate element of this and I wonder when this was negotiated in this collective bargaining agreement with our teachers union whether we thought about all of these ramifications of what the 10 minutes means at the end of the day.

So the one thing that I would say is that the later start for adolescents the recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics is starting secondary schools after 830. So we are not going back against any of those recommendations.

with the timing that we are recommending.

Okay.

All right then I'll just finish with an excerpt from a letter we received from the Leschi school community.

This is just to point out that the schools that are impacted by this are in different parts of the district.

And some of them are the first-tier schools, some of them are the third-tier schools, and they're really concerned about what these 10 minutes are going to mean.

My school currently starts at 7.55 a.m.

this year.

We have seen our tardy rate double this year due to the earlier start time.

If you add an extra 10 minutes start time, out, tardies will triple.

We also have at least two to three students a day that need to come to the office to take a nap because they are tired.

We have a staff with several young children and their daycares don't open until 7 which means they will probably be late a lot with the new time.

With the start time of 745 it will make things very difficult for the Leschi school community.

We have 73 students who are considered homeless out of 405. These families are already dealing with a lot of different issues and to just add to those seems so unfair to put more stress on these families.

So I just want to say that this is going to have some very real impacts on our families.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Director Patu.

wanted to find out to see whether in terms of fundraising what are we restricted in terms of fundraising?

Well we can't put anything on buses that's one restriction that we have and I think that there are going to be restrictions and we're working with the budget office about where would we establish the account what would that look like and so we'll be following all the rules related to that.

If there are no further questions or comments Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

No.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Peters.

No.

This motion passed 5-2-0.

Okay now we move on to item 3 approval of the 2016-19 agreement for the joint use of facilities with the City of Seattle Parks and Recreation Division.

I'll go to the motion first and then we'll go to the committee chair.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute the agreement for joint use of facilities with the City of Seattle Parks and Recreation Department as attached to this board action report.

With any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take necessary action to implement the agreement.

This item was heard by the operations committee on December 15 and moved forward for approval.

And I second the motion.

We will get it right eventually guys.

Okay.

Have there been any changes in this item since introduction?

Bruce Skowrode, Director of Facilities.

No, we've had no changes since intro.

Director Patu.

Just one clarity, so the city, so who's going to actually schedule our buildings, you know the properties, I mean the fields and also the gyms?

Is it the city that's going to be doing the books, scheduling?

Yes, the city will be doing the scheduling.

And who will be collecting the money?

The city.

So how do we keep the city accountable in terms of what they owe us?

So we're going to be meeting with the city every quarter with their fiscal department and our fiscal department and their books and our books and they're going to determine what their costs were for them to book our events and then we'll figure what our costs are to book their events because we also book parks events on their behalf.

and then they will invoice us for what their costs are.

Which is a change so they used to withhold revenue and now all revenue is going to be coming to the district and then there will be a meeting after we receive the revenue to figure out what we owe them.

So the money comes to the district first and then we give the district their half of whatever it is that we owe them?

Correct, yeah.

Now that wasn't done beforehand was it?

It wasn't.

Is this something new?

This is new, yeah this is new in this agreement.

Okay, thank you.

Director Blanford.

Patu highlights some very favorable terms that have shifted to our favor and so I just wanted to share my appreciation to you and Dr. Herndon.

I know this was a long drawn out conversation.

And by highlighting how we were negatively impacted I think we were able to win over our colleagues at the city offices and it sounds like this will be a much more workable solution for us than it's been in the past.

So I wanted to thank you for that.

Thank you.

Director Patu.

I too would like to thank Dr. Herndon for keeping his wits in terms of not giving up to the city.

And I know last year we had quite a difficult time trying to actually get things scheduled And so I'm really pleased that at least we have control over what needs to happen which is something that should have been happening a long time ago.

So thank you very much for both your work.

Keep an eye on the city.

Director Burke and then Director Harris.

So, recognizing that this isn't built into this agreement is it something that we could look at for the future to streamline this even further to establish a standard overhead rate where you know we would just pay based on last year's overhead rate and they would as well so we don't have to have too many accountants in the room for too long.

Is that something that we could establish a history once we've got transparency of books?

Potentially, yeah.

I think one of the challenges is the recognition from the city that we do work on their behalf as well.

Thanks.

Director Harris.

I would like to add my thanks to this chorus having worked during the summer with Associate Superintendent Herndon and getting the childcare scenario set up at Schmitz Park and the brinksmanship that was involved there.

hats off to you.

I'm wondering would you like to take on the 25% hold back for the Seattle pre-K program now?

Associate Superintendent Flip Herndon I would respectfully appreciate smarter minds on that than myself in addressing that particular issue.

Are there any other comments or questions on this item?

Director Pinkham.

So with this joint use agreement we are flexible with whatever bell times may change and if we do add the 20 minutes after that is not going to impact this joint use agreement too much?

No we have extended the times and then we also have an ability annually to adjust.

Okay seeing no other questions or comments Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

We now move on to item 4. Item 4 has three parts to it.

So it is the BEX IV approval of the general contractor construction management services GCCM negotiated total cost contract cost for the Loyal Heights elementary school modernization and addition project.

Let's go to the committee first just because the next part is a little bit more complicated.

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

And that is referencing the original bar.

So may I have, so this has three different options attached to it.

Director Harris would you like to read in the original motion?

Did you want to have discussion and then have the motion with all three of them?

Mr. General Counsel says that we don't even have to go to committee of a whole to do that.

Right yes Noel Treat General Counsel you have quite a bit of flexibility about how you want to structure discussion particularly on an item like this where as you noted there are now three distinct alternatives they are essentially mutually exclusive so you've got one is the motion for the project essentially without childcare You've got one that's a motion for the project with childcare and then you have the more recent proposal from Director Pinkham to essentially redesign the project as only three classrooms per grade level.

So those are sort of your three options.

So one approach you could use right now is you could have some discussion and question and answer about those options.

Director Pinkham could talk about his proposal and then maybe as that discussion emerges you could then at a little bit later point after that ask for a motion and then go from there based on whichever one is moved and have an up or down vote on that.

If that one were to fail you could move on to another one.

Okay thank you.

Well then the first two motions in the bar originally were brought to us by staff so would staff like to address these.

If you could just outline what they are and then we could take any questions or comments and then Director Pinkham could then present his and outline his as well.

Director Richard Best director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools.

Director Peters I would like to just confirm because I know that you had requested in an email yesterday that the motions be reversed and the motions in front of the board motion for project without childcare is the first motion that you're looking at.

Just a point of clarification, I didn't ask for them to be reversed, I asked for them to be consistent.

They were listed 1, 2, 2, 1 I think and I just said let's keep them consistent one way or the other.

So the first motion before you is the motion for the project to construct Loyal Heights elementary school without the childcare facility.

That will add will revise Skanska USA's contract amount to $32,710,720 and will necessitate an increase in the project budget of $2,550,000.

Those monies would come from the BEX IV program contingency.

Scenario 2 is the motion for the project with the childcare facility that would revise Skanska's contract amount to $33,585,930 and require a transfer from the BEX IV program contingency of $3,400,000.

And this would construct the childcare facility, that childcare facility is 3,857 square feet.

So those are the two motions that are in the bar.

Staff is recommending scenario 2 be approved by the board.

With scenario 2 be approved by the board with the child care facility.

Thank you and I'll ask Director Pinkham to introduce his option.

So what I'm proposing for amendment to this on this is to help decrease or actually I should say increase the playground to student ratio for the current level high sites.

With the community that I've been meeting with they've been consistently saying this Building is too large for the site, you know it's under three acres and we've seen other schools that now are going up for new construction bids that are actually not doing the 660 model and for me it's more just, I think one of the things I said when I got on the board here, there's got to be a way, we've to stop taking up our playground space in particular for our elementary school students.

You know they need to be able to have a nice place to run around and I enjoy Hazel Wolf when it's there but me personally I think that building was too big for that site itself but it went ahead and I just have this fear that again we are building too big of a building on a site and from feedback from the operations saying well if we went from three up to four up it would still have the same footprint but I would still say okay if we go with three up then at least we are reducing the number of students that will be out there so we are increasing the playground to student ratio so students aren't crowded on that site and yes I know they are going to rotate recesses but driving by Hazel Wolf and seeing kids out on that small playground there I thought oh those poor kids being there.

That was one of my reasons for doing this and also just as far as the 660 model right now being out there at Loyal Heights.

The streets, it's got streets on all four sides you know where there is traffic going around it and the streets aren't that wide you know to see the increase of possible potential traffic going there as well can be a concern for me as far as you know safety wise.

So to put it simply I think right now the mileage is too big for the site, the footprint is going to change with three or four up but I think at least it will decrease the number of students that will be coming to this one site for the playground.

Director Harris.

I have questions about the fiscal note on amendment, Director Pinkham's amendment.

I have questions about whether or not if we go to a three up model whether the footprint really changes because of the way that this is designed floor one with the classrooms as I understand it above.

I'm hoping that you can summarize the email that was sent last night to the board in which I pushed out to as many of the Loyal Heights Elementary folks that had contacted me to give them that information as well.

Make sense?

It does so let me start with your first request Director Harris is the fiscal responsibility.

I would note that Magnolia Elementary School is approximately 30,000 square feet smaller than Loyal Heights Elementary School.

Magnolia Elementary School is 61,000 810 square feet.

Our three up classroom model requires square footage if we follow the educational program of 77,801 square feet and the four up model is for 91,605 square feet.

Loyal Heights is just slightly over the square footage for the four up model.

When we contemplated Magnolia elementary school as part of BTA IV what was contemplated was the renovation of the existing school, a six classroom addition and a gymnasium.

That's all that was contemplated and that's what we had our cost estimators price out when we brought Magnolia Elementary School to the former board for approval as part of BTA IV.

We recognized that we would be making some compromises in our three up model to for Magnolia elementary school and we have highlighted those in the educational specifications that you all have approved.

So that's how Magnolia elementary school, the difference you know generally I look at construction is approximately $315 a square foot with soft costs it's approximately $500 a square foot, soft costs being architect fees, permit fees, furniture, technology.

curriculum, all the little peripherals that go with a construction project and you multiply the 30,000 square foot difference by $500 and you get a $15 million project differential for Magnolia.

I do not believe $12 million is fiscally, we are fiscally able to save $12 million reversing the decision to utilize a four up model at Loyal Heights Elementary School to a three up model.

The board or the budget transfer for that amount was slightly over $3 million and it came from BEX for capacity flexibility, Director Burke and Director Geary are probably used to that terminology because it's in the BEX oversight committee for those specific projects.

Back in 2012 when Loyal Heights was proposed it was proposed to be a 660 school.

So I think that's the first talks about fiscal stewardship.

I'm going to stop pause there just for a minute to say any questions.

So then the next question I think you're asking is, excuse me I think Director Patu may have a question.

Sorry I didn't see that.

I guess my question is one of the speakers had mentioned that this project had gone up like four times.

Could you explain that?

There was an amount placed before, well there was an amount placed before the voters that had a 660 model in it.

We modified that and it's in the background so let me just We modified that in April 22, 2015 to increase that budget amount based upon estimates that we were getting from our architects and from our contractor and now this is actual hard bids.

These are bids that we have received from the construction and subcontractor community.

And so we are asking for an increase to implement this project.

Director Patu as you know because we've had this conversation before the construction market in the city of Seattle is red hot.

You only need to look downtown and see the number of cranes downtown.

There's numerous other projects going around the city of Seattle and in the suburbs of Seattle and that is impacting both contractor and subcontractor availability.

We had some bid packages that we did not get what I would consider adequate coverage three to four bidders on the bid packages.

We had one or two and that's reflected in their pricing.

To move the project forward we need to take action on one of the motions before you tonight.

But it is really a reflection of the just very overheated construction market.

Director Harris did you still have some questions?

Well that was kind of a series of questions to summarize some of the questions.

Whether the footprint would change because of the first floor.

Do we do we have to redesign and what are the consequences of that as far as other schools and the continuum and the schedule, interim schools and whether we have room for them.

The memo was very helpful to me to understand some of these issues and to the extent that we can tell our public some of those things in the memo I think it helps.

So I'm going to draw your attention to the floor plans that you have in this bar amendment and note that what we've located on the first floor on the eastern side of the building is the administration area and opposite that is special education.

Generally we like to keep self-contained special education on the ground level because we want those kids in an emergency event to be able to exit quickly from the building.

That would also be the same comment with kindergarten as well.

The library was placed in what is currently a historic landmarked section of the building.

It made sense to locate the library there to preserve the historic nature of that space and so we placed it there putting other programs or other parts of the educational program would have cut up that space and you would have lost its historic significance.

Opposite the library next to the courtyard is art.

Art loves to go outside and draw and we thought that was a great location to have that link to the courtyard.

Then you have the computer labs from the educational program they like to be located next to the library.

Kindergarten is also located on the first floor and then you have the cafeteria and gymnasiums located on the first floor and the service entrances.

going to a three up model is not going to significantly revise the design of the first floor.

Corridors could become maybe slightly narrower because of less of a population but it will not significantly add to the playground space.

These are generally items in school design in which you see located on the first floor.

And I would also add that generally we try to place first and second grade students on ground level so they too can exit the buildings quickly in the event of an emergency.

At Loyal Heights they will be up above.

The redesign costs would take approximately a year generally when you are thinking about a project and when construction would begin you want to begin at the late phases of winter early spring so you have the most favorable weather window.

In school construction sometimes we have to wait until school lets out.

At Loyal Heights Elementary School we moved them to an interim site last summer so that we could begin this project in February so that we could push through and have all the site work done during very favorable weather conditions in lieu of once we look at the end of October, middle of October, November, December, January timeframe we know we're going to have a very wet period, it's not conducive to construction and it's very conducive to change orders.

So we like to avoid that period of time for doing certain construction activities.

Site work you know is one of those construction activities so we're looking for a favorable weather window.

So to redesign this project would be utilizing all that favorable weather window, we'd be wanting to bid the project into summer early fall going into a poor weather window my recommendation would be to postpone and delay one year so that we bid the project the winter and to begin next year at this time.

So that's why we would recommend a one-year delay.

Director Burke and then Director Geary.

It's a difficult process to unravel this challenge but starting with some of the financial I want to try to understand the difference between the total construction costs and the budget.

There's a significant amount of money that's above the construction costs, is that, can you speak to what that contains?

Yes, that would be architects and engineers fees.

That would be all the various studies that we've done from an environmental standpoint, traffic standpoint, arborists, historic, Loyal Heights has a historic portion, Director Burke, that would also have furniture technology, curriculum, it would have staff costs for moving, moving both to John Marshall and moving back to John Marshall.

It has miscellaneous owners costs for minor items but those are the big significant items in that number.

So then just round numbers it looks like nominally that's a quarter of the project budget.

goes to that and then three quarters of it goes to total construction.

Also to clarify, let me just interrupt because there is a huge number in there and that is the state sales tax.

The state sales tax on construction comes out of that difference between the 32 million and the 46 million looking at scenario one.

That's several million dollars.

I'm glad you brought that up thanks.

So just to clarify the increase in total construction cost with the bid is depending on the scenario 4.3 million or 5.2 million but the requested budget increase is less than that.

Correct.

So do I interpret correctly that we are incorporating some of the existing project contingency with that and then increasing the total cap?

Correct.

Does that leave us a project contingency afterwards and where I'm going is what are the chances that when we come further along six months a year from now that we would see an additional price escalation from this point?

No the contract we would be entering into or revising would be a guaranteed maximum price.

It would be the total construction contract.

There are contingencies set aside for construction change orders within that contract so I would not anticipate we would be back before you concerning a contract amendment to Loyal Heights we will be back before you recommending final acceptance of Loyal Heights.

Director Geary.

So if we were to vote in amendment one and you had to redesign the project and open it up for bid, is there any way for us to have a sense of whether the construction market would be more constricted or more open in terms of the bids?

You know my concern would be that we go to bid on something that will provide us less in terms of volume and end up paying the same amount because construction costs and the market has just become tighter so do we have any way to do projections about future construction costs?

The construction cost data that I'm looking at is projecting a hot market for 17 and a hot market for 18 for the Pacific Northwest region.

Director Geary.

Further out it does begin to slow but you also delay your project and you lose the value of that money because of the lost time.

But for 17 and for 18 it's still going to be a very busy construction market and I will also note the further folks project out the crystal ball becomes less clear.

So.

Director Blanford.

This has been an interesting progression in this conversation.

We have been primarily talking about construction and dollars and cents.

I think there is an element that we haven't discussed so far and it was highlighted to a certain degree in the public testimony.

It had to do with childcare and the availability of childcare.

My understanding is Option one and option two are child care or no child care and then option three is no child care.

Correct?

That's my understanding as well of Director Pinkham's amendment.

Correct.

And some of my colleagues who are new to the board and those of us who have been around for a while may not remember that this board in a prior iteration has made a strong statement that we value childcare because we looked at the the educational research that says that aligned childcare in our schools produces better outcomes for our students and particularly better outcomes for our students of color.

And so in my mind there is a strong argument to be made to say that Having on-site childcare is a game changer as we are trying to improve outcomes for all students and particularly raise up those students who have been underperforming or come from communities that are historically underperforming.

Another issue that I'm also concerned with and we haven't spent as much time on it this time as we did in the past and in the operations committee meeting is around the projections around enrollment growth in that area.

And I had some conversation with Assistant Superintendent Herndon today that I think would inform this conversation so I'm wondering if you could share those with us.

Sure we have spoken about the growth that we expect in that particular area.

And again this is the oil heights project capital project coincides with two enrollment change areas that coincide with the opening of that particular building.

One is around area 127 which is in the Whittier area the other is around area 2 which is in the Adams area and again we project continued enrollment growth in those two particular areas so because this is the only capital project happening at that time for those particular areas we also do have Webster, I wish we had more buildings quite honestly I wish Seattle Public Schools hadn't sold probably about 10 of the building locations that we had probably a decade ago but we don't have those buildings anymore so I have to work with what we do and that's why we are bringing back almost all of the buildings that had been either used as interim sites or were leased because I believe that as we continue to grow we are going to need every square foot that we can get in all parts of the city.

So in this particular area it does bring relief.

Webster's great, it's an even smaller site, even more confined, it's a challenge and I think eventually we'll use that building as well for student use.

BEX V has a whole other slate of buildings on it that will be spread throughout the city.

Ultimately this board will make a decision on which of those projects actually make the ballot.

Currently the ones that we've listed there are pretty high price tag just on the capital construction.

We haven't factored in things like the technology and a couple of the other pieces that a BEX levy usually produces.

But again as I see the enrollment growing all over our city this area is one of, it's an area that we continuously grow, the Ballard area.

So that's what we're planning for.

So, based on your comments I can conclude that both the original amendment as well as Director Pinkham's amendment, option one and amendment one both would put you in a more difficult position trying to mitigate our enrollment challenges in the Northwest region.

if we were to pass either of those two options?

Yeah I mean there would definitely be challenges because I think without the childcare in the original design the 4 up design 660 We have built those particular locations to be used as flexible classroom space if needed.

So that's the advantage of having that brick-and-mortar piece already in place is you don't have to place a portable in the event that you actually need more classroom space.

And the other as far as a smaller three up model again with the same footprint if you end up with more students your only place to go is portables which will cannibalize more exterior playspace area.

So you know we've been hammered in the past about not being prepared enough for the number of students coming our way so this is long-range planning for what we see coming our way.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

We've heard a lot of different figures about the demographics or the growth in that area of the city.

Can you speak to how the demographer at Seattle Public Schools takes into account things like Expedia moving into their new home and whether or not mother-in-law units will be potentially legalized by the city in the next four to five years and what that might do to that area.

Yeah as far as the city goes I mean clearly those are code changes about what the city would be allowing so we try and keep track of what the city is doing.

We also take a look at the demographer as well as some of the projections that we look at as far as we did a little bit of a study for things like impact fees, capital impact fees for schools.

What we see there is basically yield rate, number of children per household based on single family versus multifamily in different parts of the city.

So that yield rate is impacted by several things, price point is a big one, how much things cost and then number of bedrooms and things like that.

So different parts of the city have a different yield rate that we look at.

So, and then we look at the birth rate, regular growth that's happening, so we try and take a look at all of those pieces.

Much of what Mr. Best had said about kind of crystal ball and projecting out, clearly the farther out you go, the harder it is to be accurate, the closer you are, the more accurate you are.

But as we continue to see our city grow, we've been seeing our enrollment grow.

So that and we've been trying to anticipate part of McCleary, part of fully funding education is a class size reduction in McCleary.

That's part of the language of McCleary.

So we also have to prepare for that.

And that's what we're trying to do.

Director Burke.

I'd like to follow up on a thread that Director Blanford started around the childcare space.

My understanding is that the scenario 2 includes two classrooms, one which is would typically be a pre-K and one which would be a before and aftercare or are they flex, how are they configurable?

Yeah usually in some of our newer buildings that's how they're being used, one is pre-k, one for before and aftercare and they get licensed accordingly.

So generally you're looking for the most flexibility that you can have.

But the use of spaces depends on how they get licensed.

So my understanding from comments, public testimony today is that the nurturing knowledge is currently serving I believe 55 students.

What is the capacity of that space as it stands now with those two rooms should it just be transferred to before and aftercare?

I personally don't know offhand I could get that to you but I don't know what the licensing requirement or what the licensing maximum is for that particular square footage.

I do know it would be 90 students that could be licensed for those spaces for before and aftercare.

Thank you.

And then could you speak to how that program could exist or where it would exist should it be within the building in the existing spaces if that before and aftercare space was not approved under I guess option one.

Yeah so in some cases before and aftercare providers have looked to multiuse spaces so that could be a cafeteria basically any space that's not a designated classroom and we do have a couple of schools where that's definitely happening even in some of our 660 design schools like Genesee Hill that's happening at Genesee Hill but there are other locations that aren't that big just don't have the space and that's where before and aftercare goes as well.

Again, the number of students to be able, that can be served in those spaces depends on how big they are and then the licensor basically give you a maximum number based on the size of the space.

So what is, I guess, what is your recommendation should, to the families of nurturing knowledge, should there not be an external space?

do they have an advocacy path to maintain their services within the school for at least the first few years?

Yes we've tried to work with community-based organizations and the city of Seattle who does the licensing to try and one expedite in certain cases if there's for instance a need to reclaim certain space so that was a big impact last year we tried to make sure that we could get some spaces licensed as quickly as possible for the fall.

So, it's working with that and we've encouraged new buildings to work with licensors to get some of the multi-use spaces licensed anyway just in case that might need to be used.

So, that's the best route that we can look at for that situation.

Director Pinkham and then Director Geary.

Yeah it might also kind of follow up with the child care on this and child care versus pre-K so potential that both those rooms could go to child care and then there would be no pre-K in there which we are working with the city of Seattle on correct?

But then also you're saying too, hey we have those buildings that will eventually kick that childcare out anyway and that space will then be occupied by students.

I guess for me, yes we had to go through this before, what is our duty, our responsibilities K-12, we are at a capacity issue that we are building a new school with childcare built in when we had to unfortunately relocate other childcare because we needed to reclaim the space.

So it seems like we are setting ourselves up again to eventually maybe have to kick a childcare out for this area.

So just for me again the footprint just seems a little bit too large for this just for the physical site where it's at not really taking I'm not thinking about the growth in the area right now that you're saying yes going to grow we're going to need that space there but I feel there's other space out there we don't have to put it all on Loyal Heights.

That's what it kind of seems to me it's all going on Loyal Heights.

Director Geary.

So looking at the plans of the two options that were presented I am curious if there are students enrolled in pre-K will they be competing with the elementary school students for use of the playground space?

So where do the pre-K kids play during the day?

Yes they do.

So Director Geary if you are looking at the childcare design scenario too with childcare the gray and brown space opposite that childcare is the designated pre-k space.

What's the space to the west?

The kidney shaped space or that's hard surface play area outside the gymnasium to be to the south of the gym.

Oh that's to the, okay which way is north?

North is?

North would be towards the historic structure.

Okay so then north of the child care, what is that space?

That's the front entry to the building, to the new building.

The new main entrance to Loyal Heights will be off 25th.

So there will be a fence around that little space then to the south indicating that that's reserved for the pre-K students?

Correct we do put a fence around the pre-K.

Superintendent Nyland.

I don't think that we've covered this yet.

Can you talk about if we delay and redesign Loyal Heights what does that do to other projects either from a timing standpoint and or a cost standpoint?

Currently the plan was to have Loyal Heights occupy the John Marshall building to the summer of 2018. We would then relocate Loyal Heights back to its modernized school the plan was then to move Queen Anne to John Marshall for the 18-19 school year so we could construct an eight classroom and gymnasium addition at Queen Anne and then move Queen Anne back to that school and then for the 19-20 school year move Bagley so we could construct a 10 classroom and gymnasium addition at Bagley elementary school.

So those costs if the project is delayed and we stay with the current sequencing those projects will both be impacted one year and the estimated costs for those We were estimating it would add $500,000 in escalation costs for Queen Anne and then for Bagley and $900,000 to Bagley Elementary School.

Director Pinkham.

Okay then also again looking at the first plan here, two computer labs, are those going to be used six hours a day or are students going to be rotated in there for a computer classroom?

Because I know actually right now the University of Washington, we are actually kind of moving out our computer labs because everyone has laptops these days and people are providing their own technology.

Those again what is the plan for computer labs and how are those going to be used?

So as part of the educational program computer labs are linked to the library and then also to the educational program so that's why there's two computer labs Director Pinkham.

Is the elementary educational program evolving as technology changes?

Yes.

But the current educational program requires two computer labs.

I do know that all of the testing that will be done It's generally done in computer labs so that's why they are currently being provided.

So again how much would they be occupied throughout the school day then?

I think it varies on whatever the instructional uses are that the buildings and teachers have so sometimes the computer labs are used for assessments, they can be used for research, online research that's not done in the library which is part of the reason why they are connected to the library as well.

I'm going to jump in here a little bit with just a few questions about ed specs.

I think one of the underlying concerns with the community is that they feel that the ed specs don't match their vision of what a school should be and I know we are locked into ed specs at the moment.

To the point of the total number 660, is a school ever allowed to enroll more than 660 if that is what the ed specs are based on?

Somebody mentioned I think in testimony tonight that they believe that Genesee Hill has gone over 660 is that correct?

Yes so again the way in which we have attendance area schools is that we enroll the students who are within that particular attendance area.

So in some cases when an attendance area grows larger we've got a couple of opportunities to try and address that.

One is that you look to balance through doing some enrollment boundary revisions or you can add portables if you are exceeding that particular space.

So in the case of Genesee Hill, yeah they are large and we are looking at how we might be able to mitigate that.

It's a challenge in that particular area because surrounding schools also don't have a lot of capacity which is why we are looking at BEX V of added capacity in some of those places too.

Okay and then could we ever make a promise to a school community that we would not go over 660?

I'm very wary about always and nevers so for us I mean if we see trends going in that particular direction then that's where we would want to make adjustments coming our way to look at trying to balance out enrollment at other schools as well.

We have this case in some of our middle schools also.

In the past Eckstein, Hamilton, right now Mercer, all of those places exceed their particular building capacities.

So it's a challenge that we face not just at an elementary school, one elementary school, it's what we are looking at at elementary, middle schools and high schools right now.

As far as childcare I seem to recall the discussions we had in the past had to do with an order of priorities and I think somewhere is stated either in our strategic plan or in policy that the priority is K-12 is first, I think pre-K is second and childcare is third.

And this is something that we've debated over I think in the last year about whether those last two are in the right order.

Are there any other, Director Burke?

I'm going to, I'm really struggling with the budget aspect that this is a school which has seen a couple of escalations, you know thoughtful and deliberate escalations but we are looking at a third one.

that we have other buildings other needs in our district that if we had that money available you know it could potentially be better you know other buildings that significantly under deliver versus our educational specifications.

And so the thing that gives me pause is whether we should be continuing to escalate the budget on this one versus some of these other buildings of high need.

So the tough question I ask you is if you didn't have the extra money if this budget increase was not approved what adjustments could you make working through the GCCM model and what would that process look like to try to keep this within budget and on schedule?

Because essentially you have budget, schedule, scope.

And so pretty much the only thing you can do is reduce scope.

Is there a way to do that and not completely upset the apple cart?

Well it's a three-legged stool.

You have size of the project, the quality of the materials, and the schedule that you know you implement.

I have pushed the design team as hard as I can to get this project within budget.

When we opened bids I was meeting with both Skanska, BLRB architects and our project manager back there Friday night I won't say well into the late hours but well after 6 o'clock you know saying what can we do?

What options can we present to you the school board?

Um...

The architect had noted that you know this is a relatively simple structure.

There's some masonry on the outside.

There's also metal panels.

I think it will be an aesthetically pleasing structure.

We can compromise quality but I can guarantee you that will impact general fund.

There will be more maintenance aspects or we go with lesser quality roofing systems and we replace them more frequently.

Some of our standards are selected from a material standpoint because our staff know how to work on that product and you introduce several other products and you have different maintenance standards and the frequency so there is some continuity in the types of roofing systems we propose.

When I look at this project Director Burke I would say we would have to go through a redesign in order to meet that and that will only delay this project and we won't see the savings that we would anticipate we would hope to see.

Thanks for the candor and for staying up late and for your concern and pushing the team to try to find those gaps.

Okay I'll try and wrap this up here.

When it was first brought to our attention that there were issues with this project my understanding was the main concern was the playground space.

And so I know I and other directors talked to your team, Mr. Best and Dr. Herndon about what could be done and that's where you came up with the option about not doing the pre-K exterior pre-K buildings.

And so that is the only option of these three tonight that gives more playground space.

Just wanted to make that observation.

So we are at the point now where I am willing to entertain a motion for any one of these three options.

Do I hear a motion for any one of these?

I move approval of option two.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

I'm assuming we don't need to discuss anymore at this point so Ms. Ritchie the roll call.

So option two just to be clear, option two is the project Okay yeah option two is the project which includes the childcare facility and it is the original four up design.

So it is the original design I think this is the one that is recommended by staff.

Director Geary.

I sort of was dividing our time between questions for staff and then

Okay so you have some more questions.

Just comments.

Okay sure.

More than questions.

So I don't mean to take my unfair share of time but my concern about the and I think I raised it a little bit in the child care facility is that if we have additional students we see that they are not only taking up the footprint of the child care the pre-K space but that they their need to play also takes up space and then we may find that the space allocated for them isn't really enough.

Maybe it's fine it doesn't look great either.

And so if what we are hearing is that it will take time over time to fill up the school to the 660 limit and there is flexibility there in terms of the before and after it seems reasonable that our before and after care work with the school to use the space.

It seems like a really big school and that they work together but that the pre-K the set pre-K for me is the harder one because of how it just takes up space during the day and is eating into the playground.

And that unlike the Hazel Wolf, this is an assignment school.

And so these people don't get to choose to go someplace else for their kids.

Whereas if you choose that situation for your child, you assume the responsibility for making sure they get access to the outdoors another time.

So that's why my thought, those are my thoughts with regard to a designated childcare pre-K space.

Are there any more comments or questions about the motion that is on the table right now before us?

All right Ms. Ritchie the roll call.

Director Pinkham.

Nay.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Director Geary.

No.

Director Harris.

No.

Director Patu.

No.

Director Peters.

No.

This motion did not pass by a 1, 6, 0 vote.

Do I hear a motion for either of the two remaining options?

I move the school board direct superintendent to alter plans for the current Lowell Heights elementary school construction project to implement a three up model instead of a four up model to achieve better ratio of playground space per student.

To remove childcare areas proposed in scenario one of the school board action report in order to preserve more outdoor playground space and to present the board with necessary budget and contract proposal for board action at a future board meeting following appropriate analysis and any necessary environmental review.

Second.

there any questions or comments about this current motion?

Director Geary and Director Pinkham.

My comment on this one is that just because we limit the school to a three up it doesn't limit, that That's just planning for three up but that doesn't mean that if the assignment area requires four classrooms per grade we don't have to find the space within the building or redraw the boundaries and we don't know if that's going to happen and so coming from the Northeast where we face this we end up doing the modifications later and splitting the rooms up in order to get the four and taking away the physical therapy room and putting the special ed kids in spaces that are smaller and less accommodating and that's so I mean I think from my perspective saying it's a three up or planning for a three up doesn't necessarily address the planning of what's going to happen in that area.

I did call Michael Bryan's office today to confirm what I understand and he is the city Councilman for that area and he is a city Council that person that I've known for a long time and I assumed and confirmed that He is a City Council member who has a vision of great urban density and making sure that we use space and we build up to avoid urban sprawl and to maximize resources within an urban area.

He as a City Council member is going to promote better public transportation.

Better public transportation will get to Director Harris's point that we don't see these big companies staying out in Bellevue where there is more room.

For some reason they are finding the space and coming into Southlake Union area.

And so those jobs will create demand for neighborhoods when those employees decide they want to start families, buy houses, have children and move on.

And so while today our city looks one way, in 10 years, 20 years, 40 years our city we can predict is going to look very different.

And it's my I feel it's my responsibility as a school board member now seeing the hardship and heartache that our school district has gone over the last decade in terms of space.

to have at least a reasonable vision of the future.

And the future for Seattle given its temperate climate and its accessibility of water is going to be that there is no reason to believe that people are not going to continue to flock here and that we are going to have to accommodate room for the students who come and right now I see that room you know a place to accommodate them is going to be Northwest now that Northeast has really been built out and we see that even with the proximity of Thornton Creek, Decatur, View Ridge, Bryant, Laurelhurst all in relatively close space those schools are awful.

all full, not all full.

And so that doesn't necessarily, the fact that there are many schools that Webster is close by doesn't necessarily give me solace that that's going to take care of the long-term vision when the people who plan, who are responsible for planning our city really do expect more people to come in.

And then the last piece I will say to that is because we don't have impact fees in the city just because they plan it doesn't mean they are going to pay for it.

And so if we are going to use our dollars reasonably now to accommodate the growth that our city is going to allow then it seems to me say three up or four up the kids are going to come And whether we're going to pay now to accommodate them or be remodeling our buildings in the future is sort of the question for me and it seems it is a better use of our money now.

And I'm also worried if we were to open up the bidding and redesign it to something different in order to try even to save money we'd end up just being a tighter bidding war and end up losing that money to get less.

Those are my thoughts.

Director Pinkham.

Just some additional comments when we were talking about yes we had other schools that are looking at getting moved to the waiting for Marshall to open up and my understanding too is that Schmitz Park is available too so there could be some leeway there and I don't know what the Schmitz family is thinking about currently that vacant building sitting there, how we can use that.

Yes, I don't think anybody really disagrees that this is, the city is growing but there is different projections about which areas are going to grow and I just have to get back to my contention more just based upon the lot size it seems like this is a hard thing to put on Loyal Heights.

So for me I'd like to see if there, maybe we do have to reexamine the ed specs to see are we going in the right direction, what the future is going to hold that eventually there won't be any school with any playground because we have to We need the capacity, we need the rooms.

Is that going to be a future that we have to look at?

Do we have to plan for that future now or do we try to preserve as much outdoor space as we can and then deal with that when we have to?

difficult decisions.

It's hard to spend the money now to save money later.

Kind of a scenario.

But yeah I for one want to see if I can also get some data as far as what is our elementary school playground space looking like?

What is that student to playground ratio or playground to student ratio?

And are we continually decreasing that and how can we stop decreasing that?

Director Harris.

I almost responded previously to the testimony about Schmitz Park as an interim, an alternative interim school and I would suggest to you from someone whose commute has gone from 15 minutes to upwards of an hour and 15 minutes to get into the city from West Seattle on highway 99 in the last three years to consider busing the other schools to Schmitz Park which does in fact have a childcare program in it and it would be our decision how to use it not the Schmitz family with extraordinary respect to the Schmitz family.

I wonder what that would do to our transportation standards and how long these young people would be on the bus and let's not forget that we are promised a tunnel as well and that will add yet another wrench in the giddy up.

So with all due respect Schmitz Park is not an option for Queen Anne Magnolia schools north.

Welcome to West Seattle.

Director Burke.

I'd like to commend my colleague Director Pinkham for bringing this amendment or this option to us.

While I don't personally intend to support it, it is a courageous conversation.

It helped us bring this discussion and helped us identify the priorities that we need to maintain as we are moving forward.

What it's really emphasized for me is that we have a standardized educational specification but we don't have standardized projects.

And so when When we look at adapting our educational specification to each individual project we just have to be thoughtful about where we are making those adjustments.

How we are making them for the building, how we are making them for the play space and how we are making them for the budget.

And so this process although it's been a little bit painful has been eye-opening for me.

If there are no further comments Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

And just to be clear this is on Director Pinkham's proposal to change the plan to three up instead of four up and to not include the pre-K sites, child care sites.

Director Blanford.

No.

Director Burke.

No.

Director Geary.

Respectfully but no.

Director Harris?

No.

Director Patu?

No.

Director Pinkham?

Aye, aye, aye, aye.

Director Peters?

No, sorry.

This motion did not pass by a 1, 6, 0 vote.

All right that leaves one more option.

Do I hear a motion to the other option, remaining option?

You want to move?

I want to move for option three.

Option one.

Option one.

I know it's been a bit confusing.

The main option.

Okay.

And we have a second from Director Geary.

To be clear this is the four up project but without the childcare facility so this would allow more playground space.

the rest of the project remains the same.

Are there any comments, questions about this item?

Director Pinkham.

So just kind of getting to the point with childcare so there is still a possibility that and could use you know the joint use space or whatever you refer to that space now they don't necessarily have to have a dedicated space but they can use.

Multiuse space.

Thank you.

Correct.

Any other questions or comments?

So this doesn't officially kick out NK just by not having this doesn't kick them out per se?

Correct they would work with the licensor and principal to identify the space and then look to multiuse space use.

Director Burke.

Are there any site specific features or construction details that are related to that licensing that as part of project construction or project planning that that work facilitates them obtaining a license or is it just going through the process?

I believe it's just going through the process unlike the pre-K which are smaller aged and smaller sized people before and after care are the K-5 students who are already in the classroom so it's really just about how you're using the space and whatever the other requirements are for licensing.

Director Pinkham.

Can I just also get a clarification now we have relocated Loyal Heights right now and what has started on that site right now so we haven't approved anything yet but things are already happening on Loyal Heights site.

To answer your question Director Pinkham we are currently doing site work.

We are doing hazardous material abatement from the historic portion.

We are doing some minor demolition and we are implementing the geothermal wells.

And you have not, you have approved as a board the TCC contract with Skanska up to let me see it's just one second.

of in an amount of $28,340,330.

So we have begun this first phase of the site work activities and the demolition hazardous material abatement we need your approval now to enter into all the other bid packages so that we can complete the project.

So that's what we're here for but we have begun minor site work, geothermal wells, hazardous material abatement and minor demolition within the historic structure.

Are there any other questions or comments?

All right again this is we are about to vote on the motion for the project without the childcare facility.

Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Nay.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion passed with a 6 1 0 vote.

I want to thank everybody for their thoughtful discussion about this topic.

So we are now moving on to our introduction items.

Sorry we have one more action item and that is BTA IV Magnolia elementary school renovation in addition approval of budget increase.

May I hear the motion and then we will go to the committee.

I move that the school board approve a one-time fund transfer from the BTA IV program contingency to Magnolia elementary school renovation and addition in the amount of $5,879,544.

I second the motion.

This item was heard by the ops committee on December 15 moved forward for approval.

open up to your questions.

All right.

Has anything changed since introduction?

Yes, there have been some minor changes, the total amount hasn't changed in Exhibit A for the totals up to the same amount, Director Peters.

Are there any questions about this item?

Director Harris.

Yes, on your exhibit adjustments to owner soft costs curriculum supplies furniture fixtures and equipment went from $1,334,000 down to $859,000 can you tell us why?

I can point out that I did note to the staff member that there was a mistake in the construction sales tax previously at $102,800 for the construction amount of $2,569,000.

I do know that the $5,879,544 is the project budget.

I don't know that level of detail.

Director Harris I can put that in a Friday memo to the board.

Well my hope is that you can spend lots of money on curriculum while you're at it.

Yes we will be buying an entire curriculum for Magnolia elementary school that will look like instructional art, music and physical education.

Are there any more questions or comments?

Director Burke.

So the funding for this is coming from BTA program contingency.

Could you speak a little bit to the status of the BTA program contingency through BEX oversight I follow the BEX program contingency.

We have both a BEX oversight contingency and a BTA program contingency and it is for this purpose Director Burke.

When we put together the conceptual estimates we know we won't know everything about the project that we are about to construct and so we have allowed a contingency that we do articulate to the voters in our levies so when we do collect more information and know that projects are potentially going to raise in cost we have a small contingency that we can draw upon.

So the root of my question following this adjustment from the contingency fund, what will our contingency be versus our progress on those projects?

Proportionally.

These are the first projects that we will be launching, proportionally we will have a well over 80% remaining, 85% remaining in the BEX or excuse me the BTA for project contingency.

I feel very comfortable with where we are at for Lincoln high school which is a large project that's approximately 75 million of a $330 million building portion or the B portion of BTA.

and feel very comfortable with where we are at with Ingram high school at this moment in time as well.

Which is another large project in BTA.

I do not anticipate we will have an overage on ECU's we are still looking at potentially Bagley and then we have some significant roofing projects.

where we have learned significant amount of information that we didn't know when we put forth BTA for as to why those roofing systems have failed or the exterior envelope has failed that is allowing in water as well so.

Thanks.

Director Geary.

This goes to a point that not exactly on topic but since you're here and all these things are coming up and I'm looking at Kathleen behind you and to Director Harris's earlier point, we have an elementary school language arts curriculum coming up.

We just opened a handful of elementary schools.

It's my understanding that when we open schools we can actually build at this one time curriculum costs into the capital budget.

And so I'm trying to think did we really buy 15-year-old language arts curriculum for those schools or can we somehow figure a way to claw back and find some more money?

to buy curriculum for the schools we open this year as well as the schools we are planning to open in the next few years to sort of offset.

a business person on answering questions as to what capital projects can purchase.

Curriculum I know is highly controversial since Melissa Cohn is not here.

Because I'd really like to see a way to start investing in good curriculum for our new schools and not investing in old outdated things.

So we can look at that as far as, it has to be for the new building and it's one time.

And there's some, I mean that's the box that we're kind of in.

So it can be whatever curriculum that is for that school.

When we go out for curriculum adoption I don't know that it's that simple that we can buy school by school in that way.

We would need to look at, I would need to consult with Kathleen and Kyle about what those terms would be.

I would like to see some cross department consultation on this please.

And if you need a board resolution to make it a pilot project it would be ever so my pleasure.

No, no I think we are good.

I think we are good.

Let me just say this that we are working very hard to bring something forward to next Wednesday's meeting about how to do some phase in and talk about how to do something with the K5 ELA since we know that we still have another $11 million to solve of our deficit.

That is front and center in our minds and we have been working together to do that.

Are there any more questions or comments about this item?

Director Pinkham.

Pointed out in one of the community comments, what has the community's response been to this project?

Community response has been very favorable to this project.

We've had two community meetings, I attended one of those Director Pinkham and it has been overwhelmingly favorable to reopening Magnolia Elementary School.

And we did present the designs that you've I believe seen on the operations committee for this building as well.

So I just hope that we're not doing another Loyal Heights here where yeah the community is favorable for the new building but not necessarily to the magnitude again so I just want to see it making some.

Well to that point how far along is this project in terms of design for Magnolia?

We are in construction documents phase right now Director Peters.

Are there any more questions or comments about this item?

Okay seeing none Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Nay.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Nay.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Motion passed 5-2.

We are now at the introduction finale of our meeting.

There are two items.

K5 English language arts adoption and may I hear from the committee chair on that C&I.

This was moved forward, heard by C&I committee moved forward January 9 for consideration.

I suppose I should read in the whole item here.

Approval of this item would adopt and purchase the center for the collaborative classrooms for instructional materials.

For all K-5 Seattle Public Schools classrooms in the amount of $5.6 million either in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018 budgets are phased in purchase and implementation within the funding limitations according to a restoration plan developed for the 2017-18 budget that identifies when expenditures for this adoption can proceed in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years.

Okay good evening Kathleen Vasquez literacy and social studies program manager.

I'm here to present the K5 English language arts adoption committee's recommendation for instructional materials.

Michael Tully will speak after I present regarding the other two motions that are in front of you.

The first question is why do we need these materials?

I think you heard from two of our colleagues this evening.

Speaking to the last adoption being in 2002, at that time the district adopted two basal readers and basal readers are a real whole class instruction approach.

that do not offer a lot of opportunity for differentiation and that was in 2002. In 2005 we adopted classroom libraries or the district funded classroom libraries when we shifted to a balanced literacy model and that model provided many more opportunities for differentiation.

Since then no monies have been earmarked for an English language adoption however We adopted the Washington State adopted new standards that shifted the way we do instruction in English language arts.

It's focused far more heavily on college and career readiness standards and those standards required instructional materials to change.

The instructional materials that needed to be integrated, reading and writing needed to be integrated.

more instructional supports for more complex text because the research was telling us that students weren't reading complex text at high levels in order to prepare them for college and the workforce.

The new standards also required far more focus on vocabulary development, far more focus on the use of text to build information.

What teachers do not have are resources to deliver on these shifts.

Without instructional materials our teachers and you heard it tonight are downloading resources off the internet, they are purchasing materials themselves, some of our schools have purchased resources and others have not.

As a result students have not had equal access to receiving instruction in resources aligned to the new standards.

Teachers also have not had equal access to those resources.

PTAs other benefactors have provided funds for some schools but not all.

The process that we used to select the materials that we are advocating for was a year-long process.

It took a year with three different elements.

Round one where we looked at all 10 resources that were given to us to examine.

At that point at the end of that round we narrowed to three choices.

We then ran a six-week field test with the top three finalists.

After that we moved to round two where the committee members had an opportunity to hear from field testers, had an opportunity to examine all the data relative to that study and had an opportunity to examine all of the survey data that we had acquired over all of the three rounds.

During a yearlong process we received over 1700 survey responses from families, community members, and teachers.

We had 600 responses from our SPS staff alone.

Hallmarks of the process include an extensive outreach to ensure feedback from various stakeholders across the district were represented in the committee's final decision.

We surveyed teachers, families and community members at three different junctures.

Prior to the adoption starting gathering information about what the priorities were for families and communities and teachers during round one where everyone had an opportunity to comment on all 10 vendors and then again during round two.

Adoption committee members and field testers represented the most diverse aspects of our district.

All five regions were well represented and evenly represented in those processes.

We had teachers on the committee and field testers from that had students with English ELL students, students with special needs, HCC students and even middle school and even teachers of middle school experience.

The adoption committee and the field testers were some of the strongest most thoughtful teachers who took this process extremely seriously.

and we are ever so grateful for their engagement and full participation in the process.

We showcased resources and libraries across our district, we had online opportunities for families and staff to feedback and fill out surveys right online.

When the field testers and adoption committees applied the criteria immediately five of those vendors fell off and the reason is our committee members, our parents, our staff were deeply committed to anti-bias curriculum, curriculum that reflects the diversity of our students, I mean I'm sorry reading materials that reflect the diversity of our students and also reading materials that do not cast our diverse populations in stereotypical roles.

And so immediately five of those vendors were taken off leading us to examine five and narrowing to three extremely strong choices.

Our field testers then embarked in a six-week study and we had 27 teachers, 700 students were a part of this process.

The resources were distributed to all five of our regions.

Field test classrooms included HCC spectrum, classrooms with high numbers of special needs students and English language learners.

We received a plethora of information from field testers and they engaged in a focus group.

During round two we were able to examine data, field test data and I am thrilled to say that the committee was able to return a unanimous recommendation for the center for the collaborative classroom.

We are proud of this recommendation because of the hard work that was involved in making it but also because families staff, adoption committee members and field test members all returned with the same number one choice.

Center for the collaborative classroom ranked highly because of its strong ability to deliver on a balanced literacy framework, it had strong support for what many of our teachers and families wanted to see which was strong foundational skills in the K2 area particularly in phonics and phonemic awareness instruction.

This is instruction that is critical to gap closing efforts in our district.

There was a strong standards alignment which is really critical to the MTSS work that we want to do in our district.

If we don't shore up core tier one instruction we will always lose kids along the way.

As I said it had a strong anti-bias curriculum our teachers indicated that these materials were easy to use they can go online and plan.

The, we had some teachers who said they can go home and spend more time with their children now as a result of these materials being strongly outlined and very aligned to a lot of the professional development that has already gone on in this district.

Assessments I will say are a little weak in this area in center for collaborative classrooms.

I'll now turn it over to Michael Tolley.

Good evening, Michael Tolley associate superintendent for teaching and learning.

As was mentioned we are recommending two separate motions associated with this introduction item.

The first motion is to approve the adoption of the center for the collaborative classroom as the English language arts instructional materials for kindergarten through fifth grade classes throughout Seattle Public Schools.

So that's one separate motion and the second motion would be to authorize the superintendent to purchase these materials within the funding limitations according to a funding restoration plan developed for the 17-18 school year.

The second motion was developed in response to the curriculum and instruction policy committee request and our anticipation of the development of a restoration plan for the 17-18 school year.

Additionally you will find on page four of nine of the board action report in the alternative section a listing of options for the phased in purchase and implementation of these instructional materials and potential costs associated with that.

Director Harris.

I have a number of questions.

Is it allowable for us to talk about the bids that came back on this suggested curriculum?

Okay, I want to tread carefully.

Did the bids come back a lot higher than we initially anticipated?

I don't remember all 10. Okay I remember the three finalists.

The lowest ranking finalist came in at 4.1.

The second came in at 11.5.

And center came in at 5.6 with additional materials that we need for assessment.

Okay thank you for that.

Next question would be Readers and writers workshop, has that ever been an approved curriculum?

I know we are using it all over the city.

So readers and writers workshop certainly has elements of the balanced literacy framework and so teachers do use it but do need to supplement with other materials to complete the full robust expectations of the balanced literacy framework.

Okay and if we adopt your suggestion, your recommended curriculum, how will that interface with readers and writers workshops?

Because a lot of schools have fundraised their PTAs etc.

They've sent folks back to Columbia teachers college.

I mean it's been a huge lift for a great many communities.

How do we, how do we braid that through I guess is my question.

Well you know you heard from Lyon Terry this evening who is an extremely strong supporter of teachers college curriculum.

He will tell you that his experience is that this curriculum is better than readers and writers because it provides all of the elements there.

He said you don't have to make up questions, the questions are already there.

So a lot of the Theoretical framework and underpinning of center for collaborative classroom is very similar to the readers and writers workshop curriculum so pedagogically they are linked but they are different and I would expect that we would expect that all schools would be then shifting to center for the collaborative classroom.

And my last comment if I could, I am so impressed how you and your committee have handled this journey.

Initially when you said it was going to take a year I was rolling my eyes you know how could it possibly but this process is really defensible and to be applauded and given some of the troubles that this district has had in adoption in the past this feels pretty darn good and very much appreciate it.

Thank you.

Just to respond, I appreciate that comment and I accept the applause along with my right arm Kristen Nichols who does amazing behind-the-scenes work often and doesn't get the praise for it and I think she really deserves it.

And along with an amazing committee.

We had an amazing group of teachers and we could not have done this without their dedication and work so I really appreciate that but I give it over to others really.

Director Geary.

I just want to say thank you it has been such a pleasure hearing from you on a regular basis on the C&I committee.

Just the greatest respect for the work that you have done.

I couldn't echo Director Harris's comments more strongly and having had the pleasure of hearing this come along and just having such faith in the work that you're doing and the sensitivity you brought and the examples showing us how you know culturally insensitive curriculum was not a part of this process and it was helpful to me to see the examples and hear that explanation and know that you were just on it and I just felt really good about it and just like I feel so bad now that we can't just give the big green light because again this is going to come to the O of opportunity and if what we know is that when budget cuts come the younger teachers from our you know Low-income schools are the first to go and there is the back and forth of the teachers.

What we need is really strong curriculum that is easily accessible by our teachers so they can step in and hit the ground running for those kids.

I hear you.

I think we all hear you.

I want our city to hear you.

And so we just have to really keep working to make this happen.

Thank you.

Director Burke and Director Pinkham.

Well Director Harris and Director Geary pretty much already said it so I just want to put that out there.

Nicely done.

Both of you and the whole team.

We were getting regular reports through C&I about the planning, about the outreach, about the progress, about the potential hairballs and you were candid, you were transparent and brilliant process, great result.

And I will go on record saying that I will not approve this bar as written because I'm looking to approve an instructional materials adoption not an incremental rollout.

Director Pinkham.

Qeˀciyéẁyéẁ thank you for what you're doing here and yeah being part of the C&I last year and listening to your presentations and I'm glad you were able to move this forward to where we're at now.

Just kind of curiosity, I was looking at kind of alternatives here for one of the things as far as again trying to close the achievement gap, I'm kind of attracted to the K-5 grades implementation and only Title I qualified schools at 2.5 million.

And is it just coincidence that that saves us 2.3 million?

And wasn't that what we were looking for to do the tier 2?

So yeah as we are looking at budget shortfalls and stuff you know right now the one that looks most attractive to me would be looking at that alternative E so that we can still try to address the students that are probably most need in this budget shortfall time.

I feel that I do need to mention that when we look at our data we find that our level 1, level 2 performing students exist in all of our schools.

So the thought that if we only fund title I schools obviously we need to address the needs of all of our students.

But our struggling learners exist in every one of our buildings.

And to not consider that in this decision, it's important that we consider that.

Thank you for that.

Director Burke.

I appreciate you bringing that up and I've heard from some folks in the schools that some of our schools that receive Title I dollars and have put the most internal effort into building their own programs you know some of them are up on our wall and so we want to be really thoughtful about as Director Harris said weaving together so that we're not choosing something and mandating something that disrupts good work that's been done and invests money where people are saying we don't really want it.

But that said I still support a districtwide adoption but just with a really thoughtful implementation at the school level.

If there are no more comments, thank you all for your presentation and let's move on to our next introduction item.

That's the kids in the middle grant from the Nesholm family foundation.

Let's see this went to audit and finance.

Which sent it on for approval on January 12.

This approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to accept the kids in the middle grant funds from the Nesholm family foundation in the amount of $554,534.

Michael Stone, Director of Grants and Fiscal Compliance.

I'm bringing this forward to you tonight.

This is an annual grant that we get every year since 2002 from the Nesholm Foundation to support our three highest free and reduced lunch middle schools through literacy, reading and writing achievement support.

Specifically at Denny, Mercer and Aki the funding supports specifically, it's late I'm a middle school assistant principal that specifically works with the language arts departments around professional development and moving students forward with the middle school curriculum and really focusing around the readers writers framework.

Director Harris.

Could it be said that this is one of those grants and initiatives that we have really fine data to back it up?

Yes and the PowerPoint that is presented with the bar does show that.

Could it be said that what we have learned from those three schools ought to be replicated in other middle schools throughout the city?

We could say that and some of that is to also their academic day model that they do provide seven periods and really focus on literacy as a separate component so reading and writing is taught separately instead of in one period.

And what kind of a fiscal note would we need to do that kind of replication throughout the city?

If we have something that's working could we please, please, please replicate it?

I think we would have to work at what the models would cost with budget and finance to find out.

Questions or comments about this item?

All right I guess that's it thank you very much.

I call this meeting adjourned at 10 o'clock exactly according to my sources.

Thank you everybody.