School Board Meeting 8302017 Part 2

an an

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

So item 1 BEX 2 BEX 3 approval of authorization number 2017 0 8 9 A.

Contract number 2 0 1 7 4 0 8 9 G for implementation of the solar photovoltaic systems projects at six Seattle public schools.

I move that the Seattle School Board authorize the superintendent to provide the Department of Enterprise Services notification of funding approval for authorization number 2017 dash 0 8 9 a number one and contract number 2017 dash 0 8 9 g in parens 1 dash 1 and Perin in the amount of two million one hundred seventy four thousand eight dollars and three cents including sales tax in accordance with the provisions of interagency agreement number K 3 8 6 5 with Department of Enterprise services in Perin's DES and Perin for the implementation of an energy efficient C project at six schools utilizing solar technology.

Pinkham I second the motion.

So the changes that have occurred to this bar from when it was presented on July 5 to you for action was that we reached out to Amoresco, Director Pinkham at the July 5 meeting asked the question as to what outreach Amoresco had done to the minority and women owned businesses and small business enterprises.

At the time I couldn't answer that question.

I subsequently had some conversations with Amoresco.

As I indicated at the July 5th board meeting there is a very small group of contractors that can perform this work for Seattle Public Schools.

There are four.

two of the contractors that they reached out to, two of the four contractors that they reached out to indicated that they did not have capacity to do this work to meet the schedule that Ameresco was looking for the work to be complete.

As you know the city of Seattle is experiencing a very very active construction market and we anticipate that will continue for some time.

One of the firms that did submit a price to Ameresco was a small business enterprise, a certified small business enterprise with the state of Washington.

The other firm that submitted a price is seeking certification with the state of Washington for small business enterprise.

They do not have it at this time.

The certified firm was substantially higher in cost.

Approximately 137% higher in cost so they went with the lower firm which is in the best interest of Seattle Public Schools.

The only other contractor that they will have working on this project was one that was selected by Seattle Public Schools.

It is our roofing contractor.

We selected the roofing contractor because we have warranties on Hazel Wolf K8, Arbor Heights Elementary School and will have a warranty at the end of this summer for Ballard High School.

They are the roofing contractor that implemented the roofing projects at those three schools and because we had fresh warranties with them at Hazel Wolf K-8 and Arbor Heights because those projects opened in 16 Ballard High School finishing in 17. We really told Ameresco that we need to utilize Wayne's roofing in order to make sure that we don't violate the provisions of our warranties.

And so those are the only two contractors that will be performing work on the solar project.

And one of them was selected by Seattle Public Schools.

So open it up to questions.

Director Blanford.

You jumped the gun.

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

Director Patu.

Can you tell me how the schools were actually chosen to receive this?

We looked at 14 schools Director Patu.

We gave heavy preference to the BEX IV schools because those are all designed to be solar ready.

Three of the schools in just check real quick here.

Two of the schools were BEX IV schools.

The other South Shore middle school was a BEX III school.

And so those had structural systems that would support the solar panels We also looked at, without making structural modifications, we also looked at the geographical diversity of the schools that were selected for this.

And then we also looked at alignment with educational programs.

Two of these schools are E-STEM focused schools, Arbor Heights and Hazel Wolf K-8.

Hazel Wolf K-8 had great enthusiasm for this project, their PTA has offered a $50,000 to participate in the cost of this project for $50,000 and are going to provide the district with a check in that amount and so that's how we reached out for our selection process.

Of the 14 schools that we looked at most were viable and we anticipate that we will continue this process with the phase 2. and make another submission to the Department of Commerce with a grant in the spring of 2018. And we will continue to pursue this.

We think it aligns with your resolution, the green resolution of trying to get our schools to net zero.

So we see this as very positive.

I will say that From looking at this we would if we were to finance this project this project would have a five thousand dollar.

positive cash flow.

We did look at financing this project.

Our business office asked that we pay for it up front with this project.

Future projects we may look at financing.

In addition we're going to save $59,000 in annual costs with Seattle City Light.

And that's a guaranteed savings.

So we think it's very significant for Seattle Public Schools to start this.

That's great.

So with the success of these programs, I mean these schools after you have implemented them, the 14 schools, so what's the possibility of actually looking at other schools?

We'll definitely be looking at other schools Director Patu.

This contract has a three-year measurement and verification period so we're looking at making sure that the savings that were identified for phase one we are definitely receiving.

and that we are meeting our energy goals and then that will continue for both year two and year three.

It's both by the state of Washington will participate and our partner with the energy services contractor will also participate, the ESCO will participate.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

Excuse me Mr. Best.

Did you hear the public testimony on this issue.

I did.

Could you respond to that please.

Yes I would say again that I think this positive this project has been really well received by the six schools that we're looking at placing these solar panels at three of the schools have brand new roofs.

All three of those schools are those roofs are anticipated to last longer than 30 years.

The payback period when you take out the Department of Commerce grant and the Hazel Wolf grant.

And then I will also note to the board I'll remind the board.

That we have an application into Seattle City Light.

We submitted six schools to Seattle City Light for a grant of twenty five thousand dollars apiece at Seattle City Light.

We have not heard back from them yet.

But.

we are looking at a payback period of approximately 25 years when you look at all the different grants that we have received for this.

So it's less than the lifespan of our roofs.

The other three projects were looked at and were selected Bailey Gatzert, Denny International, South Shore because we know that we'll have long life roof systems there as well.

So they match up well with the solar panels that we're putting on in the hopefully the fall of 17 and spring of 18. So.

Director Pinkham and then Director Burke.

Thanks for the update on this and a question I have when we do look at these contracts and then the bidder does put in something like the goals of my own business of 10%.

How often do such businesses don't meet that?

And is this the first time this company hasn't met this?

Or is it the fifth time?

The sixth time?

And even though as this bidder putting that in every time but not meeting it that would be a concern to me that they're putting in this that they'd meet this minority but How are they truly making that effort to do so?

Sounds like in this case the number of contractors isn't available but if they keep on putting it in there and it's not realistic how much consideration is given to it?

Best I think that is really project specific Director Pinkham.

If you had the opportunity to have more subcontractors bidding this project you could do a greater outreach to make sure that efforts are being made to MWBE firms.

With this project we're looking at a large solar project with only two subcontractors that are you know that are going to be performing work on this project.

The solar the folks who are doing the solar panel installation and the roofing contractor and that's what's so limiting here.

We selected the roofing contractor because we thought it was in the best interest of Seattle Public Schools to maintain the warranties that we have at Hazel Wolf Arbor Heights and.

Ballard high school given how new those projects are.

So that's we limited their hands we said no we want you to work with Wayne's roofing.

Wayne's roofing is a very reputable roofing contractor and so we limited them by 50%.

They did make an outreach to small business enterprises but not to MWBE requirements.

And that's something that we can continue to press our folks that we contract with to make sure that they've made that outreach and make that make sure that they're trying to achieve those goals and not just referencing them.

Pinkham And daylighting that there wasn't that many such businesses that didn't come to light until after the fact or was that known ahead of time?

It was known after you asked the question I did not know the outreach that Amoresco had done in July.

And so I went and posed that question to them after the July 5th board meeting.

Pinkham So now we are finding out that actually the number of solar panel contractors, subcontractors out there that are minority owned was a small number so just wanting to get that 10% when the business at their job that they are trying to do there is not that capacity probably to have that 10% because the minority businesses don't exist.

Burke Correct.

But I think it's still important for the state of Washington to have those goals in their contracts with their contractors so they know that's important.

It's a value statement.

Pinkham Yeah.

So that's what I was looking at that.

This is something we take in consideration when we look at hey they do say that's their goal.

There isn't that much business or hopefully they'll reach out to everyone.

It sounds like of the four that existed two weren't certified or something or two didn't have the capacity to do the work.

One is a certified small business enterprise with the state of Washington and the one that we're actually doing the work that we will be doing the work with after you approve their contract would be a firm that is seeking certification with the state of Washington for a small business enterprise.

Pinkham.

So just for future reference for myself is if we would know what is I don't have a list of the minority owned businesses that could do certain things you know to see that hey has is this something that we do have the capacity where if they do say 10% there's a good chance that they'd meet that.

It'd be something I'd like to see or know for future.

I would note that energy savings performance contracts could be mechanical system improvements, could be electrical system improvements, lighting would be an example there, which you can involve a lot more contractors and subcontractors in than solar panel.

The solar panel is a very technical area, very narrow focused area in the construction market.

Director Burke.

Thanks for the presentation on this.

I'd like to drill just a little bit deeper around the business case and I want to say thanks for bringing up the green resolution because we as a board have you know a potentially contradicting role here where we're trying to reaffirm our commitment to you know long term net zero energy usage trying to be a environmental leader in that way.

And we've got a core mission to serve our students.

And sometimes those things may appear to be in opposition.

I just want to make sure that as we talk about this one that we've got that on the table and we're talking about the economics that we're choosing to do because there are playgrounds to be worked on there are buildings to be worked on there's maintenance backlogs.

The 59 206 $59000 essentially of guaranteed minimum savings year one.

Can you provide some context around that and how those, what those numbers mean?

Do we typically, are those conservative things, are we likely to see more than that?

And is it likely to change in the future or is that sort of the right thing to put in the calculation?

Best So I will introduce Lon Inman with Amoresco.

Hi thanks for having me today as Richard said Lon Inman with Ameresco I be the project manager for Ameresco.

We act as the general contractor so our agreement is with Seattle Public Schools and with the state of Washington Department of Enterprise Services.

With regard to the subject of the diverse business participation I would add to what Richard was saying as the general contractor we actually Because we do a whole wide array of contracting, mechanical contracting type projects, besides solar PV, we have a higher participation rate of achieving those goals of minority and women-owned business contracting.

But as Richard said for this, because it's limited to solar, it's basically a single measure project.

It's very limited.

So with regard to the savings, yes, those savings numbers are based on Our calculations and models that we've run, we've done solar studies at all of these sites using tools and technology that track the sunlight and the solar energy in the area to calculate conservatively the annual savings of 864,000 kilowatt hours.

And then based on your current energy utility rates that equates to $59,206.

And what we guarantee on the savings are actually the units of energy, not the dollars of savings because as utility rates could change, whatever, we can't guarantee what goes on with the utility rates but we can guarantee the performance of the system.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense thanks for the clarification.

So when we look at history and project forward we anticipate that utility rates will up down fairly constant.

Is there a projection?

Yeah in our model we've conservatively estimated that the rates will increase by 3.5 percent per year.

We are always very conservative in that in actuality it is typically higher than that but the financial model that we have is 3.5% per year.

Thank you.

Just to throw one more clarification on there the simplistic calculation of just taking the total contract value divided by the year one is what comes up with the 38 year payback estimate.

What I'm hearing you say is that as energy rates increase that payback would be shorter.

And also if we remove the grant.

funding which is essentially earmarked we look at our investment of BEX funding we have a shorter payoff on the order of 25 to 27 years.

I'm not sure where you got the 27 years?

27 is the total amount or 27 to 28 is the current amount divided by year one savings.

But that would go down in the future.

Steven Nielsen deputy superintendent.

The other thing that's worth noting is that the financing comes from the capital side the paying for utilities comes from the general fund side.

So the savings on the general general fund side matter.

Thanks for that clarification as well.

This is a good conversation.

Are there any other questions or comments about this item?

Seeing none Ms.

Shek the roll call please.

Director Burke aye Director Geary aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham no.

Director Harris aye Director Blanford aye Director Peters aye.

This motion has passed with a vote of 6 to 1.

We now move to the introduction portion of the agenda.

There are four items this evening.

The first item is acceptance of the League of Education Voters Foundation LEVF grant to South Shore Pre-K 8. May I please hear from the chair of the C&I committee.

This was brought to C&I just a second here I moved forward too much on August 22nd and brought forward for consideration.

Can you speak to why it was consideration rather than a recommendation for approval?

There were a couple items there's some some request requested changes from committee around the contract language relating to principal hiring.

There was also discussion around the intro action and the data reporting components that were called out in the contract.

And so if staff could explain to us what this item is and then what the changes were.

Good evening directors Michael Stone director of grants and fiscal compliance.

I'm bringing forward to you the two year grant from the League of Education voters foundation which was formally part of a partnership agreement first with the.

new school foundation and then transferred to the League of Education voters foundation to support work at South Shore pre K-8.

We have been receiving this funding since 2003 to support the work at the school.

And.

They, it was a partnership agreement with the district until 2013 and then, or 2015 then, sorry, it was switched to a grant agreement because the League of Education Voters Foundation felt that we had met the original partnership agreement and wanted to switch it to a two-year cycle.

The changes that were requested were part of the grant agreement with the League of Education Voters Foundation.

There was some language in there around the Lev Foundation's participation in the hiring process for principals and assistant principals.

And that language has been modified to talk about them being part of the site-based process which is part of our hiring process here in the district.

The second was also the data portion.

There is a talk about an annual evaluation.

The last evaluation was in 2013 and we were speaking this evening about how it is time to cycle one in and bring that data to the board for review.

Director Patu.

Is it a normal procedure for schools to actually when we receive funding from certain foundation that we allow them to be part of the process of hiring you know of hiring principals within that school?

I would they are welcome to be part of the site-based process as is any community-based organization is and that's in the language of our site-based manual is that any community-based organization can be invited to be part of the table.

The Lev foundation see themselves as part of that.

The past two hiring cycles they actually have not been at the table.

Peters Thank you.

Director Blanford.

Are you aware of prior experience before the two years where was it the Sloan foundation before the transfer of funds was made to the League of Education voters?

It was the new school foundation.

New schools foundation.

Was the funding source for it and I can't answer that but I'm wondering if Jennifer.

Hi I'm Jennifer Guerrero-Flood.

I work both with South Shore as well as with the League of Education Voters.

To my knowledge that would have been something done entirely through a different foundation entirely.

So I don't think LEV has any knowledge of that.

I'm not aware of it if if they were.

Director Harris.

urban legend has it that the previous foundation had a vote under their MOU.

Hence some of the pushback you received at C&I with respect to making it as clear as possible that that is no longer the case.

I do have a couple of questions and I brought them up at C&I.

We talk a lot about equity.

We've talked a lot about highly funded PTSA's and not being one that wants to ever turn down a dime that is sent to our schools to enrich our students.

I still have questions as to why one school gets a million dollars a year.

I also have questions and maybe the gentlelady from Lev can tell us how much money does Lev spend administering this grant?

And I know that that's up to the funder but in terms of transparency and in terms of some of the less than transparent history on some of this if you can answer that easily.

I actually can't speak to that.

I don't work for Lev but I'm sure that information could be obtained if it is critical.

To my knowledge and I think that's part of what's being discussed tonight.

The goal of the funders actually for that full million dollars to go directly to the school.

So that I do know is one of been one of the objectives.

So who's paying you?

That comes through like it's through a direct relationship with that funder.

Thank you.

Director Patu.

I just wanted to let Director Harris know that actually there was another foundation that actually funded South Shore with a million dollars on a year to year basis and left I think this is like the second year or third year that left take it over after the first foundation actually.

What did new school foundation dissolve?

Yeah that's what I'm saying.

They were the one that originally.

It's been several years ago.

Okay.

Didn't realize that long.

I think it's going back like seven or eight years.

And I can find that history.

I have a few questions regarding Director Harris's last question and the employment.

We were told that the funding for the woman who spoke just before was a direct relationship with that funder.

I didn't quite follow what that means.

So who pays your salary?

I didn't catch that.

So it comes from the funder.

And who is the funder?

I'm not, I cannot say that right now.

That person is asked to be anonymous.

Oh okay so an anonymous funder okay I'm sorry I thought okay great.

Alright and so a couple points come to mind for me and that is the issue of the involvement of the foundation with the selection of the principal that's always been a concern.

And if we do have a policy that says that stakeholders or community members can be a part of the principal selection process.

My question then is a broader one to the superintendent and to our teaching and learning staff and that is do we extend this to other stakeholders and other members of the community?

Because we often hear that principles are chosen without community input and we hear this mostly from parents.

And so I think it would go a long way to understand better what kind of relationship we have here if we explain how this also applies to our other stakeholders in other schools.

Do parents also get to be part of the site-based input that leads to the selection of principals?

So I'm not asking any of you to answer this question.

This is a question really for staff because it seems like we're being a little inconsistent and that's why this seems to stand out as an unusual example.

And then so Michael Stone you said that this arrangement has been going on for about 12 years since 2003 and it's been a million dollars.

What sort of metrics are being used to measure the outcomes of this investment?

And have the outcomes been achieved?

And who is gathering this information?

Is the Lev Foundation gathering it or Seattle Public Schools gathering it?

I'm actually going to let principal DeWitt and assistant principal Hendrickson come up and answer those questions.

Okay fantastic thank you.

DeWitt the principal and this is Justin my assistant principal of the elementary.

I've been at social for two years and I can just speak to the fact that earlier in 2013 there was some sociometric results that came from an outside organization.

And in the grant this year, Lev has asked that they might like to have another updated assessment.

Three times a year, a team from Lev comes to our school and we provide data from within the school.

And with this being my second year, I can only speak to the fact that we do interim assessments three times a year so that we have We can show growth from the beginning to the middle to the end and we share that information with them as well as the information that we gather around social emotional learning in our building.

Okay so the metrics you are looking at are these interim assessments?

Interim assessments, pre and post tests, state scores, changes for instance last year our kids in math went from 39% provision to 80%.

From 39 to 80%?

Yes.

not in all subjects, but in math.

Peters Are you talking about the state test?

Best Yes, and we try to give them direct feedback on the things that they provide for us.

So for instance they've helped us with our math coach, they helped us get some data teamwork going, they helped us by allowing us to have a social-emotional counselor and so we try to tie directly the data that we have that shows growth to the things that they have funded.

Am I correct in understanding that up until about last year the money that was received by the school from the Lev Foundation went towards pre-K and now that the city is funding that or that's now become a city program that the funding from Lev is no longer focused on your pre-K program but focused on your one through eight classes is that correct?

There's still an early education focus that's in our school because our donor really paid attention to the research that says if we can get every child to third grade at standard in reading, then hopefully we can keep them there.

But when you have seen the changing demographics that have come with Outshore, if you looked over the last, since he started his donation until then, We've had dramatically different donation or dramatically different changes in the demographics.

And so what he's interested in is making sure that we get kids to standard and keep them there.

And one of the things he feels proud of is that the model for SPP came out of South Shore.

He started by saying I want these children that are below the free and reduced lunch to get a good start and to get to standard.

And his hope was that at some point Seattle would pick that back up.

And so this year we are Seattle preschool program.

And so he is still supporting us K-2, which is where his big focus is.

But because he's so hands-on and comes into our building, he's very interested in what's keeping kids from getting to standard.

And he's very interested in the movement of MTSS.

And his goal is that we continue to be a school that's a lab, so that other schools can learn.

And the things like RULER and the preschool program can continue to filter out into other schools that need them.

Thank you.

Dr. Blanford?

I appreciate some of the questions that have been asked by my colleagues but as a former employee of a philanthropic organization and as someone that gets the opportunity to speak to people in our community that care about our students and are willing to give to our students I know that there is a perception out in the philanthropic community That we are not as good partners as we could be.

And part of that might be interpreted from some of the questions that have been asked today.

I've watched this grant over many many years and I know that it has had a huge impact on the students and families of the school community that we are talking about.

And I've watched it as it has moved from the foundation to the new school foundation to Lev and have had conversations to be sure that there is no inappropriate involvement.

And trust that that has continued and everything that I've heard leads me to believe that that's continued.

I hope for my colleagues in the future that we are, that we figure out ways to be receptive And to fulfill our role as fiduciary, having fiduciary responsibility for this entire organization and for all the dollars that come into the organization.

I hope that we can strike a balance so that we don't at any point lead our philanthropic partners to believe that we are not good partners.

That we are intruding on their wishes to support Seattle Public Schools because ultimately as Director Harris rightly I think put it, it's important for us particularly in this time when we are struggling to balance budgets and to do all the things that our community wants us to do.

it would be difficult for us to inadvertently push away some funder who doesn't perceive that we are good partners.

And so striking that balance I think is going to be really important for you as staff members and for us as a board.

And so I just wanted to share that.

I didn't want anyone hearing this conversation to think that we don't value the support that we get from our philanthropic partners.

And I would just like to add to you, coming from a school that was a SIG school, that was a federal funded school for several years, it's really great when you have other eyes come into your school and look at the practices that you have.

Because sometimes you get so caught up in your own work, you don't see little things.

And I feel that the levy walkthroughs that we have and the lead walkthroughs we have, have led to really increased efficiency and effectiveness in our building.

And I'm always thankful when people pull up alongside us and do the work with us.

Director Pinkham.

Just some other questions that were brought up by public comment.

Were there typos in the grant or again there were two number fives and also the district will continue to be responsible for PK through 8 transportation?

Should that just be K through 8?

on the grant and the draft and it says that the district shall still be responsible, continue to be responsible and it says PK through 8 transportation.

I think the question is have we been responsible for pre-K transportation?

So should that read K through 8?

Are they, can preschool ride the bus this year?

In the past parents have brought pre-K kids.

I'll check that language for the next one.

I apologize.

Pinkham Yeah and then I think the other option of the two number fives and part of the grant.

Yeah because I was curious that too did we provide pre-K transportation?

I thought it was just K-8.

I want to thank you for coming and sharing with us some of the conversations that we had here this evening mirrored ones we had in the C&I committee and I think what I felt in those conversations was overwhelmingly that commitment to serve the students and a recognition that a lot of the changes we were considering for the documents or the conversations we were having around the documents were really just reemphasizing what's already happening and aligning that.

And I think that work helps clear up some of the misconceptions that maybe history has extended past to their due.

So I just look forward to continued success and also The recognition that you know with success comes the responsibility to share but also to help the district figure out how to do it in a cost-effective manner.

So you think of everything as a startup.

and there's an initial investment and then you look towards a path towards efficiency or optimization and there's a lot of things in the district that we really need to look at how to streamline them, how to deliver the same level of service, the same level of student success without the same level of budget.

And I think that's part of the long-term work and I hope that's something that you also share with the donor on this that that's a goal of the district.

Director Patu.

I just want to say that as the board director that I actually represent the southeast, which South Shore is one of my schools, I really appreciate Lev's support, financial support for South Shore in the last couple of years that they have been there for them.

And I know there's great progress is moving forward in that school and that's because of the funding that we continue to get on a year-to-year basis.

So I really want to say thank you for the financial support that continues on.

Peters Dr. Nyland

I would echo that.

The funder and the funding for this project I think is truly remarkable in a commitment to a particular part of the district.

I can't answer the earlier question in detail about other partners but we have the Nesholm family foundation that funds our three middle schools.

They have been successful in getting the Satterberg family foundation involved to include some, maybe now all of the feeder schools.

They re-upped their commitment even before we started.

And they are all a little different in terms of what the funder, how the funder wants to be involved.

That is part of, I guess maybe that generation is passing off of the stage, but the baby boomer stage wants to be hands-on.

It's kind of like I'll give you the money but I want to know where the results are and what I'm getting for it.

And in this case as we've commented on earlier the funding has helped us go citywide on the preschool levy.

It's helped us go citywide with our funding with regard to ruler.

And the funder was in the process of kind of stepping down the commitment year by year by year.

And then as we work through the process of converting to city preschools and talking about what's the next wave of… social entrepreneurism or innovation or creativity that might be of assistance to South Shore and might be something that would be replicable across the district as preschool and ruler were.

And so to the funders Whatever that right word is, to their credit, they have stepped up and it's at that million dollars and in a two-year cycle.

So it does exhibit faith in the school and the work that has been done with that added, you know, let me be part of the process and let me help see what's happening and that's very much similar to what happens with regard to the Nash-Holm and the Satterberg funding.

I'm sure we still have a lot more to learn about how we can work with funders because we certainly want to preserve and protect the work that we do as a school district but we also want to benefit from I guess a benefactor who will help us learn and grow new ideas and that seems to be the case here.

Maybe now going into a third wave of work that hopefully will generate dividends for the rest of the district as well as for South Shore.

Okay just to clarify a comment in response to what Director Blanford was saying about how we appreciate our donors, we very much do and I think part of our responsibility as a board is to make sure that these investments are being handled wisely and that we are getting the results that our funders expect.

And so the sorts of questions that I've been asking are along those lines and I want to make sure that we are taking full advantage of this opportunity so that our funders and future funders will say yes, this is a school, this is a district worth investing in.

They use our resources well, they get great results, we believe in them.

And I think that is the role that the board can play is to make sure that all of that is happening.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right then we will see you next week.

Next item, item two approval of the naming of Highland Park elementary school library in honor of Mrs. Luann Rundle.

May we please hear from the chair of the operations committee.

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

Good evening again.

As we had had the conversation in the ops committee we are actually trying to keep this item fairly brief and not very detailed.

Because it is meant to be a surprise for the recipient.

So I can assure you that we have followed all the board policy and that there have been quite a few community letters of support.

So we look forward to next week's action where this recipient will actually be here.

Any other questions or comments about this item?

Okay thank you.

Item 3 annual approval of schools for WAC 180-16-220 I may please hear from the chair of the curriculum and instruction committee.

This was heard by C&I on June 12 and moved forward for consideration after a lively conversation as always.

Good evening Mike Strosky chief of schools.

I'm here to put forth our annual CSIPs for approval in two weeks for September 20. Just a brief history with the direction and leadership of Director Burke and Director Harris.

We have put in a lot of time and energy and focus on to revamping our CSIP process.

to make it one that's inclusive, that's authentic, that's really clearly time bound to the work that principals and schools are doing, and authentic to the work that they're doing.

So in the last year, and I can speak as a former principal and also as a central office leader, the last few years our CSIPs do not match up or have not matched up with our budgeting, our scheduling, We are always out of sync.

And so one of the motivations was to get in sync with that.

And so we made the ambitious timeline of trying to change when we actually bring CSIPs to approval to the board by five months early.

And so last year we didn't get to this until December, January for full approval.

School has been in session for three or four months and the work is already happening and being done.

And so what we have done is we through an inclusive process including central office, building leaders, input from school board members.

We created an ambitious timeline of making sure that all CSIPs were turned into us, central office leaders, executive directors of schools by June 15 which is at the end of the school year where there is a lot of other things going on.

And, at the same time, we before that in April and May brought opportunities for our principals to give peer-to-peer feedback on CSIP so that they could see and deprivatize what it is that they are doing in their buildings to learn from one another.

To also see the quality of some of the CSIPs and see some of the areas of improvement for others.

But more importantly to learn from one another.

So we did that in April and then we did it again in May.

And then from May to June we gave buildings the opportunity to change and adjust their CSIPs.

And so when they turn those in, that we thought was going to be the hard part.

The hardest part has been since the CSIPs came in, making them ADA compliant.

And that's been a big struggle for us to be quite honest with you.

The old form that we used was online, was not ADA compliant.

We had to convert what principals had turned into us which was a lot of labor intensive for people whose work streams are not doing that work.

And so that took us about two weeks to get those converted into ADA compliance just the written narrative.

And then when I came to CA and I last week I had said that we were going to be able to load all the financials in by this evening so they could go public.

And what we discovered was that by doing that with our old converting our old or excuse me converting into the new ADA compliance we cannot convert cells from Excel spreadsheets into the new document.

So what we have done is that we have published all of the CSIPs this evening.

They are all up on the front page.

If you go to Seattle schools.org for our public, go to the bottom right-hand corner you can see continuous school improvement plans.

You can click on that link and you can see what essentially is 85 to 90% of all the school CSIPs are complete except for the financials.

The financials will be uploaded by no later than September 8, that still gives our public 12 more days to look at the financials and see the narratives but what we would expect with our late budget season There has been a lot of challenges that are not within buildings control but also outside of some of the central offices control as well.

But what we are really excited about is that we are starting the school year right now with school improvement plans that are authentic, that are giving buildings direction, that is giving central office direction about the levels of support and priorities that we want to provide to our schools.

And so what I would anticipate is that all of our families and community members who would like to take a look at our school improvement plans can do so.

They can start right now if they'd like to.

And that we will no later than September 8 have all the financials loaded into those documents so that they are ADA compliant.

And that's trying to be as transparent as we possibly can be.

So we came up a little bit short on our timeline but I think we are doing a fine job of making our document really inclusive and changing our practice about how we are making this an authentic document.

Director Burke.

Thanks for the work that backs this up.

I know from conversations we've had, reports have been made in C&I committee that this has been a non-trivial task.

It's not just about we're going to pull the data out of SharePoint and drop it in these documents.

I think that what excites me the most about this work is not oh wow we can go look at the CSIPs today and make sure they are all accurate.

I think that's an activity that I welcome public and directors to do just as sort of an auditing thing.

But what excites me the most about it is how the conversations around CSIP have infused all of our district work.

One of, I know that I have to give a huge amount of credit to Director Harris when we were doing the campaign dance CSIPs would come up regularly as how do you know what's going on in a school?

is like a strategic plan for the school.

It's like a change document.

It's a map for how schools can improve and evolve if it's used as such.

But it's not currently used as such.

So the idea that a CSIP could become a guiding document for a school and then when you sum them all up it becomes a guiding document for the central office for the district to provide common supports focused work for schools.

And I believe that staff has really embraced that idea.

And figuring out how to build it into our professional development calendar how to build it into you know MTSS strategies when we want to implement something at the school at a site-based level we have a site-based structure, what is our mechanism as a central office to help facilitate, encourage schools to implement it, we put it in the CSIP template and say okay we need to see some clarity around what you're doing for advanced learning, what you're doing for our special ed students, what you're doing around MTSS.

And it provides a standard expectation for all of our schools which I think helps speak to maybe some of the ambiguity that the board or the public has had around what are our expectations for schools.

So I just can't thank you enough for the work because I recognize it has been a significant body of work and also that it's ongoing.

Director Patu.

I just want to say congratulations Director Harris and Director Burke and also to the staff for finally making this a reality.

For the last eight years we've been pushing this and nobody seemed to listen.

But finally it's great to sit here and hear that everything is in place.

and that we decided that we wanted to go down there and to the schools and pull out the CSIPS at least we know that it's actually updated and it's ready to be read.

So thank you for the work and it's great.

Really great to see that become a reality.

Director Pinkham.

Thank you for this presentation.

I have a question on the guidelines for serving Native American students.

One it's on page 26 not 27 as it says in the table of contents because I went to page 27 and couldn't find it.

But on page 26 it says federal legislation states that in schools all efforts are to be made in order to help Native students achieve at high levels and that their heritage and culture be respected.

A means to partially fulfill this guideline is to adhere to the Washington state mandate to implement the since time immemorial tribal sovereignty curriculum for fourth grade students.

Can you clarify partially fulfill?

I cannot.

I think for us is the expectation is that they will deliver on that but me personally I cannot.

So if I can get some clarification on that partially fulfilled from someone, because that doesn't seem like a very good plan, yeah we will partially do it.

I would say for sure, I will let Dr. Kinoshita also address it, is it's not, that's not the expectation but I will let him speak to the specifics of that.

Chief of curriculum assessment instruction perhaps that could have been worded better but the idea was that it was not enough just to teach the STI curriculum.

That may be the only starting point but really you know the learning here you know about history and culture needs to be robust and holistic.

But STI is a starting point but not the whole picture.

That's what was meant there.

Thanks for that clarification and hopefully clarification go out to other readers of the document.

Are there any other questions or comments about this item?

Thank you.

Thank you.

So our fourth and final item for the evening is BTA III final acceptance of contract K5070 CDK construction services incorporated for the Eckstein middle school phase 2 fire sprinkler installation project.

May we please hear from the chair of the operations committee.

This item was heard by the ops committee on August 23 and moved forward for approval.

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

Final acceptance is required of this project because there is documents that the capital projects office submits to various state agencies, Department of Revenue, employment securities, and labor and industries after you have accepted the project in which we can then finally close out the project.

CDK performed this work in the summer of 2016. The work that was performed included extending the fire suppression system to the auditorium the lunchroom and to the module modular classrooms.

We broke this project into two summers because we were concerned about the amount of work they were going to have to complete.

So this finishes up phase 2 of this work of this contract.

And with your approval we will submit to the agencies that I spoke with you about.

The contract amount was for $552,700 and change orders were for this project were $38,600.

$46 which is 7%.

The question came up in the operations committee was that a reasonable percentage?

Always look at when you are working on existing schools 10% construction change order so I think that was a reasonable percentage for this project.

With that I will open it up to questions.

Director Peters are there any questions or comments about this item?

Sorry to end this conversation on a super minutiae but I was actually just driving by the front of the school today and I saw the sign that talks about a sprinkler system installation.

I think.

And so does that mean that once we approve this that the sign will come down?

Yes.

Okay well if there are no further questions then this part of the meeting is complete and now the board is ready to recess into executive session and closed sessions to discuss labor negotiations, complaints against a public employee and to evaluate the performance of a public employee which is scheduled for 90 minutes with an anticipated end time of I guess that would be 9.05.

Does that look about right?

Okay thank you everybody.

No.