Our action item for policy 3246 has been revised.
We want to call staff forward to speak to the edits since introduction.
Was that the one that was moved off?
Okay.
Alright our next item is amending board policy.
Was that the one that they took off?
Okay.
Approval of board policy number 2170 repealing board policies C48.00 C49.00 C52.00 and board procedure C52.01.
I move that the school board repeal board policy C48, C49, C52 and board procedure C52.01 and adopt policy number 2170 career and technical education as attached to the board action report.
I second the motion.
Someone come up and speak on that?
You should have the committee chair.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Director Blanford.
Though I wasn't in attendance the curriculum and instruction committee heard this particular policy on November 9 and moved it forward to the board for approval.
So can we have someone come up and speak on this?
A little background.
Former policies were outdated, the language was outdated, they've been retold for the 21st century skills.
We've removed outdated language, we've modeled the WASDA policy, the WASDA recommended policy and we got our, we received approval from our advisory groups, our various advisory groups to move it forward and I don't know if there's any other comments.
Is there any questions among any of the directors?
Director Pinkham.
Again I apologize I didn't get those questions to you sooner.
But will this new policy have any advanced timeline or procedure for the reduction or realignment of the CTEs as was noted in section 8 of 5201?
I'm not sure I understand your question sorry.
Okay.
In what's being asked to you know to be replaced, let me find it here.
The former policy was trying to encourage more programs across the district and we certainly would like additional programs but I think that was at a time when a lot of our programs had been reduced and so that policy That part of the procedure is not necessarily required anymore but we'd be happy to review it based on any comments.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
Okay.
Can we go ahead and have roll call?
One question is there a period for comments?
Yeah go ahead.
I don't have a question but I just wanted to publicly thank you for the work and offer reinforcement for the CTE program.
I'm a staunch supporter of it.
My fellow candidates probably got tired of hearing me say the words woodshop on the campaign trail.
It actually became one of our running jokes.
That Rick is going to say woodshop at every forum he goes to.
Some of them would actually try to say it before me.
So I just had to say it first here.
I wanted to say personally that at Ballard high school I took wood shop twice with Mr. Bogota.
I took metal shop with Mr. Taylor and the skills that I learned there helped launch me into an engineering career.
Helped me get my first job and I still use them on a daily or weekly basis.
with house improvement projects or things like that and so I'm an enthusiastic supporter of these types of classes and my ask to you or request as we move forward is that some of the language that's in this policy, it's very focused on career and technical pathways and I think that's an excellent, excellent goal, excellent strategy but I'm looking to also leverage the resources within the CTE program to the entire student population.
Because I think these are classes that engage kids that maybe they don't even care about that pathway but to get some hands on time those are some of the things that keep kids in school and keep them engaged and provide life skills.
So thanks again.
Thank you.
Director Harris.
I would like to say thank you again this is a matter near and dear to my heart and I think it's hugely important given the fact that we're going to be losing an entire generation of skilled people and we don't have enough bodies and folks trained to replace them.
And I would offer to you after having worked on the Highline College worker retraining programs for years and having worked with organized labor for years.
I will hunt them down and help you get them engaged because I'm a huge believer in building those bridges and setting up mentorships and it can only help all of us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Director Geary.
Likewise I do believe in these kinds of opportunities.
I did in reading the policy I personally wished it had been more.
There was more language that talked about making sure that these programs were being made available to the kids that we see identified in our achievement gaps and making that just a stronger message so that we know as a district that we are continually looking for ways to reach those students and that it is as with any of our programs It can be trickier and different than the standardized rollout that we have traditionally done.
Both making sure that these programs exist in their traditional form but also always looking for ways to reach kids who would so benefit but don't even necessarily know how to access them appropriately.
So I would like to see more of that.
And then in terms of the superintendent's policy I hope that we can have a chance to talk a little bit more about that in terms of some changes that I would like to see to make sure that we are making, we have performance measures and targets but then I don't necessarily see that in our evaluation we're covering to meet and answer those performance measures and targets, the accountability piece.
So I want to make sure that when we are going to evaluate are programs that were actually evaluating things that will answer back to our targets.
So and I'm happy to point out and sit down with any of you and I apologize again trying to get into the flow of saying I'm new to this but I did have some ideas on some language that perhaps we can include in the superintendent's policy and hopefully also bolster reaching out to those other groups of kids.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Director Burke.
Sorry this might be a little out of order but there's one other thing that I wanted to mention and this was some of the things that came up on the campaign and I can't think of a better vehicle than this to share with everyone in the room and in the audience.
Everyone here knows about STEM education, your science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
What I'm going to propose or suggest is that the mathematics is already infused in the science technology engineering and I think we should reclaim the M and I think it should be science technology engineering and manufacturing because we have a manufacturing resurgence that's taking place.
So I just wanted to share that to all the educators in the room, senior staff.
Resurgence of manufacturing.
Go go go.
Any more comments or remarks?
Questions?
Go ahead.
Just a comment and appreciate the input.
I had a question too about the superintendent procedure on the advisory committees that maybe if we can include language that will state that we will reach out to minority owned businesses to help with closing the achievement gaps.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
Remarks?
Director Harris.
I have a question.
Where do we go from here?
Where does a superintendent procedure, devil's in the details, when does that come before us?
Does it come before us?
What's the timeline?
What's the return date?
As the superintendent said earlier, that's something that we discuss in the executive committee and then see whether, you know, when to do it, either our retreat or one of our work sessions.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Any more questions?
Okay.
Roll call.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Burke.
Aye.
Director Geary.
Aye.
Director Harris.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Pinkham.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
Okay our next one is annual approval of written plans for alternative learning experience programs or schools.
Can someone please actually, before I do that I need to ask our CNI coordinator to actually, chairperson to actually give us a statement.
I believe that someone needs to read the motion into the record.
I move that the board approve the alternative learning experience programs or schools of the cascade parent partnership program and interagency academy in the form of the plans and annual reports for each school attached to the board action report with such minor additions, deletions and modifications as the superintendent deems necessary and directs the superintendent to implement such plans and pursuant to the school board review conducted agree to make no changes at this time to policy number 2255 alternative learning experience schools or programs.
I would like to go to the committee chair for his recommendation.
Again I wasn't in attendance at the meeting but the curriculum and instruction committee that I chair heard this item on the 9th of November and moved it forward to the board for approval.
Now I know that you guys did a presentation on this at the last board meeting but I'm asking to please if you can give a short presentation because we have four new board directors who are not familiar with these.
Thank you.
No problem.
Shawna Heath Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction.
This is an annual report to share with you the learning plans and the The checklist that are required to approve the alternative learning experience schools which are interagency and cascade.
The checklist that is required by the WAC is approximately 45 items and the learning plan is per board policy and it is inclusive of six questions that each school must respond to which are also included in the action report.
Director Patu, Director Harris.
Could you address why middle college high school is not an alternative learning experience and when that happened and why and what options are available to us in the future?
Thank you.
So in the past there were a number of schools including middle college that were identified as alternative learning experience schools.
I don't at this moment recall the exact year.
It was probably about three or four years ago that the decision was made to no longer have middle college serve as under that particular model.
Remember that this is involved with a funding model as well.
I do recall at that time.
there was a change in state law that reduced the amount of funds per student that was being given to district based for students within that model.
And for that reason, as well as my understanding, again, I wasn't in this current role at the time, but my understanding was that there was a desire by the staff and administrator of Middle College at the time to move to a more traditional model.
And so that happened.
To move it back to an alternative learning experience model would require of course board action in order to make the adjustment in the current board policy.
The schools are actually named in policy as you can see there.
Currently Cascade Parent Partner Program and Interagency Academy are the two schools designated as alternative learning experience.
Director Harris.
I don't want to create work for anyone but I'm wondering whether or not our archivist can help us with that history so that we actually have the background in what happened, what were the reasons for it happening so that we've done our due diligence in order to make choices and work collaboratively in the future.
Superintendent Nyland.
I wasn't here so I can't give you that.
I can talk a little bit about kind of what's happened in the state over the last 20 years.
So I think two thoughts are here.
One is we used to have alternative programs which have really nothing to do with alternative learning experiences.
Alternative programs tended to be.
Alternative in programming but not in attendance.
So students were expected to attend five days a week, six hours, six periods, and how the teachers approach the curriculum.
It might be more hands-on.
They probably had a smaller class size and probably looked for teachers that had a high empathy for the students and would encourage the students to graduate.
ALEs kind of come out of I think it was Highline that started it was a tradition that has now morphed into several of them being online learning which have a different requirement in that the students have to show up one day a week or the equivalent there too and they can do their other work in a kind of a less supervised environment but with outcomes expected.
And then over time the state has said districts, Steilacoom was one of those, are taking advantage of this and we're not sure that they're really keeping track of students.
So they've added restriction after restriction after restriction and then they've also put in we'll fund you at 80% if the assumption is that students aren't going to be in a brick and mortar building.
for all of that time then you don't need all of that money.
So it's become more difficult to fund them.
And thirdly, during this time, No Child Left Behind has come to the fore and I don't know how ESEA may change that.
But as recently as five years ago, the state would report out on a school.
One of the things that many of us did, we did it in Marysville, is we changed the names of programs so that they weren't maybe stigmatized by a quote unquote alternative term in their title.
And so then the state would call us and say school X is on the list and they're going to be taken over or they're going to have sanctions unless you tell us it's an alternative school.
And we'd say oh yeah it's an alternative school and they'd say okay never mind.
That now has changed and Cascade is on that list even though there's absolutely positively no way that they can ever graduate one student.
They're on the list, they're on the watch list for the state.
because everybody is now under those new requirements.
I'm not quite sure where we go from here.
ESEA may change all of that.
I don't know that it will change all of it.
But it may change it a little.
It does mean that we're in a new era and we can do alternative things, we can do project-based learning, we can do it creatively, we can care a lot about kids and we have to meet either the full seat time requirements or if it is called an ALE program we have to meet the reduced seat time requirements and we have to deliver results.
I don't know we'll take a stab at getting something written down for you and we'll see if we have anything in the archives.
Appreciate that very much.
Thank you.
Does any board of directors have any more questions or comments?
Director Pinkham.
Hopefully Leslie will kind of support me on this one with that.
On these reports they do seem to be missing signatures and the dates as to when they were created.
I think it would be nice to know where it says to be completed by principal or program manager that we know who it was completed by and dates and signatures.
Because I was kind of looking at this, is this reports from that were supposed to be due the end of the school year?
Or were these just recently submitted?
And is it just a timeline that we're finally getting it to now?
So clarification on that would be helpful.
And I do have a question on when the continued lack of progress area, just the language It might be clear to those that are completing it but to a new person it reads that if the student after more than no more than three subsequent evaluation periods and goes on.
There's like some double language in there and I don't know if that's from the online evaluation and you just print out but just have some clarification what they're supposed to mean there.
Director Harris would support that.
Any more questions?
Roll call.
Director Burke.
Aye.
Director Geary.
Aye.
Director Harris.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Pinkham.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
Our next one is acceptance of teacher principal evaluation program, TPEP, I grant 664.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to accept TPEP I grant funding in the amount of $261,322 to support teacher training initiatives described in further detail in the attachments.
I second the motion.
Now I would like to go to committee chair Director Blanford to give us the committee's recommendation.
The curriculum and instruction committee heard this item on November 9 and recommended it for approval by the board.
Does any of the board directors have any questions or comments on this item?
Director Harris.
I have a question.
We are talking about the Danielson framework and in preparing to take the seat up on this board.
I believe that there may be some pushback from certain quarters in the educational community as to whether or not there's a belief that the Danielson framework is being a properly used to evaluate teachers and principals.
And is it a requirement of the TPAP that we contract with Danielson group?
Good evening Clover Codd, chief partnership officer and welcome new directors to the board.
So it is a requirement that teachers are evaluated under TPEP.
Danielson is the chosen framework that we have adopted as a district.
It is not a requirement that we work with the Danielson, Charlotte Danielson group to do any contracting work.
There are no requirements around that.
She does work with the state quite frequently so we have contracted with her in the past to support our calibration and professional development efforts.
She's come to Seattle herself and had conversations with teachers and principals.
And in this specific iGrant where we've been approved to use $15,000 for that purpose.
Director Blanford.
Can you tell us when the decision was made?
I know that there was what two options for the framework that can be used and when we chose the Danielson framework?
Sure so actually back in 2010 we were already it was before TPEP was adopted by the state and formally implemented we were using the Danielson framework through what we called our professional growth and evaluation system.
When Senate Bill 5895 passed and all districts had to choose one of a few frameworks, we were already using Danielson and so we worked with SCA very closely and passed very closely to keep that.
We didn't want to change frameworks.
So it was, I think we formally adopted it under TPEP back in 2012. Director Harris.
So is that incorporated and embedded then in our collective bargaining agreements both with SEA and PASS?
Yes.
Thank you.
Director Peters.
Just to clarify what Director Harris just said.
what exactly is incorporated specifically using the Charlotte Danielson framework or a framework?
So the state law mandates that board of directors choose one of the I think it's three different frameworks Marzano, Sell which is out of the UW or Danielson and we chose to go with Danielson.
Okay but I mean the language of the CBA's does it say specifically this specific framework?
We do actually yes.
And then so there's three different ones.
Does the district have any evidence that the Charlotte Danielson framework is efficient and accurate evaluation tool?
So we do have evidence where we began implementing the new teacher evaluation framework in our level 1 and 2 schools which were mostly in our southeast region of the district when we first started rolling this out in 2010 and we do have data in a slide that we could provide to you that shows how we are closing the opportunity and achievement gap at a faster rate compared to other Like schools across the state and schools across our district we do have some data that shows that.
We can't say specifically it was just the new teacher evaluation system but that was our biggest reform effort at the time and we did see a dramatic increase in student outcomes.
And what about in our other schools that are using it?
Did we see any change in those?
I mean the only way that we can, we have teacher perception surveys and principal perception surveys so there are other kinds of data that are showing us that our teachers and principals feel more comfortable with the framework, feel like if there is a fair framework that they are being evaluated fairly.
So if you are looking at just purely student outcome data I think it would be hard for us to say any one initiative would be contributing solely to the student outcomes but we do have evidence that shows where we put all of our effort in those first couple of years into those specific schools that we saw significant and accelerated gains in those schools.
My other question has to do with the application form here for the grant.
I noticed that it says that 11 teachers want probation.
it says that in the grant and that application.
I don't remember writing that or seeing that.
Oh okay.
I thought I saw that on there that there were no principles listed as being.
So I don't know what you are referring to.
I will go and try to find it.
I don't think that was part of our proposal.
OSPI doesn't ask for that kind of information for this grant.
We'll look for this if someone else has another question.
Hi there, I was wondering if maybe we had a brief email dialogue regarding this, you mentioned at the introduction that this grant was issued last year and based on scheduling and a variety of things you weren't able to complete the work that was planned.
You had a really nice reply I was wondering if you could share that with the rest of the directors and the public and then I have a follow-up comment after that.
Sure so I do believe it was emailed out to all of the directors today.
Would you like to ask, well I guess I'll ask your question and then answer it.
So you had questions about last year's grant award.
It was in the amount of $256,804.
Of that we actually only used $71,708.
The majority of the project last year was going to be dedicated to this video module series that we were going to be developing and we had intentions of hiring a TPEP program manager to help come in and manage that project.
At the sort of the beginning slash middle of the year this work was actually under the direction of the former executive director of leadership development.
That position was then moved over to special education and I took on the responsibilities of that position along with the ones that I already had.
And so in trying to get a TPEP program manager hired for this it didn't happen until March and the funds had to be spent by June of 2015 and just with that short timeline we weren't able to complete the project.
Director Peters.
Okay I found what I was referring to.
It's actually on page 3 of the application for the grant under demographics.
I think it might be page 7 of the total documents but it's page 3. And it says answers are required for all questions on this page.
So I guess this information is required.
And question number three said number of classroom teachers who are on probation for 2015-16 and the number listed is 11. And the number of principals and assistant principals who are on probation for 2015-16, zero.
So sorry, so I did not, I don't remember this page but now thank you for pointing it out.
So these are numbers that are reported to us by human resources department.
I don't, we can inquire with Director Tolley about specific principals who may have been on probation but if we didn't have any formal probations it would have been here or so apparently we did not have any principals on formal probation according to this data.
I find it a little bit odd that we would have teachers and no principals.
So is this data was accurate at the time when this was filled out is that the best way to look at this?
I mean this is the data that was reported to OSPI and it was reported to us so I can't speak to the accuracy of the data other than that this is what has been reported and this is what has been provided to us by HR.
Okay thank you.
I had one more quick one going back to the Danielson framework.
It is particularly important that you get evaluations right because it's sort of the high stakes assessment of the professional world.
And I'm curious, there's a component of it that's a self-evaluation.
I was looking through a binder that was about that thick and I thought to myself I hope this isn't the self-evaluation.
Is there a typical amount of time that a teacher or a principal spends doing the self-evaluation component?
I want to be really conscious of their in-class teaching time and that we're not taking away from that having them fill out a self-evaluation.
Yes, so the original self-evaluation was a self-assessment of practice and a teacher would look at the four domains of the Charlotte Danielson framework and there are 22 components within those four domains and would spend some time with their teacher or excuse me with their principal talking in their goal setting conference around the areas where they feel like they're really strong and then the areas where they feel where they need more support and it was part of the goal setting conversation.
That used to be required but in the last CBA and in this current CBA that is now optional for teachers.
That is not a required component of their goal setting process but it's a really nice component for teachers to be able to look at their practice overall and have conversations with their principal.
Yeah I guess specifically is there a number of hours that's typical for that process to take place?
For the goal setting process?
Right.
Usually principals will spend at least a half an hour person to person having a conversation.
The amount of time that a teacher prepares for their own individual goal setting conference would be completely individualized and depends on the teacher and the principal and the school and so I can't answer that.
Is that something that we could inquire?
Because I think that's a really important part of feedback on the tool that we're not overburdening teachers with that self-evaluation.
It is something we could inquire about.
We do do teacher perception surveys around the whole process from goal setting all the way through the summative evaluation but we also have a collaborative working group with SEA and PASS in the district where we talk about implementation issues monthly in the PG&E workgroup.
And then we're also entering into a new phase with SEA.
We just recently bargained the peer assistance and review that we would be researching, developing and implementing a program around that.
And all of these discussions, all of these things that you're bringing up are part of those conversations because our goal is to make sure that the evaluation process is fair and transparent for all teachers in every school and fair and transparent for all of our principals as well.
Perfect, thank you.
Any more questions?
Comments?
Roll call please.
Director Geary?
Aye.
Director Harris?
Aye.
Director Peters?
Aye.
Director Pinkham?
Aye.
Director Brunford?
Aye.
Director Burke?
Aye.
Director Patu?
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
Thank you.
Our last action item, amendment to science warehouse lease agreement at Seattle distribution center.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a First Amendment to the lease for the science materials warehouse located at the Seattle distribution center building.
Building B, 6795 East Marginal Way South, Seattle.
Covering the period of December 1, 2015 through December 31, 2020 for a total of $820,000.
in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.
I second the motion.
The A&F person that's actually the chairperson is no longer here so I'm going to ask Director Peters if she can give a report from the committee.
Yes this came to the audit and finance committee on November 12 and with the recommendation to move it to the full board for approval.
Is there any questions?
Comments?
Question?
Do we not have room here for that process and or space?
I thought the idea to bring food etc. and to do the John Stanford Center was so that we could consolidate.
Excuse me I'm Lewis Carlson I'm with property management.
We did look at the current space that we have in the building, unfortunately we don't actually have the ability to bring that within our space.
We also looked at other spaces, other warehouses to see if we could perhaps get a lesser term and with the hope that one day through additional funding we could actually have a warehouse of our own that we could be able to house this.
Unfortunately the market as it is today Seattle has almost reached 100% leased capacity right now, so I was unable to find another location.
So we renewed the lease, or we're putting that forward.
This is, the space apparently in the lease is 12,838 square feet.
Are we using that entire space?
That's about, I did some napkin calculations, it's about a quarter of a football field.
Do we have that much science materials?
Actually I did take pictures.
It's three racks high and the operations quite extensive.
There are several bay doors and when I visited the facility it was quite active.
I don't foresee that they could actually fit any of that into a smaller location.
Some of the materials also require special handling and have to be segregated in a special area that's sprinkled.
Fire department requirements, stuff like that.
So no, unfortunately.
It is a large space, but when you view it,
It's all used.
Two other quick questions.
Do we have any staff that are based out of that or permanently based out of that location?
I noticed there's some office space in it.
Are there any staff that work there or is it primarily just storage?
I believe we have one staff and actually I'm going to have Dan answer that.
Dan Gallagher interim director of STEM and arts and former science program manager.
So currently we have four staff members there, a science material center supervisor and then three assistants who work full-time refurbishing all science instruction materials for students K-8.
Thank you.
And then just to clarify as I read through the lease there is no termination clause I want to be absolutely sure yes or no and what are our options?
That was a concern.
I went back to the property management company and actually spoke with them about that.
Currently they have, the landlord actually has another warehouse across the street and he is working with that tenant to end their lease prematurely.
They have no problem with us pursuing a sublease if we choose to do that.
And actually in this market I think that we could very simply put a sublease in place.
The landlord would want to take over that lease and we would not have to manage it at that point.
But I wasn't able to get the termination language that I.
Thank you.
The pricing on the space looks like it's reasonable market rate so I think this is a good choice.
Thank you.
Director Harris.
So the sublease and the termination clauses this has all been through legal is that correct?
And those representations are in writing?
Everything that I do as far as preparing a lease or putting things forward goes through a vetting process and that includes being reviewed by legal.
So in answer to part of that question what you just said about subleasing and maybe moving across the street is there some kind of a rider or option agreement attachment to that lease?
I was unable to negotiate a termination agreement or get anything in writing as far as, there is actually in the lease a clause that says we can sublease.
So that's there.
But I wasn't able to get a termination clause in the lease.
And a favor for me if in a board action report you can highlight that in some fashion to say unfortunately we were unable to get a termination clause for that.
Heads up.
Much appreciated.
Future clarity.
Thank you.
Director Pinkham.
But you kind of answered with some of the others responses to questions here but the new lease will end in December 31st 2020 and then you have a note in the research and data resources and benchmarks that if we do relocate the relocation shelving costs and time estimate of downtime is six weeks.
As you look at this as far as you know it seems like ending a lease in the middle of the school year doesn't bode well if you do relocate.
So just wondering were they open to ending the lease when school ends?
You know adding maybe another six months or taking six months and so that if we did have to not renew the lease we don't have to worry about moving stuff out in the middle of the school year.
Any more questions?
Comments?
Ms. Foley?
Roll call?
Director Harris?
I didn't hear the answer to Director Pinkham's question.
Yeah I'm not sure that I have an answer for your question to be honest.
We renewed the lease in the same fashion and language that it was previously written.
I believe several years ago we were in a different space so we have gone through a move.
We do know what it entails.
It does take quite a while so we would need some overlapping time.
A little more detail on the logistics of how the materials flow into and out of the warehouse.
Roughly we have trimesters in elementary through middle school.
where in the summer time all the materials are there getting refurbished and restocked.
Then they go out.
So there are some less busy times, I wouldn't call them down times at the warehouse.
So we can stagger it around that in between the switch and rotations we call it.
So I wouldn't read that as it's in the middle of the school year so that's a bad time.
In fact middle of the summer would probably be a pretty rough time as well.
Thank you.
Any more questions or comments?
Director Harris.
I'm sorry and I don't want the dreaded micromanager label.
However, given what you just said, is there an opportunity to go back and move or extend the lease date until the summertime?
Could we table this until the next board meeting so that you have the opportunity to try for that?
I think that Director Pinkham brought up a good point.
I can do that.
The timeframe of this actually happened and it came up quite quickly.
The current lease is expired at the end of November so we are in a holdover situation at this point.
I'm sure the landlord would love to extend the lease for a longer period.
I guess I'm not sure if that's what we need to do from my counsel.
It's a good question.
My recommendation is to stick with the date and move forward as my recommendation.
I think that our experience in moving these warehouses, I don't remember the exact time of year, the previous warehouse, we vacated that one, but my opinion is I don't see that as a stumbling block over the term of a five-year lease is the specific end date.
Thank you.
So are we actually, is there any more questions?
Do you have your answer to that question?
Okay.
Everyone, no more comments, no more questions?
Ms. Foley, roll call.
Director Harris.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Pinkham.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Burke.
Aye.
Director Geary.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
We are now going to our introduction items.
Our first introduction item is annual approval of schools.
And before you do your presentation I would like to go to C&I Chair and ask for his recommendation.
The curriculum and instruction committee heard this item on November 9 moved it forward to the board for approval.
Good evening directors Michael Stone interim director of grants and fiscal compliance.
Tonight I bring forward to you the annual approval of schools which would be the continuous improvement plans for our 98 buildings and programs, actually 99 now sorry we added one more.
is part of WAC 180.16.220 that schools will use previous spring data to update their continuous growth and for closing the achievement gap.
Do directors have any questions or comments?
Director Blanford.
This is a question that I asked I believe last year around in prior years when I worked for the district long long long time ago this was a pro forma exercise of creating the school improvement plans and so I'm wondering if there is a significant review of the process I'm not making the assumption that It was done in the way that it was done in the past which was to to Replace all the dates and send the same report that had been sent in previous years Does it actually?
encapsulate the data that we have gathered and and does the data change the the direction of the plan
Yes, these are reviewed at the building level through the building leadership team and many of our buildings also use their entire staff to review the plans.
So at the building level, yes, and then it is reviewed centrally through the executive directors and it is still under review.
They went live yesterday for public.
They will be up for review.
They're still working documents.
So on January 6th when they come up for approval we will be making sure that all principles have revised them with any errors we see anything that still needs to be changed if they do not have advanced learning goals in we will make sure that they have those components in by January 6th.
And based on your answer did I hear that only the executive directors are reviewing or is there a committee?
I personally reviewed all of them they're also part of we're trying to put in place we used to have five, six years ago.
Annual reviews where schools will come together with like schools and review them.
That is switched now to the regional model so they are reviewed there.
At the regional level.
Thank you.
Director Harris.
First of all thank you for the transparent and collaborative conversation we had last week where we brought this issue up.
You told us much the same thing last year, that these were iterative and that we're going to do better next year.
And because they only went live this morning, it sets us up as board members as being non, what's the word, diligent perhaps?
Because we're the ones that have to say, are we doing this right?
And ironically, A draft memo went out with you know the little balloons to the side that says it's okay we just have to do them we don't have to do them right.
I'm paraphrasing here.
And I find that attitude a little distressing and I'm so hopeful that these are going to be shining documents, comprehensive documents because there's very few places that folks can go for information to compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges and we can do just a whole lot better.
And I've sat on BLT teams where folks have said, We don't like the format, we'd rather redesign it and there's a certain amount of disdain for this process but it's one of the few statutory things that we have to do.
So I look forward to seeing your work product as early as possible.
So they were up yesterday afternoon and we actually have a longer review period this time for the board members.
So they aren't up for approval in two weeks as normal, they're not up until January 6th.
So there will be time to review, as I said I reviewed all of them myself, have got notes out to principals to revise them and working through the executive directors to make sure that is completed.
And the last piece and we talked about this again when you all were onboarding us and I appreciate that sort of collaboration.
Some of us would like to give principals more autonomy.
So it would seem to behoove them that it really would be a fabulous piece of work product.
And it would have things in there about grants and PTSA money and again serve as an educational tool and maybe even a bragging tool.
Thank you.
Director Burke.
I want to also put a note of concern out regarding the CSIPs that I think historically they have been something that just had to be done.
But they didn't have a lot of intrinsic value.
And when I think about improving the organization and I think about what are the habits that we need to create and improve, I see the CSIPs as a tool for transparency and a powerful driver for things at the building level.
People in the community have concerns that they come to the board.
But a lot of their concerns a lot of the challenges that they face are at the school level.
And if we can if we really truly want to embrace the community and help them shape our schools and help them drive excellence in our schools.
The CSIP is the vehicle to do that.
And I think capturing the funding sources the programs the community engagement is really really important to me.
So I don't believe that the time is as critical when we approve them.
But I think that it is critical how we communicate about them and how we continue to improve them as a tool.
And I just want to read two lines from WAC 180-16-220.
First of all that the approval process for CSIPs is determined by the district board of directors.
So if there's something about it that doesn't fit our model.
the state legislation gives us the power to change it.
So I think we should take a hard look at that and make sure that we've got a process in place that really serves the needs of our students and our buildings.
One of the points that is indicated here is that the annual building school approval includes recognizing nonacademic student learning and growth related but not limited to public speaking, leadership, interpersonal relationship skills, teamwork, self-confidence, and resiliency.
And I think we saw some of that this morning.
And then the other point is that one of the items included is parent, family, and community involvement as these factors relate to having a positive impact on student learning.
And I've seen some of the CSIPs that I've reviewed that have really robust community engagement and parent involvement and I've seen some that say yeah we created it, it included our it will be presented at our PTA meetings, done.
No specifics, no real truly engagement where the community can see that they've made a difference and they can feel like they're empowered.
Dr. Pinkham.
Thank you for your work that you're doing here.
One thing I'd like to see if we can do as far as with the CSIP moves forward.
Definitely been through just probably jobs that we have but we do have to do goal setting improvement plans with their own job but often times there's no really accountability built into it.
It's just saying this is what I plan to do.
I'd like to see if we can build in some accountability into these plans that when school says our plan is to do X that we have some way to make sure they put reasonable and you know effort in to do X and not just put it down as oh this is a plan that we have to do.
Any more questions comments?
Okay thank you.
Our next is annual software maintenance.
This item came to ops and the committee reviewed it and made a recommendation to move forward for full board approval.
Yeah Carmen Ram chief information officer and this is our annual maintenance for it's our SAP enterprise resource planning system which is the primary large application that we utilize in the district for all of our human resources, our accounting, our finance, our budgeting, Purchasing, payroll, contracting, all those applications and services.
In FY16 the system will process over a billion dollars in purchasing and with over 660 million dollars of that funding being personnel related expenses for payroll and reimbursements and things like that.
So this is the first year that the annual maintenance has surpassed $250,000 which is the requirement to come to the board for approval and the reason it's it has surpassed it this year is because a obviously there's between a two and a three percent inflation that that goes on to it but also we purchased additional licenses this year due to additional staff and different utilization of the product so.
Any board questions?
Comments?
Director Burke.
This is definitely something that we need.
It's pretty imperative and so I just want to be sure that when I look through the documents it looks like the renewal rate is 22% of the base price for the licenses and 42% of the base price for our service.
Is that correct?
Not exactly.
The annual maintenance is 22% of the price that we paid for it when we bought any of the licenses.
So there's a core license for the major product and then there's user licenses.
Those add up and every year it's 22% and that's pretty much an industry standard for all major software vendors is 22% seems to be the number now.
The 42% is not support even though on the list they call it support.
The 42% and I got to make sure I get the right name of the company.
is for a product from a company called Business Software Incorporated which is a partner of SAP and they provide our annual tax updates and all the new tax information.
So that 42% is not support As you and I may think about it, we're calling up and getting help over the phone or something like that.
It's the updates to the software that handled all of our tax accounting and everything.
So it would be similar to you and I going out and buying a new version of TurboTax for home.
We would have to pay the cost to get all the new tax laws and everything.
So that's why that one is higher.
It's a small amount of the overall product, but it is 42% instead of 22. And then sort of support on top of that we don't have an extended support service that we pay for for SAP at this time.
So within our maintenance and licensing costs which gives us the option, the right to use the product, gets us all of the updates and any modernization of the product and then it also gets us support to call in and ask questions and get their assistance during any upgrades or issues any problems that we may be having when we're doing an upgrade as long as it's non-customized code.
Thank you.
One last question.
Are you happy with this tool for the district?
Yes we are.
Yes it's used by a lot of the major school districts around the nation and we're looking forward to when BTA IV passes to be able to take this to an incredible level for the district.
I've been in airports so I know a lot of people use SAP.
We don't call it SAP or we get in trouble.
Dr. Peters.
Well I have a follow-up question from what Director Burke was asking and it's the same sort of question which is if we've been renewing it every year for 15 years I'm assuming we have a certain level of satisfaction with SAP is that correct?
Yes.
Have we ever put it out for an RFP for this to see if there's anything else out there?
Are we just pretty satisfied with this and feel that the price is right?
We have not put it out for rebid but to replace a system like this we'd be talking in the area of 30 to 50 million dollars would be you know a top-off-the-top estimate.
These are large and the disruption to the district so when you get a product like this which is a fortune 50 company which is nationally known you know is used across the nation and across the world you stick with it unless there absolutely is some reason why it's it's no longer working for you.
Okay thank you.
Any more questions, comments?
Thank you.
Our next one is resolution 2015 16-11 certifying unavailability of suitable unused or unutilized school facilities in contingent districts.
And this came to ops and the committee review and they made a recommendation to move it forward for full board approval.
Yes, Richard Best, I'm director of capital projects and K-12 planning for Seattle Public Schools.
Welcome to our new school board members tonight.
This resolution is to certify that we've reached out to our neighboring school districts and that they do not have space available in their facilities to house our unhoused students.
We reached out to four school districts, Highline School District, Shoreline School District, Tukwila, and Renton.
In conversations with OSPI we did discuss both Mercer Island and Bainbridge Island because they are contiguous districts as well.
There's just a body of water there.
OSPI indicated that they did not require letters from those two school districts.
We did have a conversation with OSPI.
We had originally had emails from these school districts.
OSPI requested that we provide them with letters.
We have since put those in your board package.
They were I believe uploaded last Friday from the four school districts that we did reach out to.
with representatives from those four school districts indicating that they have no space available.
This is required by OSPI as part of our study and survey.
Our study and survey approval is what allows us to receive state matching funds on our BEX projects and so This is a significant requirement and one of the last requirements for approval of our study and survey.
So your resolution at the next board meeting is required and then we'll be submitting that to OSPI and that should complete the study and survey effort.
So questions.
Director Harris.
You didn't mention Vashon school district and I see those kids at the ferry dock every morning.
And we didn't mention Vashon OSPI and you are correct.
And so do they have room or not?
I did not reach out to Vashon I would be assuming that because OSPI did not require that we reach out to Bainbridge Island or Mercer Island that we would not have to reach out to Vashon either.
We did not specifically discuss Vashon.
Any more comments?
Questions?
Thank you move on to the next one.
Thank you BEX IV award architecture and engineering services contract P1409 to Magnum architects incorporated for the Queen Anne elementary classroom and gymnasium addition project.
This came to ops and the committee reviewed it and they said to move it forward for board consideration.
So this is a BEX IV project.
Malum Architects was selected from a group of 16 architects who submitted written statements of qualifications.
We had a team of folks in the Capital Projects Office review the written statements of qualifications.
We shortlisted to three.
to interview for this project.
Malem was selected from the shortlist of three architectural firms.
They have done work previously at this site when we reopened both the old John Hay and then the wooden structure.
for Queen Anne Elementary School so they are very familiar with the existing building systems.
The fee amount for their services is $1,674,761 plus reimbursable expenses of $25,121.
This is for a project that was contemplated in the BEX IV capital levy for eight classrooms and a gymnasium addition at this school.
We will be exploring with Malem Architects how to put this on the site because this is a relatively small site.
We're very aware of trying to maximize site for playground and recess issues, physical education space, and so I'll be working with Malem to explore how to maximize this site for that use.
The project is to be under construction in 2018 and we hope to open this building in the fall of 2019. We do need relief on both Queen Anne and Magnolia for capacity so this is a very significant project for our office.
So I'll open it up to questions.
Any questions or comments?
Director Blanford.
This was recommended for consideration, did it not have complete financial information at that point?
Correct.
We were completing negotiations with Malum Architects at the time this came to the operations committee.
Director Blanford.
Thank you.
And I will note for the new school board members there's really two We look at both the Office of Fiscal Management and OSPI's guidelines for calculating architectural engineering fees.
The architectural engineering fees are generally within those guidelines.
We'll highlight those projects that are not within those guidelines.
Generally they have something very significant that those general guidelines would not address.
But this is within the OFM OSPI guidelines.
Director Harris.
My question and forgive me if it's not very articulate but when we are awarding construction contracts the questions that come back are what kind of apprenticeship programs do we have?
What kind of joint operating agreements do we have?
Are we hiring women in nontraditional roles?
Are we hiring folks of color and underrepresented folks?
Does that apply here to the architectural and engineering as well?
And second question, can we negotiate some internships for our terrific kids on this?
We do not have apprenticeship requirements for the architectural and engineering firms.
That's usually through union, trade labor unions.
most of these architectural firms do have summer interns not with maybe Seattle Public Schools students because not all of them are located in Seattle but most of them have summer interns because they recognize in the college programs that's what's feeding you know their firms and so they like to look for colleges to give them guidance on what students that they should utilize or offer internship programs to so that they have the ability to offer than potentially future employment.
I would say as a professional architect and engineers are very good at offering summer intern positions.
So I appreciate your question.
Can we throw that into the negotiating mix somehow?
in the future?
I'd want to talk with legal counsel to see, I know that there are requirements concerning MWBE that we can put in and so summer intern would be something that I'd want to discuss with legal counsel to make sure that we can do that in a fair manner.
Thank you.
Director Burke.
So this may be a newbie question, I'm curious do we have a supplier rating system and if so does Malum have a history of successful projects in the past that are on time on budget?
Malum has done a substantial amount of work for Seattle Public Schools.
They are implementing four of the BEX IV projects.
Two of them you're probably familiar with, Wilson Pacific, Thornton Creek, so that's, well actually that's three of the four schools there and then this would be the fourth school, Queen Anne Elementary because there's two schools at the Wilson Pacific site.
So, Cascadia and Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.
So what made them attractive to this qualifications review committee was that they had extensive experience working at Queen Anne Elementary School.
They were very knowledgeable of these two buildings that are on this site.
Both of these buildings are historic in nature.
One of them is approaching 100 years in age so we do not have great record documents from the initial construction.
and we have record documents of the work that they've done on this project so they're very knowledgeable at these schools and the team that will be working on it for Maylum is the team that previously had worked on these projects so our task by statute is to select the most qualified team and that really raised them above their competition at this school.
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.
The system level question, this was the newbie part, do we have a more objective supplier ranking or supplier historical database?
We definitely look at change orders that are implemented over the course of a project.
and have conversations with architectural and engineering firms about what expectations are going in.
Some projects, the historical renovation projects that are buildings that are very old, Director Burke, we don't have great record documents and so we do run into unforeseen conditions.
We open a wall, we believe it's constructed in this manner and we find out it's not constructed in the manner in which we believed it was constructed and that's not an architectural error that's just lack of institutional knowledge.
Right I understand that I guess this question doesn't relate as much to the architectural more to overall the construction remodeling work.
We do track that.
Perfect thank you.
Any other comments or questions from directors?
Director Pinkham.
Excuse me before if you may spend I actually I wanted to step back to the previous one because I did have a question.
But as far as the usability of other schools, if there's any space, the letter just says yes or no.
You ask them to provide data if they say yes, but if they say no, they don't have the space.
They don't have to provide data.
Is that common practice?
That's common practice.
And we did have conversations with all these school districts by telephone.
We received emails from them and then OSPI advised us that they wanted a letter not just an email.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
Okay let's move on to our last item.
BEX IV Olympic Hills Elementary School approval of GC slash CM negotiated total contract costs with Cornerstone.
This item also came to ops and the committee review and they made a recommendation to move it forward for full board approval.
Again, board policy 6220 requires your approval on projects greater than $250,000.
OSPI is requiring final approval on this amendment.
The school board in April of this year did approve a preliminary TCC, a total construction cost is what that acronym stands for, on a GCCM project.
That is a delivery model that is slightly different than the traditional design, bid, build delivery model.
That allows contractors to be selected through a qualification process similar but not exactly the same as architects and then the contractors will bid the work on behalf of Seattle Public Schools.
They will also self-perform some of the work in which they also compete or at times they are the sole bidder because other firms will not compete against them.
when they have substantial knowledge of a project.
Cornerstone General Contracting has been working with Seattle Public Schools since schematic design at Olympic Hills.
They have provided our design team with lots of input.
On the guidance of our construction manager, SOJ, we opted to go with the GCCM approach because initial preliminary geotechnical reports indicated that this site had a very high groundwater table.
groundwater can pose a significant problem when trying to build foundations for school facilities and so we concurred, we submitted this project to an alternative public review board for consideration of the GCCM approach.
They approved that approach and so we Subsequently, sought contractors, Cornerstone was selected from the criteria that we utilized.
We entered into a contract with them in 2014 at a TCC of $29,191,966.
in April of this year that was increased to a total construction cost of $31 million $891,966.
OSPI has asked that this board approve that amount again so that we are eligible for state funding revenue.
The state funding revenue that we will receive is approximately $1.7 million for Olympic Hills Elementary School.
And so the narrative in the background information was really the rationale as to why the initial budget increase from 2014 to 2015 in April the board did approve that increase and now OSPI just wants to finalize it because we've bid out all of the specification sections on this project and the contractors assured us that he can build this project for the $31,891,966.
So with your approval in January we will be submitting that document to OSPI and be able to give the contractor a full notice to proceed with the construction work for phase 2.
Director Burke.
I just have one quick question.
There is language in the bar about additional scope of work and one of the bullets is for GCCM early risk mitigation.
And so generally in my experience, risk mitigation is something you pay up front to save later.
And so are we paying up front and it costs us more, is there a way that it sort of goes against the principles of risk mitigation in my mind?
Well Rick that's a great question and there's lots of controversy in answering that.
Legal counsel and our BEX oversight committee would both tell you that this is a way to reduce risk for Seattle Public Schools.
Yes we may pay a little bit more up front.
But at the end of the day, when the project is complete, we believe we'll be paying less because we believe because the contractor has been on board all through the process, that as they enter into construction, they understand how the building is going to be built and will receive less.
construction change orders during that process, less delay claims.
You can look on the amendment and you'll see pre-construction services allowance.
This is on amendment number one to the agreement for $266,600.
That's an item that we would not be paying if we had implemented the traditional design bid build approach.
But again, it's where you look at those costs.
First cost, probably a little higher.
At the end of the day, we think we'll get a better quality product so that has long term operational implications.
We think we'll also pay less in construction change orders during the course of construction.
But an excellent question.
Thank you so much.
Dr. Harris?
Can you learn us up at some point between the traditional and general contractor construction manager pathways if you will and what the pluses and minuses are?
And does this particular pathway again use apprentices and minority?
All projects greater than $1 million we have an apprenticeship requirement of 15%.
We do track all of our BEX projects because they are all greater than $1 million to make sure that the contractors are achieving that.
We do work with the Department of Labor and Industries because they have some, you know, if you're an owner operator and you are not going to have apprenticeships because you're the owner of the business and you're also performing the work.
So you're not going to have apprentices.
We look for L&I to give us guidance as to whether the contractor has met the apprenticeship requirements on a project.
So you'll see but most projects that are being built at this time for Seattle Public Schools are meeting the apprenticeship requirements.
But perhaps I'm not tracking and we can do this offline the general contractor construction manager pathway if it's over a million dollars has the apprenticeship requirements.
Correct it has the apprenticeship requirements.
And do we evaluate and look at.
Again women in non-traditional careers and representation of folks.
MWBE requirements?
Yes.
Thank you.
We don't evaluate those at this time.
Is it something to explore?
Pardon me?
Is it something we should be exploring?
it would potentially have the impact of having costs go up on our projects and it's something that we could definitely have conversations with legal counsel to look at MWBE requirements on our projects.
We don't at this time have MWBE requirements.
That is not to say in the construction industry that we have lots of MWBE personnel working on our projects and owning the companies that are performing the work on our projects.
So I feel like we do have very good representation.
But specific requirements no.
As related to a percentage you know 30% 15% no we don't have those requirements.
Thank you.
Any more comments questions?
Director Pinkham.
You had mentioned in the initial review that high groundwater was part of it so what was the increased cost due to now high groundwater?
I'm going to have to look to two folks who are more familiar with this project than I, Brad or Lucy.
Can you address that question?
Lisa Morello senior project manager.
The budget transfer that we did on April 1 we listed if you go back to that board action listed a number of impacts but I believe for that 3.3 million dollar increase, what we added was for street improvements, sidewalk improvements, the GCCM methodology, and also sustainability because we added some scope for geotechnical wells at the site for more energy efficiency in our mechanical systems.
So even though we had impacts, of up to $8 million we only came to the board for $3.3 million.
So let me follow up with your question when we come to approval and I'll get you an exact number for answering the question as to how much did the high groundwater table add to this project and costs.
I'll get you that information.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Any more comments?
It's 828. That is the end of our board meeting.
Move to adjourn.
Meeting adjourned.