Okay.
I'm going to go ahead and get started as people are getting settled in.
Good afternoon, everyone.
The board meeting will be called to order in just a moment.
And SPS TV will begin broadcasting.
This is President Rankin.
I am now calling to order the December 11th 2024 board special meeting to order at 434 p.m.
This meeting is being recorded.
We would like to acknowledge that we are on ancestral lands and traditional territories of the Puget Sound Coast Salish people.
And for the record I will call roll.
Director Bragg.
Here.
Director Briggs.
Here.
Present.
Is that OK?
Yeah.
Director Clark.
Present.
All right.
Director Hersey.
Yep.
Director Ilyas.
Present.
Director Mizrahi.
He kind of said something.
Oh I think we heard you enough Joe to know that you're here.
But when we get to it if you want to be able to contribute more we might have to think about what's happening with your sound.
Vice President Sarju.
Present.
Director Topp.
Here.
See if you have a spot for Director Youn.
Oh, she's online.
Awesome.
And this is President Rankin.
All right.
The objective for this evening's work session is to finalize language for the drafts of the 2025-2030 goals and guardrails and nothing else.
Coming out of tonight's discussion and proposals, we will finalize language.
I will draft that and include it in a bar for introduction at our board meeting next week.
Then we'll take that back out to our community to confirm that we've interpreted community priorities on vision and values.
in a way that feels right and makes sense before we take action on January 22nd to approve the final versions that will then be our policy for the next strategic plan.
So we're going to begin with the goals because we have seen and discussed these recommendations and had a decent amount of time with the goals.
I'm hoping that we can get, let's aim for half an hour.
I'm going to give us an hour if we need it, but I feel like we've narrowed in pretty well and we just need to make some decisions.
Then we'll spend the rest of the time on guardrails with a little bit more discussion because we haven't had as much opportunity together to talk about pros and cons and wording and stuff.
BUT WE DO STILL WANT TO END THE MEETING WITH FINAL DRAFTS FOR GOALS AND GUARD RAILS.
WE WILL START WITH A BRIEF PRESENTATION.
FRED PODESTA IS ACTING SUPERINTENDENT THIS EVENING.
SUPERINTENDENT JONES IS OUT.
And so I've asked staff to present briefly on kind of recap on the recommendations that we've seen on the top line goals and guardrails and then available to answer technical questions.
But we're at the point in the process where it's the board's responsibility to finalize this language based on what we think we heard from the community and taking into consideration technical expertise from staff.
But also this is our main main representation of how we represent to the district the priorities of our community for the strategic plan.
So that needs to come from us not from staff.
So questions that we do have should focus on supporting us getting to a decision point on the top line drafts and goals goals and guardrails.
Don't worry about the interims and it's possible that the superintendent and staff will need to change them based on what we decide finally for this top line.
So we've requested that the superintendent and staff make recommendations based on their expertise.
Doesn't mean we have to accept the recommendations if we don't agree that they reflect the priorities that we heard from our community.
So these recommendations were based on community engagement, available resources expertise what they interpret from what they've heard from the board.
Our job is to now determine and decide finally which ones and what we want to move forward with to honor our community's vision and values in the most impactful way.
We are also joined by Alicia and Carol.
um governance coaches to um support the conversation if we need to although their role i believe primarily is as as listening and maybe providing us feedback later but they're there if we need to phone a friend um hi everyone thanks for being here um okay so anybody have any questions about that that's so far All right.
So for goals, we have two main things we need to answer.
We've got a decision to make between two goals versus three.
And then of the recommended language that's in here for those two versus three, what language do we want to adopt?
So I will pass it over to staff or to Acting Superintendent Podesta to present those top line recommendations.
A couple remarks on Dr. Jones behalf he wanted me to express his appreciation and gratitude to the board for all the work you did to gather this input from the community and your leadership and making it actionable through the goals and guardrails.
I think we've all heard Dr. Jones say many times the importance of clarity and that clarity is kindness and He wanted to emphasize that he and the staff are crystal clear that this is the board's work at this point, that we're here to answer technical questions and that you might have about recommendations from staff, but you've got the staff recommendations, you've got experts here if you want to drill into any of those.
but that we appreciate at this point.
This is in your hands and whatever decisions are made, the team will do their best to provide the information downstream that you need to support those.
So with that, I will turn it over to Dr. Strotsky.
Good evening, directors.
Mike Strausky, assistant superintendent of academics.
So myself and our team are here to do just a brief summary of where we are based on what we've heard from the school board, based on what you've heard from community.
So on behalf of the superintendent, he again, as Chief Podesta said, wants to express his deep appreciation for the leadership and vision that you've provided to get us to this point.
We believe what we're presenting to you best represents what you've heard out in community.
And if we could go to the next slide, please.
So throughout the process, you as the board and the superintendent have grounded what you have heard in the community in the following areas.
A strong start and a strong finish.
Academic preparation in core subjects so that our students are experiencing educational equity and high quality instruction.
and that they're becoming independent critical thinkers and lifelong learners in service of them being life ready.
So throughout this, what we're being consistent with is that we want our students to be academically prepared in core subjects to succeed in education for their future careers.
Also that they're meeting high academic standards in core subject areas, specifically in reading, writing, and math, and also science, social studies, foreign language, technology, and the arts.
And connected to them being independent thinkers, we want our students to be lifelong learners who can consider multiple perspectives in problem solving and are adaptable and great citizens in our communities.
So when we talk about equity in Seattle Public Schools, how we're defining it clearly is it's high quality instruction with high expectations and effective pedagogy that has engaging curriculum and differentiation to support individual student learning needs.
It also has equity in our system should be measured by academic performance including standardized test with an emphasis on closing gaps between groups.
This presentation and all of its associated cascading strategies are grounded in the vision that our north star is equity in student performance and student learning.
So with that being said, we'd like to move to the next slide, which is our guiding principles and recommendations.
So the recommendation that Superintendent Jones is offering to the board for discussion and consideration are based on the following guiding principles.
First, we need to put students on a trajectory towards life ready by focusing on key grade levels and on particular subjects that indicate students are on a trajectory to be life ready.
Second, positively influence adult behaviors in our system to move student outcomes across the system.
And so what you'll see what we've heard clearly is the focus on adults to help and support and move our students.
And third guide resource and strategy allocation so that we are investing in high leverage strategies that will have the greatest impact on student outcomes.
So as we know, the biggest influence in school for student performance is the quality of teaching.
The second biggest influencer of in-school academic performance is our principals and our school leaders.
So our strategies must impact our school leaders and our teachers, our instructional staff who are directly supporting our students.
And we know that resources matter, the quality of the curriculum matters, and the professional development and learning of our staff equally matters in supporting our students.
So the recommendations from Dr. Jones is the following.
With those principles in mind, he is recommending three goals using the following metrics.
An early learning literacy reading at third grade as the top line goal.
A K-8 mathematics goal with seventh grade mathematics as the top line metric.
And third and finally, a life ready goal with diploma plus being a pathway towards completion as a top line goal.
The community's vision is for our students to graduate prepared to enroll in college or university, or to enter the workforce, or to pursue a vocational training program.
Diploma Plus is about students ensuring their preparedness for post-secondary opportunities.
So as President Rankin mentioned, the interims will be discussed at a later time and not being proposed to tonight.
Ultimately, we are seeking to create a predictive system of accountability milestones across grade levels that support our students and support our staff as well.
So with that being said, the main measurements that we're using are going to be focusing on Smarter Balanced, so SBA, and then measures of academic progress, so MAP.
And with that, I'll hand it over to Dr. Eric Anderson, who will talk about the target setting.
Thank you, Mike.
Good afternoon.
Eric Anderson, Director of Research and Evaluation.
So before we walk you through the specific recommendations, I know you already have some familiarity with them, so we'll try to be efficient.
We wanted to just briefly outline our general approach to developing measurable goals and performance targets.
So consistent with what we've heard from you, we're proposing universal goals for all students in the applicable grades.
For example, all third graders or all second graders.
It's important to note that we would always disaggregate the results in our board monitoring reports by rate of ethnicity or for key target groups such as students from low income families or students with IEPs for example.
So in the slides ahead, what you'll see is that the proposed performance targets aim for a 10 percentage point increase over five years, or an average two point increase each year from 2025 through 2030. And again, these goals are for an entire grade level.
So we believe these targets are realistic, but only achievable if adult behaviors change system-wide to ensure all students in all schools receive the instruction and support they need to succeed.
One thing to note, we are currently in our baseline year.
Next year will be year one.
So we've used an assumed 2025 baseline to set these targets.
And those were extrapolated based on average gains over the last three years.
We, of course, plan to revisit this baseline after the spring 2025 results are available.
FINALLY AND REALLY IMPORTANTLY, WHILE THE GOALS MAY BE UNIVERSAL, WE EXPECT OUR INTERIM GOALS WILL BE TARGETED FOR SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUPS BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND INITIAL ANALYSIS THAT WILL INFORM THE TARGETED STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS WHO NEED THE MOST GROWTH.
THANK YOU.
SO AS WE MOVE TO THE FIRST GOAL, I WANT TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO EARLY LITERACY.
SO THE STRONG START.
So for us, the Smarter Balanced Assessment, the SBA, is administered the first time in third grade and is the most reliable measurement of student success across the full continuum of grade literacy skills, including reading, writing, speaking, and listening.
So our recommendation is for a top line goal for literacy at third grade, which marks the culmination of foundational skills and instruction per state standards.
This will help ensure students have a strong start.
So the top line goal on the next slide, consistent with what Dr. Anderson said, you'll see that the percentage of students in third grade scoring proficient or above in ELA on the Smarter Balanced will increase from 64.4% in June 2025 to 74.4% in June 2030. So as we look forward to aligning our resources and our strategies to drive changes in adult behavior, We will be seeking to create a coherent and comprehensive literacy strategy across primary grades from pre-kindergarten, so pre-K, through third grade.
That strategy will rely on increasing teacher and leader technical and pedagogical knowledge of the science of reading, which we have spoken about in multiple spaces with the board and the public.
So this will help ensure that we're engaging our students in diverse and challenging texts in front of our students, that we're getting curriculum that has curriculum embedded assessments, and that we're able to monitor our student progress early and often in making adjustments to our instruction based on what our students are needing.
So Dr. Jones' recommendation in this area is the following.
First, High quality instruction reinforces high quality mathematics, excuse me, high quality literacy instruction reinforces high quality mathematics instruction.
When we look at our data, we can see a percentage of students who are proficient in literacy tracks closely with the percentage of students who are proficient in mathematics.
But mathematics has a steeper drop off in later elementary school and middle school.
Second using second grade as our top line goal rather than third grade could be misleading based on what we heard Dr. Hart share with us in October as students transition from learning to read to reading to learn.
Important gaps in student learning emerge in third grade and have an impact on future learning success.
Foundational skills taught through second grade such as fluency.
are necessary but not sufficient to ensure future success as students transition again from learning to read to reading to learn.
Cashel.
Hi, good evening.
Michelle toner, executive director of curriculum assessment and instruction.
Uh, and I'll talk a little bit more about this proposed goal.
We recognize that this is similar to our current goal in third grade.
While we have not met our current targets, we believe that there is significant merit in the goal and that, uh, and the assessment tools that are already in place.
We've seen some promising gains, but we also recognize that we need to monitor our efforts earlier.
which the interim goals could do, and shift strategy and adult behavior in some areas in order to significantly accelerate student progress.
Let's see.
If we can go to the next slide, I think.
Yep, this one.
So this is a representation of what you heard Dr. Anderson talking about, sort of charting out the 2% gain across the next several years.
So in support of the community's vision and our shared interest in starting strong and monitoring progress early, we recommend that the early learning goal, starting strong, focus on early literacy to have a top line goal of third grade ELA supported by interim metrics to be developed later.
In this image, you can see the measured realistic and ambitious 10 percentage point gain set from 2025 in the out years.
So remember that Dr. Hart talked with you and shared a hallmark image of how we describe the science of reading with that Scarborough's Rope in October.
And he talked to you about the importance of a P3 strategy, including opportunities for children to develop background knowledge and vocabulary development.
And that really drove us to thinking about the third grade top line measure of the SBA because that's the time when students get to demonstrate and synthesize their thinking, read something, and write about it, which are the skills for that developmental stage that really do predict future academic success.
So moving on to the next goal is middle school mathematics and to put forward for consideration.
So the superintendent's second recommendation is a middle school mathematics goal focusing on seventh grade math proficiency while including a broader set of interims that capture later elementary and middle school experience.
So what Dr. Jones wanted to make clear was that Although the school board did not ask for this specific goal in the draft, ongoing student needs and assessments continue to surface and create critical challenges in middle school math, which directly impacts our students' readiness for life-ready coursework and requires critical thinking in high school.
Rates for meeting standard in math in the SBA decline in grades six through 12, indicating that middle school is a key juncture and important to focus on for math.
So for us moving forward, Dr. Perkins will briefly discuss the math goal.
Thank you, Dr. Strausky.
Caleb Perkins, Executive Director of College and Career Readiness.
And as we transition to the next slide, you can see, as Dr. Strausky shared, it is critical that we have a strong continuation in middle school grades.
That is why this is our recommendation.
A critical bridge between third grade literacy and the life ready goal that we want all of our students to be able to access.
So the specific targeting piece, I think we're moving on to the next slide.
The specific top line measure is the percentage of students in seventh grade scoring proficient or above in math on the Smarter Balanced Assessment.
And we'll get into more of the percentages in just a moment.
But I want to underscore and echo some of the comments that Executive Director Toner mentioned.
This work at the middle school grades is critical to ensure that we're driving adult behaviors across our system from elementary to middle to high.
And as we'll talk about with the Life Ready Goal, the only way we can ensure that students are not only knowing what they want to do after they graduate, but ready for it, is to ensure they have a strong foundation in particular areas including math and the middle school grades, a big predictor of success.
As Executive Director Toner also alluded to, we are seeing promising signs.
In fact, we'll be talking about more with this board on December 18th around some of the progress we're seeing in student achievement in math.
And yet another reason why we're advocating recommending this additional goal.
So we can move to the next slide.
Once again, echoing Executive Director Toner for the third time, these are targets that are measured, realistic, and ambitious, trying to learn from our past round of strategic plan.
And so you can see that we're aiming for also a 2% growth each year for a 10% gain overall.
And as Dr. Anderson also shared, this would also be broken down in the interims by subgroups to ensure that we're helping support all students.
And with that, I'll turn it back to Dr. Starosky.
So the third and final goal is the Life Ready goal.
And as Dr. Jones has previously mentioned and referenced is that the Life Ready goal is to push ourselves a little bit in our thinking about what we've traditionally done when it comes to Life Ready by proposing that we create what we are calling a diploma plus pathway for students.
As Dr. Jones referenced, Diploma Plus is about ensuring preparedness for post-secondary opportunities based on each student's individual needs and also their individual interests and what they are planning for during high school for post-high school.
State legislation passed in 2019 expanded the ways in which Washington students can prepare for a meaningful first step after high school.
Unfortunately, meeting the new state requirements does not ensure students graduate ready to take courses in college or university without the need for remediation.
So for us, compounding that problem is the fact that many students have required emergency waivers to graduate from high school, particularly in the aftermath of the pandemic.
So for the class of 2023, approximately 42% of African-American male and 35% of students of color furthest from educational justice required one or more credit pathway waivers to graduate.
And so our Diploma Plus is directly connected to our college and career readiness goals and emphasis.
And so we need to do more to support our students and prepare our students.
So this goal sits right in the middle for the Life Ready Goal proposal.
We want our students to be ready for higher wages and professions in STEM, so science, technology, engineering, and math.
uh...
fields and our growth in a city like seattle this should be our priority and is our priority so that our students can be seattle ready by twenty thirty washington stem uh...
estimates that nearly ninety percent of high school and high demand uh...
family sustaining wage jobs in king county will require a post-secondary uh...
degree or credential uh...
and so with that uh...
i'll pass it back over to Dr. Perkins to show more light to our final goal here.
Thank you, Dr. Strassky.
So the top line measure, building off of Dr. Strassky's comments, would be the percentage of students in each cohort who graduate and successfully complete a personalized life ready diploma plus pathway aligned to their high school and beyond plan.
And this speaks to what we heard from our last conversation, I think it was President Rankin in particular, who said the community clearly said they want students to know where they want to go, what they want to do, and then have the skills and the ability to do it.
And so we're trying to design this goal to help meet the spirit of that request.
We believe we can design pathways that go beyond the basic graduation requirements, as Dr. Strosky alluded to, that we believe that to be truly ready, we need to set a higher bar than merely on-time graduation.
So one thing just to note on that, as you look at the bottom of this screen, you'll see the initial proposed Diploma Plus pathways.
Really, basically, there would be a pathway in STEM, science, technology, engineering, and math, one in humanities, arts, and social sciences, one in career and technical education, and one in dual language, including the seal of biliteracy.
So the idea is that students would not only have ample time to explore and learn a variety of things through their core graduation requirements, but they would go a step beyond to truly ensure that they're ready for a variety of pathways.
That said, we do understand that the board has weighed in on this and has some thoughts on exactly how to explore this.
We do believe that we will need additional time with you all to determine what exactly these pathways would be.
And we look forward to getting that input and community input on exactly what the pathways that we want to commit to are.
With that, I'll go to one more slide.
and just share that we have done some initial analysis.
It's a little hard to see the gray bars there on the left, but bottom line, just to kind of give an initial sense, just thank you to Dr. Anderson.
Based on a preliminary analysis of the class of 2023, 59% of all students would have graduated without waivers and successfully completed one of these Diploma Plus pathways, just to give you a sense of where we'd be starting from.
Again, we have a lot more work to do on that front to really make sure that aligns well with the community input on Life Ready Goal.
With that, I'll turn it back to Dr. Strosky.
Thank you.
So in wrapping up here, if we are to move forward, we're proposing three goals for your consideration.
And Dr. Jones wanted to make public and rest assured that if we were to go to two goals that the staff would be in support of the third grade literacy goal and the life ready goal.
But we're here to answer any and all questions that you may have.
But Dr. Jones wanted to reemphasize that if we opt for two goals, we'll of course continue to do focused work on mathematics in elementary and middle and high school.
That's never gonna go away for our priority.
But we can share that the resources that we all know that we're competing for are very limited and understand that you have strong considerations that you need to make.
And so with that, I'll turn it back over to President Rankin for any questions and discussion.
Thank you very much.
Okay, excuse me.
First, just for those of you directors online, please use the hand raise function as you do.
And for those of us in the room, we're going to do this.
If you have a question or comment, just so I can keep track of everybody and make sure that everyone has the opportunity to speak who wants to before we move to any second round or any other topic.
So the...
FIRST THING IS IF ANYBODY HAS ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR OTHER ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT WE SAW FROM STAFF THAT WE NEED ANSWERED BEFORE WE GET INTO DECISION MAKING.
DIRECTOR HERSEY, GO AHEAD.
All right.
So I do want to just ask to staff, given that y'all are overseeing the day-to-day, how has it been managing three goals?
Because I am really trying to drill down and be thoughtful about the fact that, like, I want to do fewer things really well as opposed to having a third goal that, yeah, so I'm going to end my question there.
So it would be helpful to hear from y'all's perspective, how has managing three goals been for the system over the past few years?
I can start on that.
So in my role in the last year and a half, it's a little difficult to manage because as we're reporting back out, we're trying to get the other reports back.
And so there's a lot of work of managing just reporting back out.
But I can say, though, a positive of doing that is that we're seeing the opportunities for alignment about the behaviors, say adult behaviors, that we could be doing in aligning.
So I think through some of the struggle, of reporting out continuously.
It requires us to be a little bit more intentional about what it is that we can truly do, but it's a struggle at times.
Okay.
The next question that I have is do you think that the system, well, between, oh, can I ask a second question?
Okay.
Between the math goal and the literacy goal, which one do you think the system has had an easier time adjusting to and adopting?
Like which one is closer to being implemented with fidelity?
That's a good question.
Go ahead.
Take your time.
I'll say what I think about this one and others may jump in.
So I think what we've seen with the success and the challenges for doing third grade reading has really informed how we've created and structured the math goal.
And so the lessons learned about how to implement a system wide And so I think the lessons learned from third grade reading, just structurally, has helped us set things up for success on the front end for implementation for the math goal.
Right.
And so I'd say those things are so connected.
And it also informs our college and career readiness goal.
And then also whatever is chosen tonight and into the future, we can implement the lessons that we've already learned to be able to build off some of the successes, but also equally the struggles.
I'm good for right now.
Okay, great, so thank you very much to staff.
They will stay at the tables should questions arise, but we want to move now to focusing mainly on the board making decisions about the goals that we're going to set.
So, Director Briggs, why don't you go ahead and just put your thing down so I can remember as we go around to make sure I get to everybody.
Okay.
So I'm just going to whip through all my thoughts in the interest of we're 20 minutes away from being at the hour deadline.
I feel pretty strongly that we need two goals instead of three.
I just feel like, as Brandon said, let's do fewer things well.
So I just want to put in a plug for that's my strong opinion here.
Regarding the third goal, or the second goal, rather, the college and career readiness, I guess, and maybe this is a staff question, I'm struggling with how this Diploma Plus thing is different from what's already been codified by the state in the Future Ready Initiative and the updated graduation requirements, and I'm wondering why instead we wouldn't, PUT MORE OF AN INVESTMENT TOWARDS SCHOOL COUNSELORS BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE AUDIT.
I KNOW THAT WASN'T PRESENTED TO THE FULL BOARD, BUT EVERYBODY HAD ACCESS TO IT.
AND IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO FOCUS.
SURE.
YEAH, SO THERE WAS A AN AUDIT DONE ON THE SCHOOL, BASICALLY SCHOOL COUNSELOR FUNCTION AND HOW MUCH WE ARE UNDERUTILIZING SCHOOL COUNSELORS FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR KIDS, HELPING KIDS BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY.
and that a lot of school counselor, there's like a conflation happening between what the actual role of a school counselor is versus like a mental health counselor or a social worker.
And if we had the appropriate supports in buildings so school counselors could perform their actual duty, which is to help kids graduate and know what's next, that that would have way more of an impact on our outcomes.
And so I would like to see us focus on that AS OPPOSED TO DIPLOMA PLUS, WHICH FEELS VERY REDUNDANT WITH FUTURE READY TO ME.
THERE COULD BE SOMETHING I'M MISSING HERE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW.
THOSE ARE MY FEELINGS.
DIRECTOR ILLIAS.
From a student's perspective, the Life Ready Diploma Plus pathway isn't really necessary if we were to focus on adequately supporting students and guiding them through what they want to do and ensuring their success by regular check-ins and making sure they know what they want to do post high school and are on track for setting them up for graduation and pursuing a career they want.
Director Bragg.
Sophia proceeds to say a much clearer version of basically what I was going to say, very similar, because also Director Briggs brings up a lot of that.
From a student perspective, Diploma Plus once again comes into just like adding on to stuff we already should be working on.
And you brought up counselors before I was actually going to.
A lot of it is less about, like, oh, what more can we do for this?
A lot of students don't even know how they graduate.
They don't know what the requirements are.
They don't need more they should be told they're doing.
It's that they need to know how they get there, and they need support within their schools.
I need to be able to say that I've met with my counselor more than two times about my readiness plan.
A lot of, like, we talk about pathway learning a lot.
Most students don't know what pathway they're on.
If I ask anybody at my schools, hey, do you know what the CTE pathway is?
They have no idea what I'm saying.
I'm talking nonsense to them.
So adding on to life readiness, a strong finish, to me, does not look like diploma plus.
It looks like students knowing how they finish and getting the support within their schools from a lot of the other stuff.
You brought up the audit before I could.
But yeah, a lot of that.
So I just don't know the use of diploma plus.
I don't understand it fully.
Director Elias?
Oh no, you already went, sorry.
Yeah, Director Hersey.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so not to pile onto the Diploma Plus thing.
I actually have a, it sounds like there are kind of like two components here from when we were talking about this goal the first time.
And I really want to dovetail with what Director Bragg said The fact that it almost feels like there is the very real need for a strong finish, as well as a solid start.
So when we were brainstorming this idea, there was a component of, or at least the essence of it was around, all right, when you leave Seattle Public Schools, do you have a resource a document a play a personal playbook or at least an idea or a road map for what comes next for you right so that's one piece then the other piece that i think is really poignant is the fact that like we can't even do that because there it seems like there are a bunch of students um for a variety of reasons who are struggling to even figure out like i'm not worried about what the start looks like after high school i'm trying to finish high school right so those almost feel to me separate and so what i guess i would ask back to the students is what do you feel as though and i know it's kind of like a chicken and an egg kind of situation but from y'all's vantage point, what do you think is impacting students more?
Because we have data that suggests that our graduation rates are good.
Kids might not necessarily know how they're getting there, but a lot are getting there objectively, right?
That doesn't mean that like, you know, I know that there is a whole system of pushing kids along and like just on a track, but do you think from y'all's perspective, it would be more helpful to have supports with finishing as opposed to supports or like from what y'all have heard from your peers, supports in determining what's next, whether it be college, career, starting your own business potentially.
I would love to hear y'all riff a little bit about that.
Yeah, go ahead.
So, I mean to start, yeah.
A lot of it is the fact that, pushing along, a lot of students are, at least I know within my feeling is a lot of students tend to be told there's one pathway and it's college.
So a lot of times what I think, and I think Sophia would agree with this, a lot of times you're kind of told, like, hey, you want to go somewhere in life, you've got to go to college.
It's a Seattle culture thing, and I know that.
And with, like, Seattle ready, like what our city expects out of people does tend to be those more STEM focused, those more of that.
But a lot of students within our schools are kind of pushed towards one pathway, and they're pushed through school and not told about other options.
a lot of options within schools that are meant to be presented, like you're meant to be presented with all your options for post-graduation, and you're supposed to make that plan, you're kind of told your only way for that plan tends to be one or the other thing, and a lot of them are looked down upon.
I feel like a lot of students don't know where they're going after high school, so they'll pick the option that is most widely and variety told to go to, Which is college, but this whole night of discussion.
But they'll pick one thing that they're just going to with no preparation.
So it does feel like that pathway, that having something that shows you, okay, a counselor walked me through how all of these pathways can get there.
I feel like this one is the best for me.
Because we don't have that, that's the more important part.
Is the...
you're walked through where you can go after high school.
Because a lot of students, they'll push through.
They'll get through high school, and they finish it, but they have no idea what they're doing after.
So they'll pick an option that will Maybe they'll go along with it for a year.
Maybe they'll feel okay with that, but they don't know where they're going.
And a lot of students are continually cycling through.
They're pushing through high school with no plan for the after.
So they even also fall off where they get really stressed at the end of high school.
You're not doing as well.
You're not finishing well because you don't know where you're going after.
answer that too.
I really like what you said about a solid start.
I definitely feel like if a lot of students were given some time in the beginning of high school to sit down and create a plan of what they want to pursue and what they want to do that will give them motivation motivation drive.
They actually have something they're working towards other than a diploma and also giving them multiple different pathways other than college and being like, you have to go to college.
No, there's all these different ways you can do what you want to do, do it if you want.
And that would just help students go through high school and actually give them some idea of what they want to do and in the end make them successful.
I AM HEARING AND ALSO SUPPORT TWO GOALS AS OPPOSED TO THREE.
I THINK WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS TO INFLUENCE CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM THAT CENTERS ON STUDENT OUTCOMES.
Why would we keep the same three things?
That just feels like let's just keep doing what we're doing, which I know we haven't had.
It takes five to six years for this kind of systemic change to happen.
So I don't expect that in two years we should have seen a huge leap in progress.
But my concern is more about a mindset shift.
And also about what we heard from our community, which to me was so clearly getting kids the support and intervention they need as soon as possible.
Because once you get past second grade, I mean, I hear from parents and students that basically literacy skills are not even taught after second grade.
So if you didn't get them by second grade, too bad.
Like, good luck to you.
And I do not fault any teacher or school for that.
I fault this building and all of us.
Well, it's not fault, but the responsibility for shifting that is actually on us here to say everybody out in buildings is working their butts off trying to meet the needs of students without the structural support and capacity building that they're really desperately asking for.
And what we heard from community members was very reflective of that, is knowing that, you know, by the time a parent, you know, just child development and everything, by the time a parent realizes, oh my gosh, I should really be concerned about my kid's reading, it's kind of too late.
We need staff and teachers to have the time and ability to say, hey, I'm noticing that this child looks like they could be at risk of having dyslexia or some other need that needs to be addressed because, and I say this as a parent too of kids with disabilities, one of my kids had a significant language issue when he was really little and I would have, we would have noticed eventually, but having a professional go, huh, the development of these different sounds is not, he was an outlier.
With that early recognition and support, we were able to get him what he needed to be able to go on accessing education that everyone else was accessing.
So I feel like we heard really clearly from community how important that early and equitable support is.
We have as a systemic thing, if you learn to read, great, and if you don't, well, that's a bummer for you.
And we really need to actually shift so that the kids who are flagged through DIBELS or whatever as needing more intervention actually get them and that those supports and that capacity in the buildings is driven by THIS BUILDING AND BRINGING THAT OUT TO PEOPLE.
THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY NEED.
AND SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO FOCUS ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, SETTING UP KIDS EARLY TO BE SUCCESSFUL WHATEVER HAPPENS NEXT WHEN THEY'RE LITTLE.
AND THEN OUR COMMUNITY, TOO, I THINK WAS REALLY STRONG ABOUT THE STRONG FINISH PART.
Yes, we want on-time graduation, but more than that, we want kids to feel like they graduate with a future of their choosing, that they're not being tracked or forced into something, but that they know.
And I also, I have a 10th grader right now.
He has never heard of the High School and Beyond Plan.
He has never been talked to about pathways.
I have, I, the president of the school board, have no idea if he's enrolled in the right classes to meet graduation requirements.
No idea.
Yeah.
And so we got to get just kind of those structures and support out in the buildings rather than creating a new thing that takes a lot of time and energy here and doesn't actually get to students.
Director Clark, and then I'll go to you, Director Mizrahi.
Thank you.
So I think I generally agree with my colleagues around, you know, working smarter and focusing on two goals and really trying to do them well.
That being said, I have a concern that if we let go of the math goal, that it potentially could impact our overall, like, graduation, life, career, beyond high school readiness goal.
I'm just thinking back to the assessment results that we got back from the Council for Great City Schools and the sixth grade math scores in particular for our students for this from Opportunity and Black Boys.
And so I guess, one, I just wanted to state that.
Two, I'm wondering, and this is my first time doing this, so forgive me if there's a way that we can have two like goals focused on like one on math one on literacy and have like structurally have like an interim goal or interim goals around um kind of the high school and beyond um so i guess that's a comment and a question thank you uh director masrahi thanks sarah
Yeah, I turned off my camera.
I hope folks can hear me okay.
Is that okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Wonderful.
Okay, so a couple of quick thoughts.
I also support two goals.
Would love to hear other discussion from the board directors around the second grade versus third grade question.
On the diploma plus, I think everyone's making very salient points about not doubling up on person defending diploma plus because I have my own questions about it.
But the one defense I will say is that one thing we also heard a lot about is a lot of the programmatic things within the district, like dual language, like STEM.
And this is really the only place that that exists in a goal.
So if we were to move away from diploma plus to a different graduation metric, I'd want to understand how those factors could fit into interim goals or guardrails.
So generally supportive of maybe doing something that, like not creating a new thing and sticking with something that already exists, but want to make sure that we're not leaving out the feedback we heard from the community on some of these beloved programs.
All right.
In the spirit of moving forward, I feel like I'm hearing consensus around two versus three.
Yeah.
Okay.
So let's now talk about early literacy and our strong start, strong finish, if everybody is ready to move to that part of the discussion.
Okay, so now what we need to consider is, well, third grade versus second grade and the wording here, and then the last one.
So, Director Sarju.
Thank you.
So when I think, well, first of all, for people who are listening and may not be able to have the luxury of seeing, I'm gonna do a math problem for the high school students.
I moved to this district in December of 1985. How many years have I lived here?
Go ahead.
39.
Yeah, that's close.
That's close.
Almost 40. And that's not performative.
It is to say that having lived here that long and not see change is pretty disheartening.
I have a 34, a 32, and a 30-year-old.
And I'm just shocked that we're still here.
And so to support what everyone else has said the strong start strong finish two goals.
I think we need to prove that we can actually change the trajectory before we start adding things on because we're continuing to fail the same kids over and over again and we just keep refining our rhetoric.
to make it sound good.
And if you're hearing some frustration and sarcasm, not so much sarcasm but frustration, I'm done with the performative.
We need to get to work.
We need to see the numbers change.
That said, by the time kids get to third grade, we are in intervention mode.
And I do not think our strategy should be intervention.
It should be promotion and prevention.
And then intervention is the last thing, the last stop on the train.
And so if we're waiting until third grade for a lot of kids, specifically black boys, we're in intervention mode.
We've completely ignored promotion and prevention.
And now we're trying to make up That is not logical.
And so my thinking is we need to be tracking this for second grade.
And I don't know how we word it.
I'm not trying to make that up at this point.
But I can say from personal experience, and I'm gonna tell a very quick story, because this is poignant.
My oldest child had a third grade teacher who requested to have all the black boys in his class.
This child is 34. Y'all can do the math on that.
third grade eight or nine.
And the reason why this teacher requested to have all the black boys in his class is because he had watched year after year after year, second grade black boys entering third grade, leaving third grade, not on target.
Every single one of those black boys was reading above grade level by the time they finished third grade.
That is a targeted strategy.
I'm going to tell you, it pissed a whole bunch of people off because people thought, well, that means we don't get any black kids in our class.
I'm like, my kids are not a pawn in your chessboard.
I'm trying to get my kids ready.
We're trying to get these black boys ready.
And so this teacher recognized that.
I hope he's still alive, because I would thank him.
His name is Mr. David Wilhelm.
He changed the trajectory of those black boys in third grade.
Data showed it.
They were ready.
And they're all doing well, I'm pleased to say.
They're all doing well.
And so why would we wait till third grade?
to do a intervention strategy when we can actually figure out the kids that need some more prevention or some more promotion.
Promotion prevention, that's the order.
So my hope is that my colleagues will recognize while we have this SBA, I don't even know what that means, but we're gonna pretend like I do, the acronyms, why would we wait When we already know we have 40 plus years of data to tell us that waiting till third grade only means we're doing intervention.
Particularly for the kids that we have not been serving historically for at least 39 years if not forever.
So that's my comment.
I see two cards up.
I have a suggestion for wording on second grade which I can offer now or if you all want to.
OK.
So in alignment with what.
Well that's what I'm asking.
That's what I'm asking.
But just to, and if we're like, nope, that's, yes, we want second grade, but not that, that's fine.
But, and I emailed this to everybody earlier today.
When we look at the, the, So SBAC is required by the feds.
Federal government requires states to administer some kind of standardized test to sort of affirm that kids are reading and that they should keep giving us money.
That's why the SBAC exists.
And I fully anticipate that we would still be interested in the results of that.
IN GENERAL, BUT IN TERMS OF TALKING ABOUT THE GOALS THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE TO REPRESENT OUR COMMUNITY'S VISION AND TO MEASURE WHETHER OR NOT THE DISTRICT IS SUCCESSFULLY EDUCATING CHILDREN, I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE SECOND GRADE GOAL.
AND SO I WOULD PROPOSE INSTEAD OF THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS THAT PASS THE that we look at, the percentage of students in second grade that meet or exceed key grade level standards for foundational literacy skills will increase from blank percent in June to blank percent in 2025 to 2030. And the reason, the key literacy skills, you know, I would obviously leave open to the people who do this, but aligned to the state competencies of what a second grader should know and be able to do is phonological awareness, word recognition, fluency, that without those, that yes, the comprehension, the other things that come along, of course, are important, but if you don't have those foundational building block skills, you can't get to any of those other things.
And so yeah, that would be my...
recommendation that, and also I think my concern with the SBAC is that then the inadvertently focus could become on getting kids to pass the standardized assessment instead of making sure kids are able to read.
And so if we're looking at these key indicators, which are also indicators of success on the SBAC, we hear from our community, like, how do we know kids can read and are ready to learn whatever they want to learn in the future?
I feel like these indicators would be more leverage than SBAC.
So I don't know if now if anybody has something different they want to recommend, we could talk about that, or if we want to go from what I just read and determine whether or not we want that to be the strong start goal.
I don't know who.
I think Director Briggs and then Director Hersey.
Oh, for heaven's sake.
Okay, I very much support what you're proposing, Liza.
I'm in agreement with what Michelle said as well.
I think that all makes sense, and I'm down.
I also just want to time check us.
It's after 5.30.
The question I have, and this might be one that Carol...
and or alicia could answer for us but um i know the first time we made these goals i was not on the board but um they they were wildly unrealistic like it was a growth of 40 percentage points over five years or something insane um which obviously unrealistic but is 10 percent Is that the right goal?
I actually don't know what is realistic.
I want us to push.
I want to push ourselves because it's so overdue.
But I also want to stay within the realm of what's realistic.
And going from 40 percentage points to 10 percentage points just makes me wonder if this is under-ambitious.
I don't know.
I'm honestly just asking because I have no sense of what is realistic in this case.
So if one of our...
coaches has something to add you know guidance on that i'd love to hear it um alicia do you want to weigh in or i can share i mean that is that's not um that's really a question for your educational experts but it is the appropriate discussion you know what level of um a target is the right sweet spot that's going to require adult behavior change but is obtainable.
That's a conversation worth having, but we're not in a position to advise you on that.
That's really a question for your experts.
And that's not even anything that we could say.
We don't know.
That's between the board and the administration about where that sweet spot is.
But having that discussion is recommended.
Would it be appropriate to drill down on the number when we're at introduction a week from now?
Or is that something we can hash out right now because we still have guardrails to get to?
To talk about that at introduction.
I mean, that's a timing question.
Priority question.
I think just as long as you make sure that you're comfortable as a board that you've had a discussion that you have the right sweet spot.
You have to decide when and how in terms of the timing to continue this conversation or set it aside.
I think you already have the recommendation from staff, but includes the, I think that that's a, that is a bit of a stretch goal, and that I think he would prefer that if there needs to be more discussion on that, that you do that at introduction, so you can try to get through what you were trying to do tonight.
Director Sarju.
Did you just say 10% over five years is a stretch goal?
That's what's embedded in our in the staff recommendation.
Drill down further to see if that's appropriate or not.
But just in terms of.
So again Dr. Jones was very clear he didn't want this discussion if it works for the board to be kind of a debate of the recommendation it's there and that was considered so at intro if you want to you know consider to refine it that would be great.
Thank you.
Director.
Oh sorry.
Director Clark and then and then Director Hersey.
Yeah I just wanted to say I guess I just feel the opposite that I'm I mean, obviously I want us to hit that right sweet spot between the percentage that is going to change adult behavior and also have an impact on students.
And I agree that the last plan was very, I think, ambitious, but maybe not realistic.
And I would really like us to set a goal that is attainable And just to remind my colleagues that systems change takes time.
Changing adult behavior doesn't happen overnight.
So with that, I'll pass.
All right, Dr. Hersey.
Having taught second grade, I think that 10% over five years, especially if you're thinking about the target population and where they are now, is both reasonable and a stretch goal.
I think that what is helpful for me is that if you're thinking about over five years, if we've got 10,000 black boys, then that means that 1,000 of them, 1,000 more than are right now, will be reading on grade level.
And for a system of our size, and those numbers are fudged, right?
I know that that's not necessarily the case.
But for a system our size, the benefit of that will be astronomical because it compounds.
If you look at it from a perspective of this is less about the students that we have right now and more so about the students who are about to come into our care and the impact that this will have down the line, right?
Both are wildly important.
but the real benefit is to get a solid foundation for what literacy looks like in our system so that all of the students who are going to be coming after the students that we have right now are going to be the ones that benefit the most from this.
Now, that's not to say that, and I think that we accomplished both goals by focusing it directly on second grade, right?
Because when a child, having taught second grade and knowing what it's like in third, the energy is completely different.
Y'all have children, right?
Like, there is a very significant shift that happens in the, like, general demeanor of a child when they transition from second grade to third grade because the stakes are higher, right?
I think that there's a real opportunity here to look at, and this will be for y'all, to look at what are the areas that we are seeing that we are struggling the most on the SBA in the third grade and really focusing in on those things in the second grade.
I think that there are kind of competing concerns of mine.
The first one is I want to make sure that we're not extending over testing and all of this non, not nonsense, but all of this stuff to second grade.
However, at some phase when you boil it down, there's not a big difference in teaching the test and teaching a child to read.
Like, I think that there is an over-reliance in some spaces of like, oh, like you're teaching to the test or X, Y, and Z.
At that age, it's teaching a kid to read, right?
I think it's the way that we do it and the tools and the resources and the energy that we put into it, but the content and the context are largely the same.
Um, so my, where I'm going with that is I am actually really excited about 2% year over year with a goal of 10% because it's more so for me about laying the foundation.
And I also want to make sure that the way in which we get there is continually based in the foundations of reading.
Um, I'm trying to think if there's anything else that I wanted on that.
No.
I would be really interested in whatever phase we get there.
I mean, I think that PLCs in general, and I know that there's some of this going on, but specific one through three PLCs on a regular basis are going to be a critical part of that.
I'm trying to think.
No, I'm good.
But yeah, I like where that goal is.
I want to make sure that it's focused on second grade and that, yeah.
So the only thing I would add to that would be that if what we all would love to see happen happens and we hit 10% growth sooner, we can adjust the top line goal.
Director Sarju.
Well, of course, I'm gonna go with the second grade teacher's analysis with this one caveat.
What if, my fear is that we're not even gonna reach that.
And so what if we had, this is a what if, and I'm not tied to this, but I'm gonna put it on the table.
What if it, I'm gonna throw out a number.
What if the goal were 15%?
and we hit 10, I would feel better that if the goal was 50, as opposed to 40 to 70, that was, I mean, woo wee, lesson, lesson learned for the adults in the room.
If we're gonna say it's 10, it better be 10. That's all I got to say.
Because otherwise, we are still doing the same thing with a lower goal.
It's kind of like this thing of it's better to aim a little bit higher and miss than aim low and hit or not hit.
Like we haven't proven that we can actually meet a goal.
Yeah.
So that's all I'm saying.
I'm not going to argue because I trust you.
You've taught second grade.
You know better than anybody else in this room by far.
And I have a lot of angst that we're not even going to hit the 10. Yeah.
If we just set it at 10.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, there's a lot of ways that you could get at that, right?
Like I think at the end of the day, like we all want to hit 10. I think like ideally if we hit 10 more quickly, that's when you can start talking about working bonuses and stuff like that into the contract.
There's got to be some incentive there to hit it early, right?
Because if we hit...
But regardless, if we set it at 10 or 15 right now, that's not going to change the effort and energy that a leader, regardless of who it is, would put into it.
If we find a way to incentivize the system to hit 10 earlier, then that changes the energy, I think, potentially, that gets put into it.
So it's just like, how do we...
trigger the system.
And this might not necessarily be a question for us, this particular board to wrestle with, right?
It might be, you know, the people who come after us.
But I think a part of it is also like behavioral economics.
The people are going to do whatever they're going to do, regardless of if we as a board set the number for 10 or 15. I would be really interested in thinking about, like, in hearing forum staff at some point, and maybe this isn't, and I know this isn't the venue, but just putting it on the table, I would like to hear from staff.
It's like, okay, y'all have had a really lofty goal.
Y'all have been working toward it for the past several months, couple years.
What...
incentives and instruments have y'all used to inspire change and growth aside from just mandates and things like that that we as a board can attribute resources to potentially if the legislature helps us out?
Yeah, well, I think that's the continuing conversation is also through progress monitoring.
So as we're monitoring through year one, if we see, oh, wow, this is actually, turns out this strategy is extremely effective, and then we're looking to, it looks like that's going to make a big impact.
Or we get to the end of year one and say, well, we did a 4% gain at one year.
We always have the option to say, well, should we from here now adjust the end point?
Or should we give it another year or whatever?
That's always the continuing conversation.
So I feel like we could talk about this a lot.
What I think I'm hearing is that we are interested in a second grade literacy goal.
OK.
So what we need to decide now is what we want to be measured.
So I'll read again my proposed wording, which is just take it or leave it.
The percentage of students in second grade that meet or exceed key grade level standards for foundational literacy will increase from blank percent in June 2025 to blank percent in June 2030. Microphone.
Microphone.
Yes, that language works for me.
I think that sounds great, personally.
And so the question really for staff then would be, you know, we say key literacy standards.
Do we want, do, I don't think we should, I don't think the seven of us or ten of us should be in the business of deciding which key standards those are.
I think they're probably what we look for on DIBELS, but there are also aligned to the state standards.
standards and science of reading and all these other things.
Phonemic awareness, recognition of fluency.
Colleagues, but it seems like the team could probably use time to add introduction, get a little bit more specific about what that might mean.
So what we do need to, though, not waffle on as a board, well, maybe this, maybe that, is am I hearing accurately that there is consensus around a second grade measure looking at foundational literacy skills as our early start goal?
All right.
Done.
Or maybe not.
Is comprehension included in that?
No.
It's just the reading.
Like...
That gives me pause.
Just because...
Where do y'all feel like our comprehension education is at in third grade?
Y'all feel like it's strong?
I think, doesn't DIBELS have a composition element?
Comprehension.
Sorry.
No, you're good.
Comprehension.
Can I just offer one?
Yeah.
This wasn't in the needs assessment because we didn't give them DIBELS data.
Yeah.
But we have been looking at it.
I'm pretty confident this is accurate.
So in the 13 literacy skills, we looked at the percentage of black boys who were at benchmark in second grade based on DIBELS.
So no red flags.
40% of those students were projected to be proficient on the SBA in third grade.
If they were above benchmark, about two-thirds.
So as long as you recognize that foundational skills from what we've seen in the data and what I think we believe as educators is part of the developmental story and by no means gives us a strong indicator that they are going to be at grade level in future years, as long as you understand that.
Okay.
Do we do any kind of comprehension work already in second grade.
Like what is the breakdown versus foundational skills.
And maybe a foundational is the issue.
There's I mean in this in the state standard matrix there's comprehension and foundational and interpretation breakdowns or different different competencies.
Yep, but it's a progression of learning as we've discussed many times, right?
So kids generally, when they learn to read, the foundational skills and then you build in the comprehension because the way your brain is working is doing the work to decode and once that's more automatic, then the comprehension becomes more accessible, right?
And that typically happens in third grade and it's typically measured by the component of writing on the SBA.
I'm going to let this go but there's something like turning in my brain about that.
I mean again the we're not going to abandon looking at the aspect.
Yeah.
And just sort of like I wouldn't expect for anybody to be like I guess we're not going to teach comprehension anymore because the goal is is this other thing.
Director Top you look like you're considering something.
So, and you sort of said this in your presentation, but you recommended third grade for a reason.
Can you just reiterate the reason that you recommended third grade be the measure?
Sure.
So we recommended third grade because it's sort of the culmination, and the thinking was to have the top line measure be third grade because SBA measures both the underlying skills, which are those foundational skills, and then the writing component, which is the comprehension.
Understanding that we would, in this conversation we're not supposed to really talk about the interim measures, but the thinking was to have a first grade interim measure and a second grade interim measure that then build to that third grade so that that whole goal really works together as a P3 kind of systems goal.
We can rethink if the board wants to you know really have a unique focus on second grade.
I'm totally open to that.
I'm just sharing with you the rationale as to why we offered that third grade also in compliment to Dr. Hart's presentation here with his thinking around you know Scarborough's rope and vocabulary development and how all that works together.
I'm not at all going to say that it doesn't matter because this all matters a great deal.
At the same time we got to pick something.
We just got to pick something.
So.
Second grade.
OK.
Second grade meet or exceed key grade level standards for literacy.
Done.
Okay, that will be goal one.
Goal two, I heard a lot of agreement around understanding what was behind the Diploma Plus recommendation, but the concerns about creating a new obstacle or a new system that maybe only some students can access.
And what we heard from our community was that students graduate having what they need to take whatever step it is they want to take next which to the point of the diploma plus sometimes means beyond what the state pathway is.
I will note too that the state is working on their high school and beyond plan and some life ready pathway stuff that might provide a lot more of the structure that we're talking about creating.
And so I would lean more towards we should use what we have and that a way to reflect that might be that the percentage of students who successfully complete a state graduation pathway plus any additional requirements to take the next step that they want to take might be a way of getting at that without kind of the, I'm also thinking about goals as being communication to our community and adding Diploma Plus which is just another question mark of what the heck is that is not as accessible as saying directly what we heard from community which is that they graduate, having a plan and being prepared to do the next thing.
So that, that again would be my recommendation for the college one that we kind of re word at that successfully completing, um, a state graduation pathway plus additional requirements as shown through their use of the high school and beyond plan.
Cause I think that is a tool that's available and there's also a new, uh, the state's working on a whole new structure of that that I think will be more accessible and user friendly and, um, adjustable for our needs that we should not reinvent but use that.
I'm sorry just really quickly I know that this isn't from a space of advocacy for one you know we'll fully support whatever whatever direction you go.
I just want to make a little bit more clarity around the diploma plus sort of intent and that is remember Dr. Hart he sort of talked about this sort of consistent one third of our students who seem to be low grade level you know all the way looking back at kindergarten readiness but then our graduation rate is 85 percent.
And so we were trying to address the issue, do we actually believe that all of a sudden we've closed the gap when they finish around readiness?
That was the intent.
It wasn't to create a whole new initiative.
It was just how do we solve that problem?
Which I think is, I mean, at least my interpretation, this feels like we're all very much aligned that maybe it's just how we talk about it.
Let's make sure it's really clear that this is not following in the Seattle tradition of like, Not only are we going to do this, we're going to do it better than everybody in a new and different way.
And then what we actually want is just can we just do the thing?
Can we just do the thing?
Director Sarju.
Maybe Dr. Eric has already answered this, but is Diploma Plus something we're purchasing or something you made up?
SOMETHING YOU MADE UP.
WE TRIED TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT THE BRANDING, WHAT DO WE CALL IT, WAS SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE TIME.
IT WAS THE STATE HAS A FRAMEWORK.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD FRAMEWORK.
IT GIVES STUDENTS DIFFERENT PATHWAY OPTIONS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO DO A LOT MORE TO EDUCATE OUR STUDENTS ABOUT HOW THAT WORKS.
IT IS THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN A SENSE TO MAKE SURE AS MANY KIDS FINISH AS POSSIBLE.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GUARANTEED THAT THEY WILL BE READY FOR WHATEVER'S NEXT.
AND SO WE WERE DIPLOMA PLUS JUST MEANT, YES, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY GET A DIPLOMA.
WHAT WOULD THAT EXTRA THING BE THAT WE CAN ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT THEM TO DO?
THAT WAS ALL IT WAS MEANT TO BE.
SO NO, IT'S NOT A PROGRAM.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING I THINK OTHER THAT, YEAH, IT WASN'T EVEN A REQUIREMENT NECESSARILY.
I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE MEANINGFUL IF IT WAS SOMETHING KIDS KNEW ABOUT AND UNDERSTOOD But as you see, we can generate numbers just based on what rules we want to apply, even what criteria we want to apply.
So the finish of that comment is we've heard from the students who are in the system who have spoken the truth.
And I would say that that's been a lasting truth for 39 years.
And we can't just keep pretending like rebranding something or renaming something is what is gonna get it done.
What's gonna get it done is adults.
doing what they need to do that is includes not tracking students not making them feel like they only have i see you over there i've been watching you nodding your head i don't know are you in high school okay so we got somebody in the audience who's been nodding the whole time i i think we need to listen to the experts in the room They're telling us that if counselors actually had the capacity to do their jobs, they could actually fulfill what is the state plan.
And this notion that counselors are not able to do their jobs is not a new notion.
It has been that way for decades.
And that's what we need to focus on.
We need to focus on listening to students.
They're telling us what, what they want.
They don't want something new.
They want to utilize and leverage an existing resource.
And to me, that's brilliant that we have young people telling the adults, let's utilize and leverage the existing resource that we have in our system that is currently not being utilized for the benefit of the student.
That's where we need to put our focus.
So I don't really care what we call it.
I really think we need to focus on what we already have and what we know can work rather than creating something new that then we have to do a whole education campaign and we're clearly not doing a good job with not having a name for what we're not doing and so let's figure out how to do what we know we can do and what these students have articulated and that's meet with them more than twice right for 10 minutes or not at all That's a family experience I can say.
Zero counselor input for two of the three of my kids.
So we need to lean into what we have.
I'm going to say a yes and to that which is that utilizing the counselors or how we get to the goal is not what we want to be focusing on.
We want to be focusing on what is it that we want to say students need to know and be able to do based on what we heard from the community.
And given that I actually don't think that there's misalignment.
Is that new?
Yes.
Director Bragg.
It kind of adds on to both.
What I would just say with this is it is just the plus factor that adds on.
We don't need more as students.
We need it equitably and consistently implemented.
We need what the state wants from us and what we need to get.
We need to get to the finish line and know where we're going after.
And we need that everywhere, not anything more.
Perfect.
And to have had that conversation and decision-making points before second semester senior year, probably.
Yeah.
Director Topp, is that on you?
Yeah.
I think I don't, let's see if I can actually articulate anything intelligent tonight.
I think there's two things that are competing in this goal for me.
One is that our students are actually educationally prepared for whatever they want to do next.
And then the second step is, or the second part of this is that warm handoff.
They know what that next step is.
And I think that those are two very separate things and it's really hard.
I don't I don't necessarily know if either of them are hit in this goal but that those are the two sort of steps that I heard from from community and I don't know how to align that with with this.
Yeah.
Director Briggs.
Yeah, I hear that.
I hear that.
And I think they are two separate things.
And I guess maybe one way we could frame it is that in order to be that sort of educational preparedness is a prerequisite for the warm handoff.
So it's sort of embedded.
It's like a goal embedded within a goal, kind of.
You cannot be ready for the next thing if you haven't been educationally prepared.
So that sort of is implicit in the goal, I guess.
Does that resonate?
Well, okay.
So it sounds...
Yeah, we got to button this up.
So I mean, what we want is students who can graduate, meet graduation requirements, which I think we kind of have to hope or assume are aligned with a basic educational foundation.
So the percentage of students who successfully, I don't know if we want to say, do we want to say graduation pathway requirements or just graduation requirements?
I'm hearing Pathway is not students.
Do you?
I'm just saying Pathway here because the state does have graduation pathways.
But maybe what we really want is just that you can meet graduation requirements.
Yeah.
Meet graduation requirements plus any additional, this is the wording I'm looking for.
How do we describe the second part to prepare for that?
Because you can meet graduation requirements and have zero plan for, you get a diploma and then go, well, I don't know what I'm going to do.
So how do we want to describe what that additional piece is to give students what they, make sure students know and are able to do what they need to take their next step?
Dr. Bragg.
I don't have exact suggestions of how we say this, but I'm like, we don't need to overcomplicate it.
It can literally just be like, and feel and students feel prepared for their beyond plan or for their next steps.
Like it's super simple.
Just students are prepared for their beyond plan.
Anybody else have any thoughts on that?
And I would also welcome staff to chime in if you have a suggestion on the wording since Yeah, how do we want to say that?
Yes, meet graduation requirements, but that's actually not the bar.
The bar is that you've graduated and have an idea of what you want to do next and have been prepared to take advantage of whatever that might be, which could mean additional math classes.
Basically, I think we don't want to have a kid who's super interested in engineering and doesn't realize until senior year that they needed to take precalculus and didn't.
even if it's not a requirement, not a graduation requirement.
So they could graduate, but they didn't get to take Director Sarju.
I'm going to echo, no, I'm going to second the motion that Dr. Bragg, Director Bragg, doctor, you might be a doctor one day.
It sounds good, Dr. Bragg.
I just want to second that, that it doesn't have to be complicated.
And what is also true is that I don't feel like any of us are saying that what we expect, for example, is that at the end of this, the student will know that they're gonna enroll in a computer science program at Yale University.
Most kids don't necessarily know exactly what it is they want to do, but they need to be able to explore that with guidance of someone who can help them sort of analyze, well, you're really good at this or you seem interested in that and help them navigate that.
And so I don't want us to get locked in on we're saying that the plan is that they enroll somewhere come September 28th, you know, of the fall.
But that they actually have explored options, explored a plan for what they might want to do.
Because once they leave, It's out of our control, and so our work is to ensure that we have supported them in helping them think about, distill, whatever the adjectives or verbs that we want to use, but that we don't have to be specific.
But right now it's not happening.
And how can we word this so that it is happening for all students?
It's happening for a select few.
We know that it is.
But it's not happening for all students.
And the fact that if these students ask their classmates you know, what is your seat, is it, I don't remember that acronym, yeah.
And they have no clue what they're talking about is saying that the adults in the system are actually not talking with them.
Because they should have some basic understanding of what that is if adults are doing their part.
So how can we think about wording this in terms of again what students know and be able and are able to do on graduation because I would say even that's with the diploma plus completing the diploma plus pathway doesn't describe to us what students know and are able to do.
So how can we phrase it that way.
Director Bragg.
Something along the lines of students understand and are educated on their current and future steps for graduation in high school and beyond.
Something like that.
Because we can say current and future.
Because that builds into the understanding of where you are.
Because you're going to do some stuff in high school and the calculus class, all that.
there are steps you'll do in high school and it's educating on those steps so it can be like we can say current and future and then also high school graduation and high school and beyond because it's that understanding how you meet that graduation and how you meet that beyond.
I don't know exact wording.
I'm bad at words.
I'm just trying to figure out how.
I mean we're all kind of saying the same thing but in terms of what we want to reflect is upon graduation from Seattle Public Schools students know that they have a basic education foundation and are able to take their next steps.
From my perspective it does sound like the directors and staff have said the same thing.
I guess I would ask Dr. Perkins is there.
So to get to a top line goal we need an instrument and a measure and.
Do we have, if Diploma Plus didn't land as exactly the thing as the Diploma and Beyond Plan or whatever, what would the instrument be to satisfy this requirement?
I think it's the High School and Beyond Plan.
Right.
So, just in brief, and thanks to Dr. Storowski for help.
So, the specific language would be meet or exceed the Washington State graduation requirements without the aid of waivers and having completed all components of the High School and Beyond Plan.
Now, to be clear, that is not- raising the bar and what i think if i could fast forward to what is exciting is that eventually to lead to a very in-depth progress monitoring conversation on what exactly did we learn about some of these lessons that i'm hearing our students are not getting access to we have lessons on reflect in your career affected your interest think about post-secondary institutions i mean on and on and on but yet it's not really a meaningful part of the students experience which i think is what we're surfacing so how by centering that I think that's what would change.
It won't make the goal sound any different than current graduation requirements, but the reporting will.
I mean, I'm so much less concerned with the language or how the goal sounds than what kids are accessing at school and the support they're actually getting in real time.
So I'm fine with that language, personally.
And also, you guys, we're coming up on two hours now that we've been talking about this.
And we have not even touched the guardrails.
And those were what we really needed to do.
And so I'm worried about that.
So wait, what was the wording?
To be fair, we're choosing goals for the next five years.
So let's just.
It's kind of important.
And that's not to say thank you for keeping us on time.
It's just if we don't spend extra time at any meeting, I want it to be this one.
So a proposal could be as all Seattle Public Schools graduates will meet or exceed Washington State graduation requirements without the aid of waivers as documented in their high school and beyond plan.
OBJECT TO THAT LANGUAGE.
OKAY.
MAYBE I WOULD CONSIDER THE CLAUSE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR PERSONAL GOALS AS REFLECTED IN THEIR HIGH SCHOOL BEYOND PLANS.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE HEARD OUR COMMUNITY SAY, IS THAT IT'S ABOUT PREPARING STUDENTS TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP THAT THEY WANT TO TAKE.
And I just wanted to also add that based on our data analysis if kids are graduating without the need for waivers we think that clearly checks the box for readiness.
That is a significantly higher bar and so.
So that would in terms of knowing and being able to do being able to meet graduation requirements without the need of a waiver and knowing what their next step is going to be on their Say again, combine the two.
Combine what you both said because I think we're there.
I'll go first and then you just chime in right after with your brilliance.
So all Seattle Public Schools graduates will meet or exceed Washington State graduation requirements without the need of waivers as documented in their high school and beyond plan.
graduate without waivers consistent with their personal goals as documented in their high school beyond plan, something like that.
We got it, we got two goals.
And they feel to me to be a good representation of what we heard.
Okay, let's take a pot, thank you so much.
Let's take a little stretch break before we get to bird rails.
Let's do seven minutes so we can get on a round list.
Yeah, 625, we'll come back.
Here we go.
Oh, and I would just clarify really quick when I've said, OK, done.
We're actually, no board action is being taken.
We're getting to consensus for what we bring forward for introduction, ultimately for a vote in January.
Just so nobody's thinking, wait, wait, they're deciding all of this now.
We are getting aligned on what we're talking about.
But ultimately, no board action is being officially or legally taken until we vote.
So just to clarify.
All right, discussion on guardrails.
For the guardrails, the questions that we have are of the drafts here, are these, do we agree that these five recommendations from staff align with what we think we heard as the top priorities of our community?
And then are there specific language revisions we want to consider?
So going back to August, we developed some drafts and ideas around this.
Things have evolved a great deal since then, and I requested that the superintendent and staff take a look at our compilation document on community values and kind of take another look and make sure that the guardrail drafts that we have really do align with what we heard.
And so we have those that better reflect and align with what we heard from community.
Whoops.
Where am I?
Where's page five?
I'm lost.
three, four, I have two page sixes.
Oh there it is, there it is, okay.
So again, our job is, are these the right five areas?
And then is there any wording we want to recommend change?
But we are looking to basically come to consensus or agree upon what will move forward ultimately for our adoption.
So I'm going to pass it over to Julia to present the recommendations, which should also be in your email.
AND ONLINE.
GREAT.
THANK YOU, PRESIDENT RANKIN.
I AM JULIA WORTH, DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES.
SO THE GUARDRAILS THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKET AND THAT YOU WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING ARE A REVISION TO THE SUPERINTENDENT'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION.
SO HE HAD PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS AND POTENTIAL INTERIMS.
In response to the board's original draft and as president Rankin indicated she asked that the superintendent revisit the community themes and come up with some Additional recommendations on the guardrails and so what you will see tonight is different from what you had In your previous packet for the October 23rd meeting so just wanted to call out that there's a couple of different versions although we have
We have seen these drafts since then.
Yes, yes.
These drafts went out to the board with the packet last week.
And I believe in an email prior to that as well.
So moving on, the proposed guardrails this evening are intended to better align and reflect the themes and the values that were represented in the board's community engagement that you all conducted in the spring.
There are five value areas that the guardrails align with.
Equitable access to high-quality instruction and educational opportunities, so this includes themes around rigorous coursework and high standards for all.
Safe, positive learning environment, so including themes of social-emotional development, empathy, physical safety, and ability and opportunity to engage and collaborate with diverse groups.
Next is social justice and diversity, so this includes themes of social justice, anti-racism, and equity in our schools, as well as seeing diversity represented in our curricula.
family and community engagement and partnerships, so this includes themes of community connections to schools, district transparency and communications and family partnership, and finally, equitable resource allocation, so aligned with themes and the feedback of students with the greatest need will actually get the greatest resources.
Other themes in the community engagement are represented in the goals, so academic preparation and core subjects, and being prepared for that next step after high school graduation.
So the five proposed guardrails, Now I've lost my page.
Okay, there we go.
The first is an expanded version of one of the board's original draft guardrails around geographic equity.
And so the top guardrail is the superintendent will not allow a student school assignment, family, income, race or ethnicity, need or identity, determine access to high standards, rigorous programming, high quality teaching and supports.
This also aligns with the themes expressed about high standards and measuring educational equity in the feedback.
The next guardrail would be a new guardrail area aligned with the themes of safe, positive learning environments.
So this would be the superintendent will not allow learning environments that do not promote physical and emotional safety.
The third guardrail is an expansion of the board's original ethnic studies guardrail, and it reflects the themes of social justice and diversity.
So the superintendent will not allow the use of curricula and materials that do not reflect the diversity and anti-racist values of Seattle public schools.
Fourth would be another new guardrail area that aligns with the themes of family and community engagement.
So the superintendent will not allow community engagement that does not contribute to building trust and partnership with families.
And finally, another new guardrail area that aligns with the theme of equitable resource allocation.
The superintendent will not allow the allocation of resources to be distributed inequitably.
And with that, I will pass it back to you, President Rankin.
Thank you.
So the first question would be, regardless of wording, do the five themes identified here, does the board have thoughts about whether or not these are the, do we have agreement or questions about these reflecting the most important community values that we heard?
BEFORE WE GET TO WORDING, ARE THESE THE RIGHT PLACES?
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO EVERYTHING THAT THE DISTRICT HAS TO OFFER, SAFE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND DIVERSITY, WHICH, WELL, ANYWAY, AS AN AREA, LET'S JUST CALL THAT AS AN AREA, ALTHOUGH DIVERSITY I THINK IS AN ODD CHOICE OF WORD.
AND THEN FAMILY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND THEN AGAIN EQUITABLE RESOURCE ALLOCATION.
DIRECTOR BRINKS.
I mean, I feel overall that these capture a lot.
I think I'm looking for a little specificity in where I think that needs to be is in the measurements, like the interim measurements or how we monitor guardrails.
Do we use interim measure?
How do we measure guardrails?
What's a little bit different?
So the goals have the specific five-year target measures.
The guardrails are more iterative on behaviors.
Oh, yeah, Carol, actually, that would be great if you want to.
Yes, there are interims.
We recommend three interim measures that are basically indicators or...
predictive of your honoring the guardrail.
It is not, it's not unusual for the guardrail to not be achieved at the outset.
And the interims are basically ways to track improvements toward honoring the guardrail.
Right.
Where the guardrails might not be entirely honored at the moment.
Likely they are not because it's tall order.
And so the interims are the superintendent's proposed method to demonstrate progress toward adhering to the guardrails.
OK.
And the superintendent proposes the guardrail.
The top line guardrails don't have measurements.
They're just saying, hey, according to what's most important to our community, these things are not allowed.
And then the interims are evidence of whether or not those are being honored.
And so when the superintendent proposes interims, it's based on his interpretation of the top line.
And that then is our opportunity to say, oh, whoa, we think we worded that maybe wrong because that's not what we thought we were getting after.
Or to say, oh, yeah, based on, like, yep, these three things seem like the right things to watch to determine whether or not resources are being distributed.
Okay.
So then maybe my comment is better, it's more appropriate for when we're at that point than right now.
Because I have thoughts about how I'm thinking about number three, will not allow the use of curriculum materials that do not reflect the diversity and anti-racist values.
I would love to see ethnic studies and access to dual language immersion as interims for that.
Because I... I feel like those are things that we heard a lot in community that aren't explicitly referenced anywhere else.
And so I'm looking for something specific that names that.
But it sounds like that's for another time.
So I'll hold that thought.
OK.
Oh, I thought I saw a hand up.
OK. um...
so do you wanna so is there any i guess like high priority value that we think is maybe missing from here that we heard that is missing or is there anything that that is on as a category that is on here that um...
feels like it wasn't that important and we should consider something else that would be the first thing to ask oh i thought i saw your hand okay director clark
I'm sorry.
I think I raised my hand again at the wrong time.
I don't want to criticize.
Like, I don't think that I think all of these represent at least what I heard from community during our engagements.
I just wanted to offer a potential different definition for equitable resource allocation.
Go for it.
So whenever it's appropriate for that, I can do that.
So I'm not hearing from anybody that we have discussion to take place around the kind of five categories.
So hearing nothing there, it is entirely appropriate to offer a suggestion or wording for one of these.
So please go ahead.
Sure.
Thank you, President Rankin.
So I just thought maybe we could be a little bit more specific.
So maybe something like consistently prioritizing and allocating time, people, and money to align with the levels of need and opportunity.
Is that the, which one?
Number five.
For equitable resource allocation.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Can you say it again?
So the current number five is the superintendent will not allow the allocation of resources to be distributed inequitably.
Okay.
Yeah, sorry, go ahead.
This is, sorry, I'm trying to, Let's see, the superintendent will not allow people time and money to be allocated or prioritized out of alignment with the levels of student need and opportunity.
Does that?
I feel like I'm playing a puzzle.
What it sounds to me like you're getting at is that you want to see some more specificity in what we mean, what we mean by resources and what we mean by inequitably.
Yeah, exactly.
I just, you know, we use a lot of jargon.
This is something like I mean, we've been talking about as a district, you know, being equitable and diverse and inclusive since I was in kindergarten, which was like 30 plus years ago.
And so I just want to make sure that I think it's important as we're trying to move towards systemic change that we're actually being specific about what we mean and not just, you know, throwing the same words around.
Yeah.
Yep.
That makes sense.
Well, a question I would have for or coaches, I think, is how specific do we, like, so as it is right now, it leaves it open to interpretation, which I think is what Sarah is trying to get at, is that we want to be more clear.
How specific do we want to be, or do we want to leave it open to interpretation and then kind of say, no, we don't like those interim measures?
I mean, I think it's an either or.
Okay.
If you want to get more specific now, you'll likely get interims that are much more aligned to, that for sure will be aligned to what you mean by inequitably.
Okay.
On the other hand, I think actually to Director Clark's point, we talk in circles about this all the time.
Mm-hmm.
And so to some extent, the proof will be in what the interim is saying, whether they resonate with what the board's really trying to accomplish.
So I don't, I don't, I just, that's what you're weighing here.
Yeah.
Do you wordsmith if the interims come back and they're not really capturing what you're trying to accomplish or do you wordsmith now?
Got it.
Sarah, could you please, sorry, while I'm writing this down, could you please say again, you had like three words that you were using to describe resources.
Yeah.
Can you say what they were again?
Resources, people, time, and money.
And then, you know, I guess instead of, we can think about distributing things equitably, but more specifically around what the level of need is and what the opportunity gaps are.
What about the superintendent will not allow the distribution of people time money and other resources because I don't want to I don't want to limit it to be distributed in a manner that is inconsistent with demonstrated student need.
Sweet.
Oh, crap, what did I just say?
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
You're so much better at that than I am.
Oh, yeah, we have the transcript.
Okay, great.
The superintendent will not allow the distribution of people, time, money, and other resources to be distributed in a manner inconsistent with demonstrated student need.
Yeah, great.
Okay.
Thank you President Rankin.
Can I ask the shift from allocation to distribution.
Is there intent behind that because it seems like the board allocate.
Distribution sounds like a mechanical process thing as opposed to allocation but.
Sarah do you have a preference on distribution versus allocation.
That is a good question.
That is a really good question.
I hadn't thought about it in that way, Dr. Podesta.
I think allocation seems more appropriate.
Okay.
For this guardrail, yeah.
We agree.
There is agreement in the room.
And, yeah, I think that makes sense, too, because allocation is what we would be approving as a board, too, is, like, based on staffing and whatever else.
Okay.
Mm-hmm.
Exactly.
Cool.
The first one is one that I...
The geographic assignment, that I think is my fault that it kind of focused on that.
What I was looking for when we were first developing this was that we don't say, basically we don't say, well you can go to a good school or you can go to a bad school.
It depends on where you live.
And so I don't know if we think I think what we heard from community and then what I was trying to get at this when we talked about it back in August in terms of what students have access to, is that the right description for that?
Director Briggs?
Yes.
So I think what you're pointing to is that we need consistency.
Like you need to be able to walk into any Seattle public school regardless of where it's located in the city and know that there's like a baseline quality, that there's quality control basically across the district.
I mean, is that what you're getting at with that?
Yeah, I mean, and trying to balance that too.
Like, so right now we have, oh, we don't do that here.
Right, right.
Or, oh, well, because you didn't go to such and such high school, sorry, we don't have precalculus, so I guess you don't get to do precalculus.
Yes.
Which is not to say every high school, like...
Yeah, you're threading the needle between...
For a high school example, we'd either have to do open enrollment for all high schools, or find a way, if there's not enough students and there's not a precalculus class, to provide access to a student through another means.
Maybe it's virtual, maybe it's...
Going across the street from Nova to Garfield, whatever it may be, so you still have access to pre-calculus that basically just, like, no student should be told, oh, yeah, that's something we do, but we don't have it.
You can't have it because you go here.
Where I wonder where that comes into play is different, you know, that also...
We don't want to be limiting because, like, if you're opting into an optional – like, if what you want is dual language and you go to a neighborhood school that doesn't offer dual language, that was a choice being made.
And so your school assignment does – does influence whether or not you have access to dual language because that is something that only exists in some locations.
So how do we get at what Evan is talking about, which is what we really heard from community is that kids know and families know like, oh, our school doesn't have that.
Oh, we don't do that.
And there's a feeling of a hierarchy that's really damaging and negative.
And it means that all kids don't have access to what our community would think of as basic education.
So, I don't know if...
Locate, yeah.
What if we just, is this getting at it?
If we just change the wording to the superintendent will not allow inconsistency in teaching ACROSS THE DISTRICT IN ACCESS TO HIGH STANDARDS, RIGOROUS PROGRAMMING, HIGH QUALITY TEACHING AND SUPPORTS.
WHAT WAS THE FIRST PART YOU SAID?
WILL NOT ALLOW INCONSISTENCY ACROSS THE DISTRICT IN ACCESS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WILL BE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE DISTRICT ACCESS TO ALL OF THESE THINGS.
NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO AND NO MATTER WHAT ELSE MIGHT ALSO BE.
Anybody else have thoughts?
Director Bragg.
I also just don't know if specifically saying high quality teaching, or well, access to high standards, rigorous program, high quality teaching in sports really, because you were communicating there like equity and programs and like stuff.
I don't know if that direct, those lines directly communicates that.
Because when I read that, my first thought when I read this with, I was not at the August, the meeting where these were talked about.
When I first read that, I'm like, oh, that's standards of teaching versus programs.
So I, yeah.
I see.
I think it's both of those things, though.
I mean, that's what we heard from community.
It's rigorous academics and access to programs.
I think it's that you need both, but I don't think that communicates both.
Oh, Sarah.
What if we changed it a little bit to say that, like, The Superintendent will not allow any student to be denied access to high standards, rigorous programming, high quality teaching and other supports.
Under any circumstances, I mean, we could add the rest in based on the student school assignment, family income, race or ethnicity or need or identity, but.
it might be more clear if we just say that we won't, superintendent will not allow students to be denied access to high standards, rigorous programming, high quality teaching, et cetera.
Can you guys hear me?
Yeah, sorry.
We're all thinking.
We all have our thinking faces on.
Well, here's a question actually that I think we might be...
So this and five are definitely about equitable access.
Number five, I feel like we have pretty good about how resources are deployed throughout the district.
Number one, I wonder if we want to...
It almost feels like, I think as Colin was saying, there's kind of two things that we could mean, which is that like your identity or family situation doesn't predetermine your outcomes.
And then there's also the kind of placement within the district and programs.
And do we, which one of those are we trying to get at?
Or do we want to find a way to get at both?
Does that make sense?
Like we could have like just the superintendent will not allow disproportionate access or opportunity to any student and LEAVE IT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AND SEE WHAT THE INTERIMS ARE.
OR, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONFUSING IS WE'RE KIND OF THINKING ABOUT STUDENT IDENTITY AND THEN ALSO STUDENT PLACEMENT WITHIN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, WHICH MAYBE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS BUT MAYBE ARE ALSO THE SAME THING.
DIRECTOR HERSEY.
I just want to remind folks that there is a process in the event that we get down the road and we figure out that, hey, the wording does not work.
There is a process for us to address it.
I think that we can wordsmith as much as we want on the guardrails.
And I know that this is rich coming from the discussion that we just had about goals.
But I think these particularly are not going to become super clear until we are met with an instance to where they need to be clarified.
So...
I think keep that in mind as we're having the discussion.
OK.
Director Briggs.
I guess I just keep coming back to what you were saying initially, Liza, that you didn't want there to be inconsistency across school offerings, basically.
You didn't want kids to have to say, oh, my school doesn't have that.
So if that is what is under this guardrail, that's sort of like the underpinning of it, then I think frame it that way.
So drill down to what is that.
It sounds to me like it's just about consistency of...
Yeah, of access.
I think it's about consistency of access.
I think it's also about the superintendent will not allow students will not allow where students go to school to limit it, limit their opportunity and access, which right now, honestly, right now we have elementary schools where just because you happen to be in a school with only 175 kids, you might not have access to like fourth and fifth grade instrumental music because that's something that, and that is crappy.
That shouldn't be allowed.
If you attend Broadview Thompson K-8 in the middle school, it's not an option school.
It's an assignment K-8.
You do not have access to world language the same as you would at a comprehensive middle school.
We shouldn't allow that.
We should say, yep, this is where you have to go.
Nope, you don't have access.
I mean, if it was an option school, that would be different if you know that, like, I'm choosing this for these reasons and we don't have these other things that a comprehensive middle school has.
That's okay.
That's the tradeoff I want to take.
But if we're assigning kids to this is your middle school where you go to get this certain basic education and then we're like, oh, but sorry, since it's so small, you actually don't get what other middle schoolers get.
That's, like, that shouldn't be, we should not allow that.
The superintendent should not allow that.
Mm-hmm.
So the superintendent should not allow inconsistent offerings?
Inconsistent's not the right word.
Yeah, inconsistent's bothering me for some reason.
I know.
It's...
Shall not limit student.
Oh I'm sorry.
Help us out Fred.
To keep being the word police but you've made a shift from equitably from equity to consistency and they don't mean the exact same thing.
So I'm just pointing that out.
That is and certainly one is nested in the other but you You know there may be there may be reasons to provide equitable services that we concentrate programs with student assignments.
So I think the term equity was used advisably when Dr. Jones recommended these.
You may have dealt with it with the equitable resource allocation but the conversation has shifted a little bit.
Well but I think that was the intent.
So I mean neither word is there.
But but I I think that beyond just access that access needs to meet students where they are so that just want to make
What about the superintendent will not allow a student's school assignment to limit access to high standards, rigorous programming, high quality teaching and supports?
What was it again, the first part of what you said?
THE SUPERINTENDENT WILL NOT ALLOW A STUDENT'S SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT TO LIMIT ACCESS TO HIGH STANDARDS, RIGOROUS PROGRAMMING, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, HIGH QUALITY TEACHING AND SUPPORTS.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WHATEVER YOUR SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT IS SHOULD NEVER LIMIT WHAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO.
THAT IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING WHAT I THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY.
Sorry, going back to the themes that you said these were based on, that's where the word equitable was.
That's what the community said, equitable, and I believe Dr. Jones meant to embed that in the words.
Okay, yeah, and I felt like that's what we heard a lot was this sort of like, PAINFUL AWARENESS, HONESTLY, AMONG SOME COMMUNITIES THAT IF THEIR KID WERE TO LIVE IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE CITY, THEIR KID WOULD HAVE MORE STUFF OR ACCESS TO MORE THINGS THAT SOME PEOPLE CONSIDER TO BE THE BASICS.
Okay, somehow that's recorded.
Okay.
Sarah, did you have something else to pop in with that?
Okay.
Director Chomp.
I have something on number four, if we're ready.
Oh, OK.
Hold on.
One thing before we go to, so it's not up here, and maybe actually we didn't hear this as much specifically from community, was that I don't want the superintendent to allow inequitable outcomes based on student identification.
That's not actually up there, but basically saying the superintendent won't not address gaps.
We don't have something here about disproportionality.
Yeah, we can add it.
Which again, and honestly, because of the way that our city is segregated, your school assignment is often aligned to some of those characteristics.
Well, we can't do anything about that, but I'm going back on what I just said, was that actually school assignment, unfortunately, does capture some of these other student traits.
Okay.
Okay.
Moving on.
Director Topp has something on 4.
I think so this is the communication and engagement one and I I don't think it's strong enough and I'm stealing from borrowing from another district.
I prefer their language the superintendent will not make major decisions or bring major recommendations to the board without first implementing an engagement strategy including students parents educators and community members.
which is actually much closer to our current guardrail around community engagement and I agree is stronger than what is up there.
The superintendent will not make major decisions or bring major recommendations to the board without first implementing an engagement strategy, including students, parents, educators, and community members.
Anyone else that need to add to that list?
No, I think that's good.
And I think what we've struggled with in this iteration was the definition of major, which we've got some policy revisions on engagement coming up that could be a place to describe what meets the threshold of major and what doesn't.
Yeah, I like that one.
I think that's...
Thank you, Atlanta.
Well, and us, honestly.
That's almost like what we have right now, but we've struggled to, yeah.
We have growth.
We have opportunity to do practice around guardrails better.
Director Sarju?
I have a suggestion for number two.
The superintendent will not allow the existence of any learning environments that do not promote physical and emotional safety.
The superintendent will not allow the existence of any learning environments that do not promote physical and emotional safety.
So I added A couple of words for specificity because we currently do have learning environments that do not promote physical and emotional safety.
So by adding will not allow the existence of any gets very specific.
So my only wonder on that is that if, I'm wondering about the superintendent's levers of control and that the superintendent will not allow threats to student physical, emotional, and social emotional safety to go unaddressed.
if that gets more at what we expect people to do or less?
I don't know.
Well, what we know now is we have learning environments that do not promote.
We have many examples.
And so I think we need to be specific about our expectations around learning environments.
And essentially what I'm saying is that there should be no learning environments in SPS that are not promoting physical, and a learning environment can be a variety of things.
But I do feel like it's important that we keep the learning environment, because that gets at classrooms, it gets at, you know, Extra.
Classroom, lunchroom, sports team.
Right.
Sports teams.
A gamut of things.
Anybody else have any thoughts on that one?
Okay, cool.
So let's see.
Just number three.
So I have thoughts about this one the superintendent will not allow the use of curricula and materials that do not reflect etc etc.
I kind of like something we have in one right now about mean I agree we don't want to we don't want to allow the use of curriculum materials that don't promote this.
But I think we also have a lot of things that do promote our values that people are allowed to opt out of.
So I'm wondering if we want the superintendent will not allow curricula materials.
I don't know.
And.
CULTURE THAT CENTER THE DIVERSITY, REPRESENTATION, AND ANTI-RACIST VALUES OF SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO BE OPTIONAL.
I'LL TRY TO SAY IT AGAIN.
THE SUPERINTENDENT WILL NOT ALLOW the use of curricula materials and I think I said something else and culture.
Well I exclaim it claim it culture.
I don't know.
Basically if we have we have we are prioritizing and stating a focus on student representation equity you know teaching through an ethics studies lens where all students are represented and say basically saying that like we these things are a central value to our community and what we expect and it's not optional to participate in these things or do these things.
Like if you were the superintendent, what would you not do?
Director Bragg, lifeline.
I can dumb it down.
I teach Shakespeare to elementary school kids.
I think I might.
The superintendent will not allow any curriculum, materials, or spaces that do not represent the values of our school district, of all that.
to be optional The to be optional is the So I think it's just not allowing any of the things That do not represent what we're trying to represent to be an optional part of our school.
I
Oh sorry go ahead Brandon and then I see Evan's hand.
Yeah I was just going to say so some version of the superintendent will not allow staff to opt out of any anti-racist curriculum or practices.
I think that yeah the transcript might do it but then I'm done.
Director Briggs.
Hey, can you hear me?
Yep.
Okay.
So what kinds of things are people allowed to opt out of?
And are you referring to staff?
I'm referring to the fact that we have all kinds of things that are, if you feel like it, I mean, training, professional development, curriculum are available for use.
But we don't actually say, hey...
You know, there's like PD is required, but people get to choose what PD they take.
And so I don't see how we ever as a whole system say this is what we're doing as a system and this is what we expect for students when adults are allowed to just be like, I don't want to do that.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
Okay.
What about if that comes in conflict with the contract?
the contract has to be renegotiated.
Well, no, I know.
I understand.
But I'm saying it's like...
I guess and I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this in terms of like you know it unanticipated consequences right but I just want to make sure that we're cognizant that there could be a conflict with the contract and this particular guardrail that may not necessarily be unilaterally up to the superintendent to navigate.
Well he negotiates I mean he negotiates the contract.
Which doesn't mean that the outcome is always what everybody agrees on.
But, I mean, basically...
I just want us to know.
Yeah.
I mean, I guess what I'm trying to get at is if there's something that we consider, based on what we've heard from community, a priority for students, and we say it's a priority, and then we are agnostic about whether or not it's actually happening.
That's the...
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, obviously that's, yeah.
I would love to see it tested, honestly, so that we can highlight an issue.
I just want to make sure that...
Oh, can you use your microphone?
Sorry.
Like, I want to be super clear.
Like, I think that we should push forward with that, and I'm highlighting it for the purpose that I think that it would be a good thing to be tested, and I would be remissed if we were to say there's been a guardrail violation for something that the superintendent can't unilaterally address.
Well, here's what I think is important, too, about guardrails is that there's been this sort of misuse kind of out there of, like, that's a guardrail violation.
Right, right, right, right.
When really what we're looking for is like ongoing data about getting closer to these things, about how we describe the behavior, not like you put your toe over the line.
But that generally, if we're like progress monitoring this, I mean, I'm just making up, maybe there would be like a how, like maybe we see an increase in the number of people who participate in professional development around ethics studies or something like that.
Right.
Yeah.
Cool.
Director Briggs.
Hi, just can't stop chiming in.
So I think, like, I really get what you're driving at, Liza, and I think it's really important and also complicated for the reasons that Brandon has articulated.
But that's where I think, and I feel like you were just getting to this, that the interims could really...
address that in a way like this one might have we might have to fine tune and tweak this one over time but i do feel like this is a place where the interim measurements could could do exactly what you just said like number of um staff or percentage of staff who participate in like x training or whatever like that those would be concrete ways to measure how how are we how our adults um
changing their behavior to support this guardrail, basically.
Yeah.
I mean, something else, too, could be in the student survey, the number of students that reflect that they feel that their identity is recognized and valued in their curriculum.
We would want to see that number increase.
This is the last one.
Do we have a...
Do we want to change the wording?
Do we have a wording?
We'll not allow...
President Rankin, there are a couple of different options on the table for this guardrail as well as guardrail one.
Would you like me to read out?
Yes, please.
Okay.
So for guardrail number three, the superintendent will not allow the use of curriculum, materials, and practice that center the diversity and anti-racist values of Seattle Public Schools to be optional.
The superintendent will not allow any curriculum materials and space that do not represent the diversity and anti-racist values of Seattle Public Schools to be optional.
The superintendent will not allow the opting out of any curriculum materials and practices that represent the diversity and anti-racist practices of Seattle Public Schools and then the discussion of interims.
and not an official vote just a euphemistic vote yes we're not we're not taking action we're getting to
Yeah, and then what, did you say we had a couple things still kind of outstanding on number one?
For number one, yes.
There's a few different approaches to the guardrail language for number one.
So the first being the superintendent will not allow any consistency in access across the district to high standards, rigorous programming, high quality teaching and supports.
Another approach was that the superintendent will not allow students to be denied access to high standards, rigorous programming, high quality teaching and supports under any circumstances.
And then the superintendent will not allow where students go to school to limit opportunity and access.
to high quality programming, the list.
And finally, the superintendent will not allow a student school assignment to limit access to high quality programming teaching supports.
standards.
And then the second piece for guardrail one would be Director Bragg's point about the inclusion of programs.
So not just services but do programs need to be included here as well.
I think there's discussion potentially around something like a dual language program or what might be at an option school and how does access to that get addressed for consistency across schools versus an optional program that students would attend.
So clarity around that as well.
Now of course we heard it all.
But I have to see it.
I may be able to share it if you give me a moment.
Because I think there were two different options that some from each made a lot of sense to me.
Like, there was the, you know, can't deny access, but I also like, it just basically will not allow, the superintendent will not allow student access and opportunity to be limited.
To, you know, like, like just, yeah, for any student, I don't know.
The superintendent will not allow any students access to district resources to be limited?
Educational resources, yeah.
I don't know.
Will not allow.
What are we trying to prevent the limitation to?
GO FOR IT.
I THINK FOR NUMBER ONE, WHAT IS CURRENTLY TRUE IN OUR SYSTEM IS DEPENDING ON YOUR ZIP CODE, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO CERTAIN THINGS OR YOU DON'T.
AND SO THAT PENALIZES CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN A CERTAIN ZIP CODE.
about whether they have access to something or not.
Could do attendance area.
Yeah, so the goal is that if a student lives in a south end zip code, really they should have the same, in a south end zip code, that, and goes to a school that may have significantly high free lunch rates, they should have access to the same things basic things that somebody in the North and that has very little free lunch numbers has access to so this gets it.
a long-standing, you know, the system is working, right?
It works exactly the way it was designed to work.
If your family can't afford to live in a wealthy neighborhood, then you don't get access to certain things.
That penalizes the child.
So we're trying to get at that.
That no matter where they live, no matter their race, no matter their parents' income, no matter any other demographics, that should not limit what they have access to.
How we say that is obviously harder to get to, but that is what we have in our system now.
Director Bragg is chopping up a bit.
Oh, thank you.
I missed it.
When we keep on saying that, we keep on saying, because I agree with everything you're saying, what we're trying to get at, but we keep on having the list be determined access to high standards, rigorous programming, and high quality teaching and supports.
That doesn't, to me, communicate the access to programs, that seems like a standard.
That seems like we're saying, okay, they have supports and all their programs and their education is up to this standard versus saying they have access to X, Y, and Z.
So that's my, like, It was less about the, you mentioned the add programs thing.
It's less about necessarily that, like adding, oh, and programs.
You don't just add that.
It's like what this is saying, and when I read this, it communicates standards and supports, not access to programs and access to things like that.
What about the superintendent will not allow...
Oh, shoot, I just lost it.
It was so good, too.
Not allow...
student access to quality education to be predetermined by Yeah.
Or educational opportunities or something.
Because also what we don't want to get into is like the exact same thing has to be in every location.
Because while they have this program from this vendor or something, then we have to have it everywhere.
And that's not really what we're getting at.
What we just want is every child to have an opportunity to...
be in a school play or whatever yeah yeah the superintendent will not allow a student's educational outcomes to be determined by their attendance area school or something like that educational outcomes to be negatively impacted by x yeah educational opportunities and outcomes I think you get at it with outcomes.
Because if the outcome is the reality of the situation, the opportunity, yeah, I think it's more concise with outcomes.
Because that's what we're trying to get at.
That's what we're trying to get at, equitable outcomes.
Yeah.
I just wanted to note that Director Hersey's mention of attendance area prompted for me what Dr. Jones's original recommendation based on the board's original draft.
The original to the original was that the superintendent will not allow a student's attendance area to limit access to services and opportunities that create the conditions for high quality education and SPS.
So I think we've moved beyond that potentially, but just wanted to put that language out as well.
Yeah.
So let's cut the last 10 words of that and just say educational outcomes.
Can you repeat yours.
Director Hersey.
So fine.
The superintendent will not allow a student's attendance area to negatively impact their educational outcomes.
May I ask a question?
No.
I'm joking.
I'm joking.
And I know that there was concern about neighborhoods and attendance areas.
Yeah.
Dr. Jones added family income, race or ethnicity advisedly.
I do believe we have challenges particularly for some students who happen to be in an attendance area, they, as a student, their identity, they refer this from educational justice.
Sure.
Those face the biggest challenges when they're in an attendance area that otherwise has advantages.
And you've now taken it back to geography.
Yep.
And that's totally, just pointing that out.
I might might have it.
The superintendent will not allow a student school assignment family income race or ethnicity need or identity to predetermine a student's educational outcome.
The superintendent will not allow inequitable treatment of students as measured by student academic outcomes.
The superintendent will not allow inequitable treatment of students as measured by student academic outcomes.
Yeah.
Treatment is a funky word to me a little bit.
Yeah.
So the only thing that I was going to say is going back to the council's presentation to us, thinking about what is the real divider of students in like economics is a big part of that.
I'm wondering if we can like incorporate any of that learning to simplify it.
And then all of those pieces that Fred mentioned, I'm wondering if they can be identified in the interim guardrails in some way.
I mean, it seems like really what we're trying to get at is that public education should be the great equalizer to access for children, right?
And so how do we make sure that we're not predetermining students' outcomes based on their family's income?
Can I weigh in for a minute?
Oh, yeah.
Carol, please help us.
I would just encourage you to go back to...
What particular community input this guardrail regarding values this guardrail was trying to was intended to address.
And I don't know for sure, but I kind of thought it started as the building should have equal equally rigorous program and extracurriculars and that sort of thing.
Yeah.
that's a little bit different than what you're talking about now.
And it may be that I'm not right about exactly how, which feed, you know, which category of feedback this, um, guardrail was aligned with, but I just would encourage you to make sure you don't lose track of that as you're discussing this.
Thank you.
No, I agree.
I think what we, what we heard from the community was the, acknowledgement and kind of shameful understanding that the school you attend by chance is hugely variable.
I mean, if the thing is it won't have, if it's a high school, it won't have calculus and it won't have theater or it won't have, you know, more than one language.
Or if it's an elementary school, it won't have rigorous art programming or something.
you know, like one elementary school does plays and another elementary school doesn't, that sort of thing.
That's a different, it seems like you're wandering into more macro, which may, there's nothing wrong with it.
Just, you know, keep trying to keep, because there might be other guardrails that are picking up some of that stuff.
Director Hersey.
Oh, that actually really nudged me into thinking something, because if we are relating these things specifically to our operations and the outcomes, we cannot measure outcomes based on access to art and things like that, right?
Those things are incredibly important and they're critical, but what I think we should really be focused on is that, like, based on where you go to school, you should be able to get the same access to FAPE as any other student and have the same opportunity to do well in your core educational classes as any other student.
Which is why I think really limiting and focusing it into educational outcomes, gives us an opportunity to be like laser focused on like if you are a student in the south end you should have the same access to high quality instruction in reading math literature and all those other things as any other student in the district yes so like really like bringing it in because i think where we're at is we're trying to catch all of the like different variables that could exist and that's not the purpose of the guardrail
I think you're absolutely right.
And that's also not what our community said.
They really did say differences between schools.
OK.
So who wants to wrap this up?
Anybody have a way of putting it?
Well, for Carol, what we're talking about is the orange box.
SO IF WE LOOK AT THAT, THE COMMUNITY VALUES, IT'S EQUITABLE ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, RIGOROUS COURSEWORK, HIGH STANDARDS FOR ALL.
SO THAT, I BELIEVE, IS THE IMPETUS FOR THE GUARD RAIL NUMBER ONE.
IT'S WHAT FITS.
Out of all the other colored boxes.
The superintendent will not allow inequitable access inequitable acts.
The superintendent will not allow inequitable access to high quality instruction and educational opportunities for any student.
I mean, I didn't specifically say outcomes, but that would be open to interpretation for how the interims would define the access.
The superintendent will not allow inequitable access to high quality instruction and educational opportunities for any student.
OK.
You guys.
Team.
Go team.
I'll just give a pause briefly in case I see any hands go up or anybody have anything else to add or ask.
Yeah.
Seeing none, we have draft goals and guardrails to consider.
There being no further business before the board, this meeting stands adjourned at 7.37 p.m.
Nice job, you guys.