We are taking consent item number nine as our first action item.
BEX IV BTA III resolution 2019 20 — 6 final acceptance of contract P 5 0 6 9 with Skansa USA Building Inc. for the Loyal Heights.
Skansa.
Thank you.
My apologies USA Building Inc. for the Loyal Heights Elementary School modernization and addition project.
This came before Ops September 5th for approval motion please.
I move that the school board adopt resolution 2019 slash 20 — 6 and accept the work performed under contract P 5 0 6 9 with Skanska USA building incorporated for the Loyal Heights Elementary modernization and addition project as final.
I second the motion.
Chief Podesta the floor is yours sir.
This is final acceptance of the Loyal Heights modernization.
The school was occupied starting in the fall of 2018. This is just the final release of contract retainage and final acceptance of the contract.
There was some public testimony about the playground that if you'd like me to I can address a little bit at least.
You know the point of the project was to expand a building significantly from thirty three thousand square feet to fifty five thousand square feet.
And that did take about 20 percent of the playground to accomplish since it was a capacity project.
We did also remove eight portables as part of expanding the building and those portables were of course on the playground.
So I'm not going to say it's a wash but that we did and improve the playground in the process.
So I think the the recommendation that we have to consider you know playground size and our ed spec and how we design buildings as well.
Point taken and we will continue to work on that as we go forward.
But this project was largely successful and I think it's a good building and it's time to accept the contract.
Director Pinkham and then Director Mack.
Yeah thank you for sharing the about the 20 percent reduction and kind of curious because this actually brings me back to when I was first running for the board and Loyal Heights reached out to me and saying hey we don't want this mega schools what they refer to as taking over a small neighborhood.
We've been working hard.
They did playground improvements to help out and then to find out that OK now our improvements are going to be.
Partially taken away or partially but maybe completely in their perspective but I can't speak for them on that.
But one of my things I was always wondering about can you what are the size of our playgrounds.
I mentioned I think people recall way back then.
that if we can have some kind of thing in operations or our policies that we try to maintain a certain square footage or percentage of playgrounds for our schools so our students can go out and outside and play.
I did receive an email from a community member concerned about students staying inside too much especially when it's raining.
We need students to go out and exercise.
So.
If we can if you see that it's something liable to do.
I appreciate that input and I'd also like to hear from our ops chair about is this something we can think about including that.
Hey this new construction will reduce the playground by this size but it will add X Y and Z as well so we can make those kind of comparisons.
Thank you.
Thank you Director Pinkham for bringing up the history on that because there was a lot of concern around whether or not the playground was going to be large enough.
and the space in the building with the expansion of the number of classrooms and whether or not the common spaces would be large enough.
They added a very large gym which for indoor resource I think is helpful.
So I'm curious to know whether or not you actually have any.
information from the school community now as to whether or not their recesses are overcrowded or if they're going well if they've got you know if they're managing the building and the playground and lunchtime activities effectively.
I have not heard any concerns about capacity for outdoor space in the school is not fully occupied.
So I think it's something we need to keep an eye on.
At this point we haven't heard those types of complaints.
So then I just as a follow on to Director Pinkham's comments around the consideration and construction.
Is there already something in our ed specs that we do consider their overall common spaces in relation to the number of students and classrooms that are expected and is playgrounds part of that calculation.
I would have to look into that for you.
I shouldn't blurt out an answer.
I'm I'm not that well versed.
I would agree that it should be part of the analysis going forward on ed specs and in consideration.
So however we work that into the process would be helpful.
No I think place based in schools and also how we do capacity planning for athletic fields is something we're really going to have to take adopt a different approach going forward.
Yes.
Thank you.
Director Burke.
I just have the generic elementary educational specifications pulled up here and did a quick search and playground is mentioned in it seven times but there's no explicit specification around square footage per student.
In fact there's actually a thing that says under playground it says no special requirements.
So that would be a place where you know we could put either A goal I mean every ed spec starts as a goal and then it has to be adapted per site.
So that would be something for future boards to consider.
Director Pinkham.
Yeah and I know especially what happened recently with Hazel Wolf and its new construction and even though it had playground space but since it kind of came up with our last board meeting about using artificial turf instead of natural grass and how that can impact and they had natural grass and that thing got flooded and muddy and then students couldn't use it anymore.
So we definitely need to make sure that we look at that as well because I don't want to see all playgrounds become natural turf or artificial turf.
I would like to see it be as natural as possible and how we can approach that to make sure not only the square footage per student in particular the elementaries but also that it's natural.
And it's darn darn sure not crumb rubber.
Director Geary please.
I understand the idea behind not having it locked down because what it makes me think of are the conversations around an urban or a downtown elementary and.
to meet the specifications that we have in our historical elementary schools you know to create a specification to preserve historical sizes when you we may end up having to put in at some point an elementary that just isn't going to have it in an urban area that has a lot of rain.
So I just caution you in terms of being too aspirational.
Director Pinkham aye Director Mack aye Director Geary aye Director Burke aye Director Hersey aye Director Harris aye this motion is passed unanimously.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to renew the contract with Seattle Children's Hospital for two additional years covering the period from August 1st 2019 to June 30th 2021 at a cost of up to three hundred and eighty thousand dollars per year for a total cost of up to seven hundred and sixty one thousand two hundred dollars for two years.
for athletic training services with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.
Approval of this motion would renew the maximum three year contract for the final two years.
Second the motion.
Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.
Director Mack.
This came through Ops for approval but I do see that it's been updated since introduction and I'm curious if we can just highlight publicly for the record what those updates are please.
Good evening Wyeth Jessee chief of schools and continuous improvement.
There were two specific updates.
One of those updates was just the overall cost.
There was a slight adjustment of six hundred dollars for this year and for a total of adding up twelve hundred dollars for the sake of the of the additional two years.
And then the other one was just listing the sports.
I think that was Director Harris that requested or might have been you Director Mack.
Somebody somebody was asking what were the sports that are covered underneath that.
And again it was really again as I was saying then and I'll say again it is all sports so it's not just for boys or it's loaded to that and you can see that on this on this particular bar that we do cover all of the WIAA sanctioned sports for both boys and girls at the high school level.
Other comments questions concerns I noticed Chief Jessee that we didn't address the questions and concerns about non WAIA sponsored sports unified and ultimate and those are both equity issues in my way of thinking.
And I guess I wonder when we are going to embrace those club sports that have more participation and fold them in A to our budget and B lobby W A I A to have a broader vision of the world.
I think that's a great question.
I think there's a lot of questions that we put to the state just to.
to around funding for this.
As I mentioned then and again I'll mention now is we're we are evaluating the costs of athletics.
And so when I took this on last fall looking at the budget we also were wrestling with transportation and transportation costs have gone up so much it's really eating away at our ability to fund.
Anything additional at this point and just really looking at our basic needs and then.
But the state gives us a rebate for a good bit of our transportation.
Correct.
No that was not guaranteed but they have been correct.
No I'll let JoLynn answer this question.
Good evening JoLynn Berge chief financial officer.
The state does not pay for athletic transportation period.
They pay for to and from school.
That's what they're paying for.
So all of the transportation for athletics is on us and we have put probably half a million dollars more in a lot of it driven by the bell schedule change frankly.
Thank you for that clarification.
Asked two years ago what the cost to provide unified would be and still haven't gotten that information.
Yeah we're actually unified season's kicking off at Roosevelt High School this Friday so I will just make that quick note.
So that's awesome.
So we have expanded it but I am actually still working on that.
And so.
And I appreciate you just started your new job September 1.
Yeah.
I don't.
Yes.
I we are actually working on that request with staff just you asked specifically what is being provided for club sports and unified across the district.
We have some that I'm trying to holistically get that and I also include we'll have some some more additional information of what that could look like around estimated costs if we were to do something like that.
And so it's my goal to get that to you by the end of the month.
It's quite expansive.
I don't doubt that it is equity is expensive.
Director Pinkham.
Looks like there's all still a scrivener error that the fiscal impact wasn't updated to reflect the extra six hundred dollars per year.
So the cost was because this is the additional two years.
So that would be the six hundred times two and that's why it's twelve hundred bucks.
Yes.
But under number five fiscal impact that hasn't been updated is updated up above showing but it hasn't been updated in the fiscal impact revenue source.
Chief Narver that's a Scrivener's error is that correct.
Thank you sir.
Seeing no further comment questions concerns from my colleagues roll call please.
Director Geary aye Director Hersey aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye Director Mack aye Director Harris aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
See action item number two BEX V award architectural and engineering contract P 1 6 2 8 to NAC architecture for the Northgate elementary school replacement project came before Ops September 5th for approval.
Motion please.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a slash E contract P 1 6 2 8 with NAC architecture in the amount of five million three hundred seventy thousand three hundred and five dollars plus reimbursable expenses of fifty thousand dollars for architectural and engineering services.
The total contract amount of five million four hundred twenty thousand three hundred and five dollars is for the Northgate elementary school replacement BEX V project with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent.
and to take any necessary action to implement this contract.
I second the motion.
Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.
We did ask a fair number of questions during intro.
Director Pinkham and Director Mack.
Can I address the points that were brought up in public testimony.
Are you familiar with those or do you want me to read them again.
My recollection is there was since this is a school replacement.
This was the questions were related to investments we had made.
Thank you in the life of the school that are now going to be demolished when we replace the building.
There is a chance God help us that this building may be landmark.
So I don't know exactly what will happen.
And you know we face this challenge all the time.
This is not a.
a building that provides the best educational experience.
That doesn't mean we can't afford not to take care of it and make investments along the way.
And this my recollection is this building rated very low when we did our condition assessments for buildings and this has been a high priority for the district.
I recognize the sunk cost.
I think we face that problem every day.
We have to make investments we have to do things for kids now and we need to do things for students in the future.
Yeah I can see that it does note that the upgrades were technology I know for the old buildings sometimes I prefer technology is just put ducks into the hallways and run all the wires that are needed for the technology.
And the other would be requirements 88. It's something we had to do.
We can't ignore those.
But I know that the Northgate community is appreciated that we did get them on the BEX and I think they're definitely look forward to getting their school remodeled upgraded.
Director Mack.
Okay.
Director Burke.
Just one question about this project has it been identified.
What is the model.
Is it going to be a GCCM or is it going to be a.
That's our preference is to do GCCM.
We haven't gone through the process yet.
Okay.
Thank you.
So does it come back to us for the GCCM decision then or not.
Help me understand please.
That is not something we bring to the board.
It's an administrative decision.
We do need to get certification from the project review committee at the state level has to give us the authority to use an alternative public works process.
But that's a decision we ultimately make.
I'm just used to seeing that as part of these bars so I'm trying to understand the distinction and the difference.
Well this because it's just the architectural and engineering part this is the very first step we're designing the new thing and we haven't completely planted the plan the project.
I think we believe and to not let the cat out of the bag but I think this is one of the.
recommendations you're going to hear from the BEX BTA oversight committee is that the for like building replacements and big enough projects the district really ought to lean towards GCCM.
So I think we think that makes sense but we need to get a design done first before we ultimately decide how best to deliver the project.
There's no such thing as letting the cat out of the bag when we're on the same team.
There you go.
I just hate to spoil the drama.
And there you have it.
I have a couple of questions if I might.
You made a reference to God forbid it might be landmarked and is it a fair comment that if a building is landmarked it can add 30 percent to the cost.
It can add costs and it can really constrain the outcome depending on the nature of the building.
I think this building in particular we think would be a challenge to provide the best results for students if we have to preserve the building envelope.
Wow OK and I might add that North Beach excuse me Northgate was the beneficiary of our course correction and doubling points in the BEX V principles that we evaluated and moved around projects so.
Seeing no further comments questions concerns from my colleagues.
Roll call please.
Director Hersey aye Director Mack aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye Director Geary aye Director Harris aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
C 3 action item BEX V award architectural and engineering contract P 1 6 3 7 to Malum architects for the Viewlands elementary school replacement project came before Ops September 5th for approval.
Motion please.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a slash e contract p 1 6 3 7 with Malum architects in the amount of five million three hundred twelve thousand two hundred fifty six dollars plus reimbursable expenses of forty thousand dollars for architectural and engineering services.
The total contract amount of five million three hundred fifty two thousand two hundred fifty six is for the Viewlands elementary school replacement BEX V project with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.
I second the motion.
Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.
Seeing none roll call please.
Director Burke aye Director Geary aye Director Hersey aye Director Mack aye Director Pinkham aye Director Harris aye this motion is passed unanimously.
OK we are at D introduction items.
Number one amending board policy number 2015 selection and adoption of instructional materials and board policy number 2020 waiver of basic instructional materials.
This came before C&I September 10th.
for consideration approval of this item would make edits to board policy number 2015 selection and adoption of instructional materials and the board policy number 2020 waiver of basic instructional materials.
These materials have been updated October 1 2019 Chief DeBacker if first you could address what's been updated and then the floor is yours.
Diane DeBacker chief academic officer.
Thank you President Harris.
The only update has to do with our reference to policy 4110. We had reference 4110 at two different points during the BAR.
We took one out and failed to take the second one out so that was the that was the addition.
And the only reason that we did that is that 4110 governs family and community committees and after a formal review by our legal counsel they have informed us that the IMC is not a family or a community committee.
Can you tee this up please.
And I expect that our curriculum and instruction chair Jill Geary and our former C&I chair Rick Burke will have information to add as far as the history of this project.
Yes I will tee it up for you.
As you know you have been looking at this as a board for several months and it has been something that I have been looking at for the 10 months that I've been here as well.
You will recall as we met with you one on one and two on twos earlier this spring we had copies for you that were color coded that had about five different colors going depending on what the revision was and where it came from.
We have come a long way since that time.
And we are now to a policy that I believe reflects the desires of the board and the desires of the staff to make 2015 a policy that allows us to adopt curriculum and adopt curriculum and instructional materials.
that are from a commercial source as well as from a source that comes from from the ground up such as what we did with some of our science materials such as what you've seen with since time immemorial and what we will see in the very near future with ethnic studies.
So this is our opportunity to get this done.
We are very proud of the work that's happened so far and the reason the work has happened is because of the input of all of you.
We have had many sessions about this as Director Geary and Director Burke can share in C&I we have had this before them several times we have wordsmithed it.
significantly but I think the word smithing was definitely needed.
Just to remind you why we are doing this.
The current board policy does not allow for adoption of instructional materials that help existing instructional materials to fully address established learning standards nor does the current policy provide a process to adopt those non commercially produced materials.
And we are also proposing smaller changes to policy 2020 which governs the instructional materials waivers to align to the proposed changes in policy 2015. During our last discussion with C&I we made the following changes.
We ensured that there was a distinct there was a distinction was clear between required core materials adopted by the board and approved supplementary materials approved by district staff.
We added the overarching guiding principle that the board has the ability to add guiding principles for a particular adoption.
We added other specific guiding principles such as are they based as our recommendation based on best practices and research including benchmarking and efficacy from other districts.
And then we change the reference to SPS staff charged with particular responsibilities within this policy to the superintendent or designee in nearly every case so that we could be consistent with the wording as we went on.
We also added how waivers might be triggered and we added specific wording that says instructional material adoptions can also be initiated to address identified needs in specific courses or grade levels resulting from obsolete biased or unavailable adopted instructional materials and widespread request for instructional material waivers per board policy 2020. I already talked about 4110 and if you have questions about that I can ask answer those as well.
I think that tees it up enough.
Thank you so much for all your work and I definitely want to also thank Kyle Kinoshita for his many many hours of work on this though he's no longer with the district and What I like about this is that we in making this policy we went back to basics.
We created an outline to figure out what it is that we wanted it to do.
We filled that outline back in.
We cross referenced it with the procedures and then we looked at recent adoptions consulting with both Kathleen Kathleen Vasquez and Mary Margaret Mitchell.
Is that right.
No.
Well sorry.
I don't know where I got that.
I went off into a social sociologist name.
OK.
So and that we took our own people and asked them what is the process that we used.
And then we cross referenced it again against what we're doing all in hopes that it is intuitive.
It makes sense.
It is reinforced by the work that is currently going on.
within the peer groups and that we come out with consistent processes that people can trust.
And I think with that and an acknowledgement that we as a board needed to be better aware of when waivers were becoming adoptions that with all of that that this policy does a much better job with getting us to a place where we can adopt materials that our community thinks is appropriate for us.
So Director Burke.
I also want to share gratitude with all the teams that made this happen.
This is something that teed up when I was chair of curriculum instruction committee and then took a little while to work through through its different different ebbs and flows.
So I also appreciate that we have added intentionality about what starts in adoption because that was one of the sticking points.
Is it started on a particular cycle that is just fixed based on some calendar?
Is it started based on some sort of random number generator?
What is the transparency around that?
And we were very intentional that it started based on an identified need.
And that could be new standards that could be existing programs being outdated or you know schools not basically the patient rejecting the organ and needing to have new materials to align with new process and practices.
So I really appreciate that.
Two comments.
I would like to go further into the discussion on policy 4110. because that is an area that when we look back at previous adoptions we've had an inconsistent record of public transparency around the IMC and what the IMC does and posting IMC minutes and things like that which is really the intent that I had when we were talking about including that.
So I'm interested how we're going to maintain that and why this wouldn't apply here.
The other point is that in in committee we had a lot and out of committee we had a lot of conversation around policy 2015 but this this motion is actually for two policies 2015 and 2020 and 2020 is a point of I think We want to foster innovation.
We want to provide a level of a tool that schools can use that innovation and implement it and help the rest of us get better.
But we also have to provide enough transparency around it.
And so I would like to add one line in there about the superintendent shall also maintain a public record of waivers which I think is something that.
is you know we can figure out where to put that.
I could come up with some language and suggest it whether it's a formal amendment.
I wanted to put that into conversation now because already it's reported to the committee.
But once it goes into committee then it just goes into committee somewhere.
And my request would be that that lives at a predictable location so people can understand what are those innovations that are coming up through the district.
Those are my two points.
May I take privilege and ask the superintendent if she would object to that.
She would not.
So Director Burke are you asking in 2020 in the paragraph on page 2 of 3 that talks about how the superintendent shall inform.
We add a sentence there about them we will post those or something similar.
Right.
Shall shall make publicly available and inform the board annually of blah blah blah.
whatever language is amenable and consistent with what our normal practices are.
Thank you I appreciate it.
Director Mack.
I echo the appreciation for the hard work of working through this and I really appreciate Director Geary's Explanation how is really important to actually go through and map it out first and what are we trying to achieve here and make sure that we had all of that that that that process has taken us a while but certainly the end product is you know is is more reflective of the board and the district's needs.
So I really appreciate that thoughtfulness.
My.
First question I have two questions one is actually in the in 2015 and the other is in 2020. Can you as you expressed a minute ago there was a delineation between board approved and approved supplementary materials that are approved by staff and I was trying to.
unravel in my brain whether or not ethnic studies or similar type things were going to be considered supplementary materials or not.
And then if it is in that and regardless of whether or not it is what exactly is the review process by which the curriculum is reviewed for all of the same things that are in here about you know the different priorities that we have to make sure that it.
meets those goals.
It depends on what we do with that particular content.
So in the example of ethnic studies if it were a standalone course that would be a core instructional material.
However if it is something that we push in or integrate with another curricular area or another content area Those would be extended core instructional materials.
Both of those require board approval.
OK so for the ethnic studies example it looks like a board approval process for ethnic studies.
But on the — either way as we we have not yet made that decision as a staff and as a board.
Obviously if it's a course or integrated we know the direction that we've been going the past few years is that it's integrated.
Right.
But just for clarity the supplementary materials are staff approved and those are you know maybe in a building they're adding.
worksheets from another book or something and it's not exactly it's not a supplementary instruction materials or ones that the principal approves or the superintendent or their designee.
An example of that I think is very easy to understand right now at this time and thinking about the presidential election next year.
We teach classes on government and civics but we may want to have a supplementary material that's all about the voter's guide.
that literally takes students through here something that you would use as you were preparing to go to the to the polls and vote.
So that would be something that principals would approve.
I mean that's just one example.
And actually I do believe that the King County elections does make those.
Yes they do.
Guides for students.
They're amazing.
They do.
And that would be really it's a great tool to use.
They do and they've already visited me.
Excellent.
So my second question is about the 2020 and the paragraph that's deleted here that says that when the district begins a process to adopt new instructional materials pursuant to policy 2015 staff participating in the adoption process should evaluate the school level data for the subject for adoption of all schools with the relevant grades.
And the purpose of that is to learn how we're doing with the materials that are in use.
So if we're using materials under waiver in schools if it's being considered in the adoption process the data of whether or not that's working would be used.
It's deleted from the waiver policy from 2020 did that get put back into 2015 or is that something that maybe we've had an oversight in our in our process because for me the requirement that we actually look back at the data of the schools that are using waivers if we're going to be considering those materials and that that be required to be part of the process is still important to have in there and I that whole paragraph is important.
I just don't know if it ended up being slotted somewhere else or if it's actually deleted.
I will need to check on that and see if we where that's at or if it's even in 2020 enough for us to feel comfortable with it.
So then my personal request would be that this paragraph if it isn't adequately reflected that it be unstricken.
Is that is that a good word.
No that it would be.
So what in the review thing it says reject comment reject or yes.
Anyway I think you all understand that this paragraph would actually come back and not be stricken and it sounds like I see heads nodding around.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you.
And let me double check on that because it could be also over back in 2015 with all those bulleted items that are there.
We may have considered it being there.
Director Pinkham.
I was looking through this one that I'm sorry I didn't bring this up in C&I but things are starting to stand out to me a bit more.
When we had the definition of course courses we say K through 12 but with the rise of pre-K are we going to see eventually the need to say pre-K through 12 because the number is increasing so.
Yeah so that's one question.
And then as I read through this I see the word designee repeated quite often but only one place does it say superintendents designee it doesn't say who does a designation for the others.
We will clean that up if necessary.
Director Geary please.
On the preschool curriculum adoption we're required to provide special education preschool.
And so the idea of a curriculum and adoption may not actually if every child has an individualized education plan a something that would rise to the level of a required adoption for all students across that set might not be triggered.
Do we are we in charge of the curriculum that is used within the Seattle preschool programs or the Head Start programs.
Because again those may have separate curriculum adoption protocol.
But I don't think because once you start saying that we're going to adopt preschool curriculum and it's then mandated to be used across all of our preschools we may end up with some conflicts.
I think that's a really that's a really good point.
Actually if I and I wish the staff member who is deep at Kishel thank you that's deepest in on on preschool many years ago before.
Many years ago I sat on the original task force for the city's preschool program and I remember the conversations at that time was about the suggestion that they had three curriculum that were possible to be used.
So.
It's an interesting question as to whether or not if we in the district decide we're using one of those three or how that's done and I think it deserves an answer for us to figure out whether or not that should actually fall under our policy or if it doesn't.
And I agree with you on the special ed thing but I'd like to.
I'd like to get.
I think it would be just an interesting conversation because I think we are a provider of preschool with city money and not necessarily.
I mean I don't know if we've adopted a pre K-12 model in this district yet or if we're still K-12 so we can have that conversation.
Yes.
OK I believe I'm last up here.
Certainly heard a lot about ethnic studies recently and I think it is a priority of everybody on this dais and I'd like to channel our missing board member Director DeWolf as well.
And we've got one manager and how can one manager address all these things.
And the second issue is the.
pushback loud not well framed conversation about the ethnic studies math that has hit the press.
Can you talk about that a little bit because I don't think that it is framed in an appropriate way and I guess I'd like to know where we're going on ethnic studies and when we're going to get there.
And that does relate to this.
Yes and I will attempt to answer most of what you ask with the the the audio that came out I believe today around ethnic studies and math that was on K I R O. I talked to the program manager of ethnic studies Tracy Gill about that and ask her where that came from where that all generated from.
As you know OSPI has established a committee a statewide committee to work on ethnic studies curriculum a K through 12 curriculum.
When they were setting up that committee and trying to make their decisions on who was going to be on that committee having to attend to everything that was within the bill.
So.
Geographic locations that represented the state diversity of the people on their different groups that were represented whether it was WEA or other groups.
They asked Tracy for some information because Seattle is the leader in terms of ethnic studies in the state.
So they asked Tracy we know you've done a lot of work.
Can you give us a couple examples of what you've done so that at least our committee has a chance to look at those.
Tracy very graciously provided them with an example in math and an example in another content area I'm not sure which one.
And remember that we are using right now or we're using a model that pushes in to a curriculum.
So ethnic studies coming in to a math assignment.
That was a one that they picked up on and we call that a framework our framework of how we're going to do that.
And so it needs a bit of explaining because if you heard the audio it was if you don't have the background behind it or even what's coming next it makes very little sense.
So we are prepared our comps team is prepared to respond to that if necessary of course with Tracy's guidance.
So that's on that one.
It's not a if necessary but it is push back on the future of ethnic studies and the timeline and the pace.
Much depends on how quickly we can get 2015 done.
So let's assuming the very best and that in two weeks we have answered all your questions you're satisfied with that and we get at least four votes.
to say that 2015 is ready to go.
As soon as that is ready to go we are ready to start working on how we bring you a bar on the adoption of an ethnic studies curriculum.
So now if you think back to what you did in science it took quite a year to get that done.
to do it.
We do not anticipate a year to get that done.
We have been working on this for at for a year and even more so.
But what we'll have to do is we'll have to start putting together I mean we'll have to go through the same process.
We have to have an IMC that looks at it.
We have to have the adoption committee.
Now all of that can be abbreviated some because we're very far ahead in this process but we'll bring you a bar that has a fiscal note that shows you what the scope and sequences what the curriculum is.
Are we using a push in model are we doing a standalone course are we doing a hybrid of all of those.
Director Pinkham.
I just have an amendment to my comments that I gave earlier so once this is over if I can Make an amendment to my comments.
I appreciate it.
And then Director Pinkham.
I just wanted to come back to the 4110 conversation around if you could explain kind of the justification around how this is not an oversight or advisory committee or whatever.
So therefore that doesn't apply.
I'll speak to it with what I know and then I'll ask General Counsel Garber to add any information.
When we were looking at the revising we're looking at everything that's tagged on to 2015 and 4110 had originally been there.
But as we were really dissecting that and thinking back to how we those colors that you know that Kyle had all put together and everything.
And we said does 4110 actually apply to this policy.
When we look deeply into 4110 4110 governs family and community committees and we do not believe our legal team did not believe that the IMC was a family or community committee and that is all I can speak to that at this point.
I'll have to rely on our council.
Again Greg Narver chief legal counsel.
The specific analysis on this was done by Ronald Boy one of the lawyers in our department.
He's the one most knowledgeable on that.
It was his recommendation looking into it that 4110 didn't apply here.
As I understand it the concern was that with the IMC and the adoption committee you have requirements about their composition and the degree of community involvement and engagement that are set in the case of the IMC by state law in the case of the adoption committee by other policies here.
Nothing about it precludes the call it the spirit behind 4110 of being involved.
But that whatever specifics you're going to have on these committees ought to be in this policy itself rather than he felt creating confusion by also basically cross referencing a separate policy.
Are you creating a new set of obligations.
And I think the concern is really one about clarity of how these committees were going to be comprised as I understand it.
I'd be happy to get further feedback from Mr. Boyd who's the one who.
took the lead on this issue.
That's my understanding of what his concerns were.
Are you good?
I think my my number one concern is just that we have a methodology that's captured in policy or procedure or both around what the transparency of the IMC looks like to the public because that was one of the places that I think we were called out for in previous conversations.
And I think what he would say and I invite him of course to later weigh in is that that transparency can.
At home watching don't you know.
Of course I'm sure he is.
that that transparency can be written into this policy itself so that this is a standalone policy on those requirements rather than creating a cross reference to a separate policy.
It's not to negate the importance of that transparency but rather it ought to be self-contained within this policy.
OK that would be great if we could get the guidance on that and then also some clarity around this is policy.
Presumably we need a procedure to accompany before we can do ethnic studies and kind of the juxtaposition of where those things live.
OK.
We'll be happy to follow up.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah I mean actually back to the 4110 conversation.
Our policy is really short on the procedures a little more specific and breaks out the definitions of what's a task force and what's an advisory committee and what they're supposed to do etc.
The policy is pretty blankety that we we want engagement.
This is how we engage and we want to make sure that families and community have opportunity to participate and in specific that our process for selecting members must be inclusive fair consistent and transparent.
The other sentence that's in here that I think is really important for our work across the district and all of our task forces and the IMC if there is parent or teacher because there are positions that are parent and teacher The the the result must demonstrate equity as committee members should reflect the diversity of our students and families.
Are you quoting from.
I'm quoting from 4110 here.
It says it must demonstrate equity as community committee members should reflect the diversity of our students and families and those two things about the selection process that that be transparent consistent inclusive and fair.
and that the members reflect the diversity of our students and families.
I think those are important points beyond the transparency of having the minutes and so forth.
I agree with Director Burke's point there but part of the reason why I felt like tying back to 4110 closed some of those loops was clarifying that it's we from a policy perspective believe strongly in this inclusive fair consistent and transparent as well as.
Reflecting the diversity of our students and families.
Those are two points that are very clear here and if we don't have those in the document elsewhere they get lost.
So I would still advocate for tying back to 4110 and making some sort of reference as you know that the makeup is different but that it shouldn't supersede.
OK certainly the that language can certainly be whether it's a specific reference to 4110 or just that language from 4110 also being reflected in the policy.
The superintendent procedure that goes with 4110 does say that it doesn't apply to committees or groups established under other board policies.
So if we are going to do that there would probably need to be some.
amending of that as well.
But this is something that can I think be worked out with language going into the into the policy.
Director Pinkham.
There's a solution here.
up excuse me.
Superintendent Juneau please.
Come wants to close up.
I'm wondering if there could be a reference to 4110 in this policy and then in the procedure make clear what the IMC is specifically.
So because there's different categories of task force and meetings and maybe the words in the procedure should outline what the IMC is.
OK and there's also of course the state statute on the IMC that gets factored in as well.
Director Pinkham you have last word kind sir.
Wow this is going to the pressure is on.
But my comment that I wanted to share earlier during our board comments was that I maybe other parents out there are getting confused when they get a call saying that your son or daughter has been marked absent for the following periods and it says 13 or 14 and what is 13th and 14th period.
So we need clarification on that for parents out there.
I confused there to find out what those actually periods are depending upon block schedules.
The school didn't know either.
We don't know how it works and so we need some clarification there please.
And on that note this meeting is adjourned at 7 43.