Seattle School Board Meeting December 6, 2017 Part 2

you

can continue this board meeting.

Much appreciate.

OK we've got 737 and the board meeting resumes.

I have yet to give my comments and I again will try and be short and sweet.

Let me first say thank you to my colleagues.

I appreciate the responsibility that comes with being voted president.

I assure you I will work extraordinarily hard so that we can be the best board ever.

My thank yous.

Kerry Campbell director of chief engagement officer.

Thank you.

James Bush director of community partnerships.

Nate Van Duzer the board manager.

Brent Jones assistant superintendent of equity and title please.

Assistant superintendent of Chief strategies partnership officer.

Thank you for the extraordinary retreat that you helped us put together on Saturday.

Hearing from the Cantonese mothers and from a number of our community partners.

A chance to sit and talk about each other's perspectives but mostly listening was was something that will keep me going for six months.

It was inspiring.

It was a learning opportunity and cannot tell you how much I appreciate it personally and on behalf of the board.

To Tina Dang at Cleveland go Eagles graduate.

Mind you I only went there 10 weeks but my diploma says Cleveland High School.

Thank yous as well to city staff council member Herbold her staff members Newell Aldrich Peggy McEvoy assistant superintendent of operations and the Alki elementary parents for coming together and saving goodness knows how many lives Admiral Way Southwest and Southwest 59th at 59th Avenue Southwest is an intersection that is dangerous.

It is not well marked.

And there have been far far too many near misses and folks have worked together to work on safety issues and we see the DOT trucks out there the SDOT trucks out there and more to follow.

But they set up a task force and it's been a beautiful thing to watch folks hold hands and make a difference.

Thank you to SHA partners.

They're the best Rainier Beach High School.

Again they come they testify brilliantly they have every right to be frustrated at where they are on the capital BEX levy chain.

Unfortunately there is no money in the bank to rebuild that school now it has to be on BEX V. And with respect to the young woman who testified about the MOU in Fort Lawton please be assured that Fort Lawton wasn't done in a month.

Please be assured that Fort Lawton was ever so painful getting there to it.

And please be assured that when I made my comments at the signing ceremony I called out Rainier Beach High School very specifically because I see this MOU as not Seattle center centric.

but as a tool to work as partners.

And I emphasize the word partners with the city of Seattle on planning on engagement and on our capacity crisis.

Rainier Beach has been brought up Rainier Beach will be continued to be brought up as long as I'm still breathing.

I want to say also thank you to Luke Ducey who left us as a communication specialist.

He put in some extraordinarily good work as our communication specialist and many of the videos you see on the Web site are his good work.

And with that I would like to announce my community meetings.

And I'll also throw the lasagna challenge in there.

You have a one in three chance of getting lasagna if you come.

December 23rd Delridge library 3 to 5. January 20th the West Seattle library 3 to 5. February 17th the High Point library 3 to 5. We feed you.

We have a rocking good time and terrific conversation.

And with that.

Mr. Vice President are you going to be able to bring our motions forward.

OK. 8 C action items repeal of school board procedure E 14.0 for research activity and test administration procedure and adoption of new school board policy number 4 2 8 0 research activity.

This came before C&I when and what was the result.

This came before C&I November 7th and was moved forward for approval.

Would you make the motion kind sir.

And the motion is I move that the school board repeal board procedure number E 14.04 research activity and test administration and adopt new board policy number 4 2 8 0 research activity as attached to the board action report.

And Madam.

At large would you like to second that motion please.

Second the motion.

Thank you.

Who do we have up here speaking to this issue quickly given the fact that we are at 745 already this evening and just hit our first action item and we've got some powerful ones behind it.

Yes good evening.

Eric Anderson director of research and evaluation.

I'm joined by Jessica Beaver senior research scientist in my department.

She coordinates the research review process for the school district.

The purpose of this BAR was to update the old procedure and to distinguish between two components research activity and test administration.

We're updating the new numbering system from the old E series to policy 4 2 8 0. We're adding language on research activities specific to student data privacy to bolster that component.

And we've created a new superintendent procedure stating district policies and practices for the formal review of external applications to conduct research in the school district.

We're happy to answer any questions you may have about that.

Do our directors have questions comments or concerns.

Going once.

Going twice.

Ms. Shek the roll call please.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Aye.

Director DeWolf.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Mack.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

8 2 amend and rename policy number 3 2 4 0 student conduct and discipline to student behavior and disciplinary responses and repeal D policy D 8 2 0 0 intervention for violent exceptional misconduct prior to readmittance to regular schools.

This motion was heard by C&I when and what was the resolution sir.

Motion was heard by C&I November 7th move forward to the board for approval.

Would you please move the motion.

I move that the board approve the amended and renamed board policy number 3 2 4 0 student behavior and disciplinary responses and repeal board policy D 8 2 dot 0 0 intervention for violent exceptional misconduct prior to readmittance to regular schools as attached to the board action report.

Second the motion.

We have staff in the audience to address questions comments or concerns.

Do the directors have comments questions or concerns about this proposed policy?

Seeing none Ms. Shek to the roll call please.

Director DeWolf aye Director Geary aye Director Mack Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Number 8 C 3 BTA 4 approve phase 1 purchase of classroom technology to support teaching and learning.

This came before C&I.

This was before C&I moved forward for consideration on November 7th awaiting contract documents and further clarification.

Mr. Vice President would you please move the motion.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute purchase orders through RFP number 0 6 7 9 2 with Dell Thornburg for a total amount of total not to exceed for a total amount of not to exceed amount $1 million plus Washington state sales tax.

over fiscal years 2017 slash 18 in the form of the draft purchase orders attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the purchase orders.

Director Geary.

Second.

Mr. Crowe.

John Crowe chief information officer.

Could you introduce five minutes of comments or or feedback.

Lay the menu for us and then we'll have the directors give you questions if we might.

OK in January of excuse me in February 2016 our public approved BTA IV by a vote approval vote of 74 percent.

Part of the BTA IV approval and the materials that went out to the public part of that was for student devices.

We in those materials there was twenty nine million dollars for classroom and student technology and support of that we budgeted over the three year period 15 million dollars for student devices before the BTA IV election and since then there has been a lot of community engagement and.

processes internally and at our schools as you've seen from the comments to figure out which device we want what the pedagogies were that we're supporting and we're ready to go forward with a pilot.

The pilot is a small group of schools 80 80 classrooms 50 of those are doing blended learning and 30 of them are doing middle school science with a digital curriculum.

That is we're calling that phase one of several phases going forward this year and in the future years of BTA IV.

Thank you.

Directors comments questions concerns director Patu.

I just like to say that after visiting various schools that's not out of our district we are very behind in tech.

And as I watch the various classroom that uses tech for their classroom and then I go to our schools and look at what our kids are using.

I really feel terrible and I feel bad about it because we're not equipped with with the tech that we need in order for our kids to move forward.

And so I'm hoping that we can actually be able to vote on this tonight because our kids certainly need it because all the other districts are actually way ahead of us.

Other directors comments questions concerns director Pinkham and then director Burke and then director DeWolf in that order.

One of the comments tonight mentioned the Chromebooks and how did we have issues with those books or those laptops in schools and what were the cost of those and maintain them?

Do you see us pursuing continuing on with those?

Those Chromebook books mentioned at Mercer were actually a donation.

and weren't powerful enough or new enough to do the science program there at Mercer.

So that's not a direction that we're going.

Again as part of this research that we've been doing since February of 2016. Part of this was doing an RFP for devices.

They've gone through a tremendous amount of engagement in selecting the proper device that's both powerful enough durable enough and will last four years.

So so we're proud we're proud of that selection.

We just finished an RFP process that met a lot of requirements that we needed.

Did we have any commitments with that donation and possibly what it will do with those are resourcing those Chromebooks.

There can be used as needed over time.

They'll be phased out.

Director Burke.

This is definitely one of the areas of passion for me.

I've got a couple of questions.

First a clerical one.

The the bar is indicates a one million dollar limit but the P.O.

that's attached to the bar is five hundred ninety eight thousand two hundred ninety six.

So is this essentially purchase or purchase authority for that P.O.

or is this purchase authority for one million dollars and what would be the remaining four hundred thousand if it's for the one million dollars.

Thanks for the question.

Again this has been a long process.

When we first brought this to committee we had not chosen.

We had chosen neither the vendor nor the actual device because that was in process.

So we made that estimate on the on to make sure we had enough money in the process.

Now that we've done the RFP and have selected the actual process it's for that that smaller amount.

And that will be the device that we're standardizing for the present.

So I guess in the context of the motion maybe this is just a clerical question should the motion rather than being the dollar amount should it be for this PO amount or is that an insignificant detail?

Maybe a question for general counsel.

Director Burke John Cerqui deputy general counsel.

The benefit of having the larger sum contained in the motion is that it would authorize and allow flexibility to purchase different equipment under that PO and RFP.

If you limit it to what is listed in the PO then you would not be able to purchase any additional equipment.

So we could modify it to that dollar amount or we could give Mr. Krull and his team the flexibility to procure additional devices up to the one million dollar threshold.

OK so just to be clear as as moved it's a specific authorization for the PO but it includes an additional flexibility up to that not to exceed amount.

That's correct the motion limits it to one million dollars.

Okay.

And then this was something that I mentioned at the at our board retreat.

I'm concerned with how Seattle is how we are implementing our technology elements.

And this is a particularly difficult bar for me because we have the opportunity as a board to take action on something that goes to students and provides immediate benefit.

But we're doing it.

You know it feels to me like we don't have a systematic sort of consistent theory of action around it and that was one of my requests that we could look at forming some sort of an oversight committee to help us build out how are we doing technology how are we identifying curricular elements that are that are relevant that are research proven how do we maintain digital safety of our students.

So that's not within the scope of this but I just wanted to be on the record as having that as a request that we put together something that's modeled after the BEX oversight committee.

Because you know we have a essentially thirty three point nine million dollars in our capital budget for technology just this year.

So over 10 percent of our capital budget is technology.

So I feel a sense of responsibility to our voters to make sure that we're we're on our game for strategy and that we're protecting their interests protecting our students and providing the most benefit.

I think I'll defer.

I have a couple of other things but I want to manage airtime.

Just just to be clear I like that idea of either an oversight or an advisory committee.

The technology is covered in the existing oversight committee and we we we address that.

And I have one document where we are documenting how we're spending in the first version of that is just coming out right now.

Yeah.

Director DeWolf your questions comments concerns.

Yes.

Just want to say thank you so much.

I appreciate your work and collaborating on this with chief of for curriculum Kinoshita.

Also just appreciate making sure that it's informed by curriculum first and then seeing how technology can kind of supplement that.

My question is what is the time frame for this.

When will students get this in their hands.

If it passes tonight we're hoping to start the procurement process immediately with delivery in February.

That's the question.

Director Mack.

I too am very excited about increasing access to learning and reading through the information provided.

It looks like the selection process was very thoughtful.

The question that I'm having in the back of my mind and maybe this exists somewhere and I just don't know where it is yet is.

What do we have in our schools now and where are there gaps.

So there's a great list of all the schools are getting extra carts which is great.

But what I don't have a picture of is which schools don't have carts at all.

How many classrooms are empty.

You know where where is the across the district where's the need.

And you know so that we can actually make future informed decisions with that picture in mind.

That's a really good question I had the same question myself and I had my staff put together a chart and a map that shows what the schools presently have and there is a big big need out there.

Remember this current bar tonight is only for 80 classrooms.

And you'll see I'll share this with the entire board is our inventory of what we have.

And it shows the devices that are over four years old.

It shows the exact number of devices and what type of devices at each school.

And that will will show you the need for future presentations to the board.

As again this is only phase one.

Leslie can you do a follow up?

Go ahead and follow up please.

Well yeah quick question on so 80 classrooms and I'm sorry what's the total number of our classrooms across the district?

So what percentages of that of our district is that?

Do we know?

I can't recall the exact number of classrooms.

I'd be estimating.

I'm sure someone here knows it's probably about 1500. Yeah 3000 because we'll be we'll be coming with the teacher item later which is more closely related to the number of classrooms we have.

It just helps me to put it in context the bigger picture.

So thank you.

Director Patu and.

Patu So how do you actually choose what schools that you know get those computers since we have a lot of schools and you're saying only 80 schools get to receive those.

So how is the choice is made in order for what school that actually gets those tech.

There was two two rollouts.

One was blended learning and one was for middle school science.

For both of those there was an application process and the schools were selected with an equity lens as well.

So we tried to have a mix of schools based on need based on readiness.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham.

I'm looking at some of the language in the bar.

So what you're asking for now is like for a pilot project to test out some computers and these laptops to see how well they work and then if they work you plan to buy more to go up to that one million or that other 400000.

No we've pretty much decided the laptop that we want.

Remember we really want pedagogy.

and curriculum and instruction driving the need.

So part of this is OK we've got the device now.

Now we in this pilot we want to work with these 80 teachers.

They're going to be leaders in rolling this out further district wide.

But it's not so much the device.

It's it's more what director Burke is is thinking about is making sure that we have teaching and learning driving what's happening with the device.

Me as as the leader of technology or technology services I shouldn't be driving how we use the device.

So I'm really trying with Dr. Kenosha and teachers and principals.

And that's why the people who came up to speak for this over the last two board meetings that they have been practitioners teachers principals students.

That's what we're having to try to drive the rest of the rollout.

So the pilot is actually how the.

Teachers will use this technology and then we've already committed to spend up to one million dollars on Dell laptops.

And well that's just for this pilot.

Like I said for BTA IV we've we've all the public in our in our brochure to the public.

We said we were going to spend with BTA IV funds up about twenty nine million dollars.

And that includes the support and the PD and about 15 million dollars for the actual devices.

And presently we have budgeted five million for the three years of the BTA IV.

So we'll be coming back to the board.

Remember this is just a pilot.

We'll be coming back to the board with much larger purchases.

again using BTA funds that were already approved and making sure we're hitting the rest of these schools because again this is only 80 classrooms that are getting modern technology.

You know we had some schools the five schools that opened this fall they were lucky enough to get new technology so they're taken care of.

So that was great.

We got 80 more schools with this this small pilot.

But we have we have a lot of work ahead of us.

Yeah.

So I just want to clarify that again work that this pilot doesn't mean we might change the technology we're committing to these Dell computers.

So it's not like the next the funds were going oh here's maybe HP computers that work better than.

No part of the part of the RFP was to select a vendor that we're going to be working with.

So we will be working with Dell the RFP for the next five years.

There is flexibility in changing the device you know as technology moves forward.

So part of the part of the award is to have a similar discount based on any change in technology.

So we'll be keeping an eye on that.

But but really it's less about the technology and more how we're using it.

I am going to jump in here with some questions.

Middle of science amplify may be the best thing since life spread.

However given the way that this is being rolled out it is not a formal curriculum adoption.

We have not gone through the rigorous process of curriculum adoption.

And that's a board policy.

In fact that's a statutory.

And I see Dr. Kinoshita walking up.

We've had a very thoughtful deep dive discussion last week.

And I have to tell you I'm very concerned about mission creep and about things like waivers.

We have a pretty painful history about waivers in this district.

And I'm a little reluctant to sign.

Yes the voters gave us that authority but they also gave it to us with an extraordinary amount of trust.

And to be told that we can vote a million dollars and look the other way.

won't allow me to sleep at night with all due respect.

And I appreciate the good intent.

I appreciate the curriculum adoptions are lengthy.

I think that what Mercer is doing is awesome.

I think we'd probably get there if we did a curriculum adoption.

But we don't have a technology plan.

We don't have a technology plan that is braided with pedagogy that I'm aware of and I very much would like to see your survey of schools in need and I'd like to see it as well as a race and equity tool lens too.

Now when I was reading this and I made some cryptic notes here and you can help me with this Mercer is getting 30 percent of this.

Where's the 30 coming in here.

And where does that leave our other high needs middle schools.

So on the distribute all of our all of our middle schools doing amplify science are getting an equal number of computers.

We did this allocation based on what they needed.

Other other schools had laptops already.

So we weren't going to give give to them again.

So we as far as the middle school science we're making sure that all middle school teachers doing the new digital materials have the computers they need.

Did you want to speak to this Dr. Kinoshita.

Thank you.

Kyle Kinoshita chief of curriculum assessment instruction.

I think Director Burke and you actually raise a very good question.

It is correct.

We do not have a technology plan that is connected with curriculum or instruction.

As I was doing some research in terms of where surrounding districts were in terms of the technology I noticed that quite a few of them actually had multiyear plans that you know did exactly what you talked about.

They actually had a plan around developing instruction or curriculum and they actually then braided the technology acquisition to actually support that.

We also had another example as Director Burke said we were in Denver.

And so you know although it was a little bit off topic I went ahead and you know looked through their website and they have a very clear strategic plan around how to do that.

So Seattle needs to do that.

I think that one of the things that Director Burke raises about you know basically developing some sort of body to actually you know you know oversee this.

It's precisely what I think needs to be done is to have some parallel planning going around such as parallel planning in terms of where we are going to go with curriculum in the next several years.

Where we are going in structural initiatives such as this secondary revision.

And then figuring out how can technology actually support these efforts such that all three of them are much stronger and we do much better things for Seattle kids.

Did you have additional questions comments concerns Director Burke.

I just want to thank you for your comments because I think you articulated my concerns better than I did.

So I wanted to share that with you that we have on the wall we have our formula for success and we have tens of millions of dollars backing up our technology commitment and we don't have clarity as a board or as a city around how that formula for success how our commitment for equity and how this amazing opportunity to leverage our technology works together.

And so my push is not to say wow we shouldn't do this but to say wow we have such an amazing opportunity to do it deliberately.

So could you share with me just notionally something to give me a better idea of the timeline for this work that would help us.

Figure out when can we see some sort of a technology vision or technology master plan that underlays this?

Can we see that before we look at future capital purchases?

I want to clarify that we do have a technology plan and that plan was part of the $104 million technology levy that was before my time so that was a plan albeit pretty high level it's a plan.

What I've done over the last three months is for that need for an overall technology plan which is not just remember technology supports teaching and learning but it also supports operations and it supports our whole overall infrastructure.

So that technology plan I put together this document which I will send to the board.

I it literally just got released I'll send it to the board tomorrow.

It's already on our website under www.seattleschools.org slash dots.

We had a little bit of a soft launch of that so it's ready to go.

But but that being said so that's the pure technology plan because when we talk technology plan the The one challenge DOTS has is we support the whole organization.

But but I think what we really do need and Dr. Kinoshita and I agree and it sounds like Director Burke we agree that how does technology support what we're doing with teaching and learning.

And that I think we can better articulate.

So I think I think that's almost I wouldn't call it a technology plan because I think since I got here a year ago we did not want technology to be leading what's happening in the classroom.

So I really don't want to call it a technology plan.

I kind of want to call it a teaching and learning plan because You know, we had Michael Fullen here last week, and he is a worldwide leader in this area, and we're trying to get everybody up to speed on this.

And he says one of the biggest failures is to lead with technology.

Okay and I'm on board with that as being the person in charge of technology.

And what he says is technology needs to be in service of teaching and learning and technology can be used to accelerate and amplify student growth.

changing what's happening in the classroom.

So I want to be in service to Dr. Kinoshita and our secondary revisioning but I want to look at it in that lens.

But then remember we still have a full technology plan.

I'm also supporting JoLynn Berge you know I have a huge budget development project that my my department's already doing.

We've got several more questions coming your way kind sir.

Director Mack.

It may be a bit more of a comment than a question.

I think I'm with all of the conversation here about how we haven't articulated the braiding back into the curriculum and how that's working together.

That's such an important piece.

Five hundred thousand dollars four hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money.

And I feel I don't feel very comfortable with allowing that squishy room.

We have a clear P.O.

a clear statement of what we're delivering in this.

So for me I have discomfort with the squishiness of that additional.

Are you making a motion to amend director Mack.

Yes I will make a motion to amend that.

I'm going to need help with the actual language here but that the.

Who made the original motion.

Director DeWolf did you have something to add to assist on this?

Potentially.

Let's be collaborative.

Yes yes.

My pleasure.

My favorite.

OK so just to kind of think about what Director Pinkham said it sounds it sounds like and actually in tandem with Director Harris that this sounds like this is not purchased to then create or buy new software that's going to probably you know trigger that we need to be engaging more deeply with curriculum instruction correct?

This is just replacing old aging student technology laptops correct?

So this is just to replace what's there so that I mean according to the comments tonight that they have problems with that correct?

In that excuse me in that example it's replacing but in some of the schools they actually don't have laptops.

And we would be utilizing similar software that we're already using.

Software is not part of this.

This is just the devices to support teaching and learning.

OK.

And the second part that I think and again it sounds like this is a pilot that will be in service of helping to inform us.

how we can actually develop which I agree with Director Burke around how we actually create some sort of a meaningful comprehensive tech slash curriculum plan.

Correct.

So this is going to inform that.

It's going to inform how technology supports teaching and learning for secondary revisioning and the other initiatives that Dr. Kinoshita's team has.

OK and I and so then to director Mack Mack's comment I presume that you're going to use your best judgment and not go and buy Mac books with a million dollars probably going to adhere as closely as you can to.

No we're going to adhere exactly to this.

OK.

Just in that service like I actually feel comfortable in your request because I think again back to my comments earlier I trust that you are in the service of the best interest of our district.

Correct.

Yes thank you.

Thank you.

Director Burke did you have additional comments questions.

Director Mack were you wishing to make a motion.

Or an amendment.

Yeah I do want to make a motion around having the P.O.

match what we're authorizing because I think that's clean and it's exactly what you're asking for.

The end.

But I can't find that number.

So I would if you can help me out with identifying what that specific number is and I can make that motion.

So walking to the podium.

I was going to say just make it a lot maybe make it 650 just so it's in case there's a lot of things to go.

So if we wanted, so the exact amount of the PO is $598,296.61.

My legal counsel is recommending that we go a little bit above that in case there's a little bit that we didn't account for.

So he's recommending $650,000 as the amount.

I would personally feel comfortable because I understand there can be some squishiness around how orders get done.

That much squishiness is much more comfortable than basically half of the entire amount.

So.

I would like a clarifying question.

Sure.

Sorry.

I'm still getting used to this.

She's got a motion in motion.

Touche.

Thank you.

So I move to amend the BTA IV approval phase 1 purchase of classroom technology to support teaching and learning to authorize up to six hundred and fifty thousand.

Harris I second that motion.

Mr. DeWolf did you have a comment.

DeWolf I just had a follow up question to that.

Yes.

Do you have concern with the limitation that we're setting at 650?

Is this feel appropriate?

A good middle ground?

One of my staff came up and said 650 will be fine.

There are there are actually some services that are necessary above this but 650 will do it.

For the for again for this pilot.

Thank you.

OK comments questions concerns about the amendment on the floor.

Director Pinkham and Director Patu.

So then with this amendment we're not then limiting what the voters passed.

We can still spend the rest of the three hundred fifty thousand eventually.

So this amendment was just saying for this order we're limited to this.

I just want to make sure our voters are knowing we're not going to hey we're going to stock that three hundred fifty thousand dollars away someplace else.

I'm saying head nods that that are not part of the record.

So we need to say yes or affirmative please.

Yes we would be.

We would be fine with amending the.

The motion or amending the.

Amending the resolution amending the resolution.

Director Patu.

I just want to follow up and because it doesn't sound like six.

You're nodding your head 650,000.

But is that going to actually cover what is it that we're looking at in terms of the need is for those schools that you were talking about.

Yes that will cover it for the pilot.

OK thank you.

So if I could just jump into on the record if I could have Director Mack read the motion that's listed but insert the dollar amount that you want and then the board can vote on that as a motion.

So if you have it in front of you and the action item it's I move the school board what was read initially if you could read that in its entirety and just substitute six hundred fifty thousand for the one million.

Thank you.

For clarification I'm reading the full recommended motion but substituting the dollar amount.

Yes.

So I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute purchase orders through RFP number 0 6 7 9 2 with Dell Thornburg for a total amount of not to exceed amount of 650 thousand.

plus Washington state sales tax over fiscal years 2017 18 in the form of the draft purchase orders attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the purchase orders.

I seconded that motion and do so again.

Director Geary did you have a comment question concern.

Okay.

Director Patu was your question answered to your satisfaction.

Yes it was.

Director Pinkham did you have a question comment or concern.

I do.

The word pilot.

I understand that word to be part and parcel of curriculum adoption.

I've heard that word used very very many times tonight and that's a whole systems process and I don't want to be so bureaucratic is so we don't have tools in our teachers hands.

I am absolutely supportive of that fact but I do think that we owe a duty of trust and process and policy.

to our voters our parents our community.

And I want to be really careful about language because again amplify science has not gone through a curriculum adoption process.

And I feel like sometimes we get the cart before the horse.

And if you show me that you are braiding blended learning and that you've got the research to back it up I will be your your champion.

on on leading the charge for more money in a as transparent a way possible.

I am I am not against technology.

I am not against giving teachers new ways to teach our students to learn.

But but I feel a huge burden to make sure we do this in a way that everybody understands and that three or four or five years from now we're not having buyers remorse.

Director Harris you're correct.

I think what I've been trying to educate our department is that the word pilot is actually you know listed in our policy and procedure 2015 as a stage of the adoption process be probably much more accurate to say that you know it's supporting you know the schools that actually have this waivered material.

At the same time because it does serve kids and it does teach current standards it is still you know a pretty worthy effort.

And as you know we said we need to get going and actually you know begin work on all these dreams in terms of looking at our curriculum as well as figuring out you know how our technology can support that.

So hopefully we if we can get this particular thing going we can begin that work.

And I do agree that in any case whatever we do has to be much more transparent.

And hopefully with that committee work it will be.

Director Burke comment question concern on Amendment 1.

Burke one of the questions that I had been didn't really get clarity or satisfaction in answer is do you believe that there is time and bandwidth within the team to come back to the board with a more explicit integration of this technology with curriculum instruction as you spoke of before we look at an additional capital allocation?

The next one.

Do you believe that we can put some of these concerns to rest before this comes before another one comes back?

I think together when we come to the board again it will be how are we tying how is the technology tied to what they're what they're doing.

So I think definitely I think we would come we would come together if it's for pedagogy or for a curriculum that you would get a full understanding and you'd understand the engagement that had gone on.

We really want to be a team and make sure that we're transparent and fully inform the community and the board and the staff with what we're doing.

Thank you.

We heard very positive things about this work.

And so it's it's really important that we find that balance between responsible use of our voters money but not limit what's going on in our schools and let them move forward with their innovation.

Thank you again.

Any other questions comments concerns on the amendment.

Ms. Shek the roll call please on the amendment.

Director Geary aye Director Mack Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director DeWolf.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This amendment is passed unanimously.

And then may we go back to the main motion as amended and take a roll call please.

Director Mack.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director DeWolf.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This motion as amended has passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Next up is my computer screen has gone dead.

8 C 4 BTA IV approved purchase of mobile computer devices for certificated staff.

This went before C&I on November 4 sorry November 7th.

Move forward for consideration.

Would you please read the motion sir.

The motion I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute purchase orders through RFP number 0 6 7 9 2 with Dell slash Thornburg for not to exceed amount of five million five hundred thousand dollars which includes Washington state sales tax over fiscal year 2017 2018. in the form of the draft purchase orders attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the purchase orders.

Director Geary.

Second the motion.

Thank you.

OK.

Do we have questions concerns comments from directors.

Director Mack.

I think it goes back to the same issue raised in the last motion.

The previous one.

And I'm sorting I'm trying to read through the entire thing to see whether or not the not to exceed price matches the actual P.O.

or is it is there a squishy room in there.

John Kroll chief information officer.

Yes there's some room in there with this item.

Similarly we started the process before we had selected the device for the for the teachers.

This this item will include all certificated staff all SEA members getting that exact number at the time was difficult as well.

But this one is is is pretty close to what it is.

I would recommend keeping it at that amount.

Thank you.

Other questions comments concerns director Burke.

I just want to make sure that this aligns as well so the purchase order shown, battery running low, we have to finish soon.

The draft purchase order is $4,388,365.

and the not to exceed amount is 5.5 million.

So there's nominally 1.1 million and a little bit of change in there.

Is there are there additional things that that money needs to be allocated for just in terms of new staff and things like that.

Or is that also.

There's a second purchase order in there actually for the docking station because one thing we're trying to do is to include the laptop and a docking station.

and we will be attaching it to their existing monitor and keyboard and mouse so we're saving some money there.

We are also working on the we're planning to give each SEA employee and I'm proud of this laptop bag which has the Seattle Public Schools insignia on it to build that.

Feeling that we're all part of the same district and we're all trying to do the same thing.

So that there might be some little costs that go above.

My colleague has pointed out the additional purchase orders I was just looking at one of the three.

So that's been clarified for me.

So thank you.

Retract the question.

Thank you.

Other questions comments concerns.

Director DeWolf.

What was the engagement process with the teachers and librarians and certificated staff?

Just briefly.

Briefly it was quite intense.

We went in different parts of the district with multiple different devices.

Our team met with groups of teachers went over what they really needed to change their teaching practice or support their teaching practice.

They tried the devices and that was really just it wasn't like a particular model or a make it was more like you know do you want a tab you know is a tablet what you need is a you know a convertible that's both you know or a regular laptop.

So it was things like that.

How big do you want the screen.

So.

Quite quite a bit of engagement.

And then when we actually did the RFP for the actual make and model we also had engagement back where they could come look at the actual models that were in contention based on their needs.

So we really try to have the certificated staff drive the requirements and we use those requirements for what they needed to end up with the actual vendors that gave us devices and then they tried those devices out and they were part of that process.

So that's the quick version.

Thank you.

Director Patu and Director Pinkham.

So when you say this for a certificated staff is that just all certificated teachers?

Or just anybody that's certified within the schools?

It's all SEA members.

So I put in the bar it includes you know librarians psychologists counselors.

We really want to make sure we're supporting everybody's job.

with this all the certificated staff we've already done a similar program for the certificated administrators.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham.

Looking at this and the one the previous it's they both have the same RFP number.

So you're combining this one purchase on one order but we're approving two different ones.

So it's both RFP 0 6 7 9 2 for this one as well as the last one.

The RFP is actually for the vendor for which we are going to do business with.

So what we did is we did an RFP to and we had a vendor beforehand so we do an RFP to make sure they meet our service requirements.

all the things that we want from a computer reseller.

So that that's what the RFP was.

And then from that once we have that vendor selected then from that will be coming to the board with the actual purchases.

Seeing no other director comments I'll add my two bits in.

Thank you for this.

Our teachers deserve tools.

I'm aghast and distressed that it's taken us this long.

I intend to vote a hearty yes.

Roll call please Ms. Shek.

Director Patu.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Yep.

Director DeWolf.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Mack.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Thanks for your support.

Thank you.

Can I say something.

I just wanted to say dude you're getting a Dell and I've been wanting to say that since the first.

I don't know.

Just my favorite.

So.

OK moving along.

Number five approval of the student assignment transition plan for 2018 19. This went to Ops when?

This went to Ops on November 2nd and was passed through for consideration to the full board.

Mr. Vice President.

I move that the board approve the student assignment transition plan as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

Directors if you are planning on making amendments do you wish to do so now.

Was there some discussion about allowing the district to walk through?

I want to address the amendment before we get back to the main motion if we might.

As the as the amendments may affect what is being addressed by staff it's probably quicker to just go through them.

So I would like to make an amendment.

I would like to read Amendment 1 into the record.

Please do so.

I move that the school board amend the student assignment transition plan as attached to this board action report and that the deleted content be incorporated in a briefing paper to be included as part of the 2019 20 high school boundaries adjustment bar.

I second that amendment.

Are we asking for another amendment?

What is the will of the body here?

Do we want to go to amendment number two and work backwards or what?

Good evening Van Duzer director of policy and board relations.

I would just say from a procedural standpoint now you have a motion amendment motion on the table so you'll have to settle that amendment before you make another formal motion for a different amendment.

Now in the discussion for the amendment that's on the table the other amendments might come up in that discussion but you can only have one amendment motion on the table at a time.

Mr. Deputy General Counsel do you bless that.

Roberts rules of order.

Procedural.

John Cerqui Deputy General Counsel I do.

Thank you so much.

Superintendent Larry Nyland.

The amendments on the table and we need to address it.

I guess I would urge you at this juncture to vote it down at some point this evening.

It certainly could be that that's where we end up in the discussion.

There are just a lot of moving parts here and putting them all off quite frankly I think is going to create a bigger challenge than what we have now.

So I can appreciate that.

It feels complex.

We may or may not be able to get there this evening but I would really appreciate it if we could have the discussion simply putting it off and not having any discussion not having any understanding of where the board is coming from creates an impossible challenge for Ashley and her team to consider.

I don't words fail me.

We really don't have.

We have too many options to go through and figure out boundary permutations on all of those.

She's going to be here all Christmas all New Year's figuring out something without any clues as to where the board is coming from.

So again we want to be respectful of where the board is.

We don't want to push you faster and farther than you want to go.

But we're really this is really what we did at the last meeting is we pushed it off to this meeting and we really didn't find out much and we didn't have time for discussion.

So we really don't have any clues as to where the board is leaning.

So yeah I'm hopeful that we can have a good two hour discussion and know a whole lot more about where the board is coming from and then make that decision about whether we need to punt and put it off.

And or have another meeting next week or the following week.

We need help from the board to know what you're thinking.

Director Burke did you wish to speak to the amendment.

Thank you.

With with due respect is it appropriate procedurally to withdraw that and have that conversation or is it better to have that conversation within the amendment.

And I'm looking to our district leader in terms of how we structure that and.

We're back to Robert's rules of order.

I think that's very appropriate but I think Robert's rules of order says that once the amendments on the floor it has to be voted.

But.

So my preference would be that you if you want to withdraw your motion you're allowed to do that and you can bring your amendment back up at an appropriate time.

So if you want to withdraw your motion you can since you made the motion or you guys can continue to discuss it and then vote it up and down.

Sounds like you want to have some discussion and get some input on it.

So I'd rather that we have an enlightened conversation than a complete rigidity to hundred year old rules of Roberts order.

And sounds like you want to discuss the issue.

Yeah I think the intent of bringing the motion forward was to try to keep a brisk clip going and that that particular determination on that would help us down select.

But I'm hearing that that the there's a desire to to discuss prior to that and I'm completely open to that so I'm willing to withdraw said motion.

So done.

Ms. Davies Dr. Herndon Chief Jesse can you give us 15 minutes and then we can do a time check and get the consensus of the board at that time.

I would like to have us out of here by midnight.

I appreciate the frustrations that this hairball of an issue has caused.

Flip Herndon associate superintendent for operations and facilities and I appreciate the dialogue and the conversation that we're trying to have.

I think ultimately everybody staff board parents are looking for some sort of clarity to figure out the most information they can have to make informed decisions about what it is they need to do.

You as a board member for pathways or not pathways, parents on making decisions and all of this is predicated on the fact that the timing we're looking for is to have something in place before open enrollment.

And the way this kind of fills out is that the board had originally requested that changes for the 19-20 school year including the boundaries be implemented by open enrollment for this year.

So that was the concern around the high school boundaries for Lincoln which are impacting a lot of the high school boundaries.

So we're we're trying to meet that goal.

And in order to do so we are seeking approval of the student assignment plan tonight and then boundaries can be discussed and voted on by the January 17 board meeting.

As you recall we have had a couple of other either board retreats or committees of the whole or study sessions.

trying to also seek some additional guidance from the board.

And that's I can appreciate the kind of entanglement and the hair ballness of the issue which can make it difficult.

And as you have all mentioned tonight there are so many challenging decisions that you have to make.

But as staff we're trying to implement your what it is you're voting on.

So that's why we're really trying to seek that clarity.

And as you can see we have a lot of staff here who will be able to provide some input as well.

So I just wanted to set that initial context and then I'll have someone else come up and speak a little bit.

So it sounds as if I'm sorry Ashley Davies director of enrollment planning.

Thank you all for allowing us to have this discussion here today.

And I just wanted to follow up a little bit on what Dr. Herndon had mentioned allow you all time to have some discussion allow staff to be able to respond to some of the discussion and questions that are still on your mind.

But in terms of the amendment thinking about the student assignment plan I wanted to talk to you a little bit more about some of that all that's entangled within the process and the guides in which we are trying to make decisions so that we can keep things clear for you, keep things clear for our families.

So that we can make sure that we are making the best decisions that are really values based based off of what we believe as a board and we believe a staff in support of our students across the district.

So.

Essentially in the student assignment plan we had incorporated the pathways for 19-20 with the idea that that would give us the guide we make a statement as a district in terms of the way in which we want to continue to provide that service and that access to students through the student assignment plan.

which would help inform our boundaries that we are working on.

So we've had a high school boundaries task force that has been working through various boundaries.

We have another meeting scheduled for the 14th and we really want to utilize that time on December 14th to be able to go back with them with information on the pathway so that we can continue the discussion around boundaries with some guidance.

Otherwise, as Dr. Nyland had mentioned, we continue to have a lot of variables on the table that make it extremely challenging for the board to be able to sift through as well as for families to follow.

And we've already been seeing that in some of the questions, comments, concerns, feedback that we've gotten from families throughout the process.

So we've gotten thousands of comments from families via our high school boundary survey via all the comments we've gotten from all the open house meetings we've had thousands of emails and there's so many pieces even today in the public testimony.

We've had families asking about certain scenarios that we really can't provide further guidance until we have those pathways as we build them out.

So.

You know two pieces I think really big here tonight that we want to be able to walk away with.

At the work session last week we talked about our ultimate vision for 2021 22 with being able to offer the advanced placement coursework in all schools in all our Tensera high schools.

And that's the ultimate vision that we are looking for.

In the meantime thinking about how we get ourselves closer, how we provide more access and how we address our capacity issues in conjunction with the opening of Lincoln.

All those factors together make the decisions for 19-20 important that we have them at this time.

Good evening YHSE chief of student support services.

I'm already losing my voice.

I haven't spoken yet.

I so I really want to work off where Ashley was at because the as well as I just want to recognize the assistance of our communications department with the help of Carrie Campbell.

Well over 2000 parents over 5000 comments.

I've got the cards that I read each one of these comments from the folks that were at the regional meetings.

A lot of information has been shared and so in this process I hope like a lot of our community members have learned.

Learning through this process trying to find something that where we unbelievably backed into an issue that really caused us to look at 0030. Something that was really profound.

And so it's been very interesting to hear from the community that they wanted equitable access to advanced learning services.

We do have it actually at every single school.

We've done some great work.

You could actually hear this evening from the folks from Rainier Beach who are saying yeah it's been amazing.

They've been attending some of those classes there at Beach.

Kids are moving on to college.

I think we don't always tell our good story.

The thing is we're at a place where our story needs to continue to shift.

We do need to continue our equitable access.

So the numbers when doing this work did have us looking at all right we can no longer handle it at Garfield.

Yes we have a growing number of students now a little over 4000 students identified for highly capable services and that that is coming to us at our high schools.

We looked at the heat maps we know where the students are located.

We know where we're actually projecting also where the students are going to be located.

We saw the heat maps for obviously grades 1 through 5 both who are highly capable and highly capable eligible at the work session last Wednesday.

And then so we've gone out to do the projections.

We understand what the need is.

The comments a lot are about we want to have equitable access to.

AP IB and then also our honors classes at high school that's oftentimes speaking at the ninth grade year for our students.

And so students again over 90 percent of our students who take AP or IB or non HC in developing that ultimately these pathways that the conversation is talking about unfortunately around some of the things in 0 0 3 0 is is it in the comment your comments is around segregation.

And so I think as we learn through this process and some input from our community has been really helpful.

is we have an opportunity to set a sunset in the year 2021 22 could have an opportunity for us to match what I would consider again is a win win is to continue to build out our equitable access and opportunity increase the high quality AP and IB offerings at all our attendance area high schools as we do the work and then we can work into the iteration all those smaller granular details that we discuss all the time and then we can do that with our community and stakeholders.

So for us here's an opportunity to send a message to all our students all our families and help them give them guidance of where we're going as well as turn around and do some work we can.

It will help us start to formulate some of our ability to draft boundaries.

If we could even get some of that guidance as we work towards our vision again of having highly capable students return to their attendance area schools in 21 22. So with that thank you.

Thank you.

Right on time.

I love it.

Questions comments concerns from board members.

Director Mack.

I am super excited about providing advanced learning opportunities in all of our schools providing more of those.

And I'm also concerned about I think referencing what Jill was mentioning earlier about the label of setting the pathway and designating that school for only designating five.

One of the concerns that was brought up in testimony to me That is maybe an unintended consequence of setting five in the interim is that in those five schools you actually are bumping out neighborhood kids for highly capable kids by setting those pathways because in that geographic boundary students from outside of the neighborhood school that are highly capable would be able to be directed into Ballard or Roosevelt.

And so.

The effort to have advanced learning options across all of our schools.

I'm not sure if changing the HCC pathway or increasing the pathway in that way actually meets that goal.

It seems counterintuitive because you're giving opportunity to HCC students to go into a school that they wouldn't otherwise necessarily be choosing which means that you have to draw the boundaries such that.

So I'm a little confused on that piece of it.

But the and we're not are we talking about Amendment 1 or just the idea of the student assignment plan at this point.

I mean I have a consensus of the dais so that we can bring in Amendment 1 or Amendment 2 in our comments so we don't end up contradicting ourselves and getting stuck in a macrame knot.

Sure.

I believe I have consensus.

Thank you.

So so whether or not the five pathways is the correct choice or another iteration having for me the kind of going back to my policy wonkiness.

Having the insertion of next year's plan in this year's document is inappropriate because this is the document for this year not the following year.

And additionally the the pathways and the boundaries are so closely tied that I feel I feel really challenged making an up or down vote on this iteration of it without all of the other information about how the rest of capacity works out running start and all of these other pieces that all tie together.

And I'm not sure what the which place we'll end up at.

But I think for me the appropriate place to have those options presented would be in the operations committee meeting tomorrow with you know pathways here's pathways and here's boundaries and these options match together.

Those are my thoughts.

Director Harris.

First of all thank you for sharing and kind of helping us down select our conversation a little bit to include guidance to staff on kind of what's our long term definition destination.

And this is kind of pedantic but I want to emphasize you know we've been using the terminology pathways a lot.

And as compared to the old and unacceptable one of tracking When you think of track you're stuck on it and when you think of pathways you can choose when to get on where when to get off.

But it has a destination.

So that's just something that's in my mind that I wanted to share because I do believe that when we're talking pathways whether it's for an advanced learning whether it's for a CTE we want to make sure that it's coupled with opportunity and choice that that's a really powerful element of it.

So I I I am aligned on the belief that that the cohort or pathway model for high school is not where we want to be as a district.

And that's because of when I think of the power of choice and I think of what the high school experience looks like versus elementary or middle school.

And we've got our alternative learning experiences at Nova Middle College.

We've got our career pathway skill center potential work based learning and internship pre-apprenticeship that we're trying to try to grow a running start.

Students can choose an AP intensive type of pathway students can choose an IB intensive type of pathway.

There's a lot of experiences out there.

And while we may not be able to support them all with a budget.

I think when we when we narrow this the focus of our students to just oh here's your pathway because of this particular label.

I think that is narrowing our scope.

So that's that I'm I'm 100 percent aligned on that and I want to thank you for bringing that to our to our attention.

And I also want to mention that.

We've got a legal obligation to our identified students around continuum of services but we also have a formula for success and a multi-tiered systems of support that we can we should be able to build out and use to provide those supports those social emotional supports and interventions and not have it explicitly tied.

as a as a mandate even though it is a mandate.

But I think to recognize that we can deliver it to students that aren't identified as HC.

So that's the that's the entry point from for me in this conversation.

And I take that and I overlay the five pathways discussion and I just see a lot of potential unintended consequences and Director Mack indicated a little bit around what happens when you have students being brought into a school that is already a high demand school.

And so if I read the numbers right Roosevelt from this year to 2019 under the five pathways model would be projected to grow by 305 students.

So if we grow Roosevelt by 305 students we have to we have to it's already full.

So we have to shift boundaries to accommodate that.

Ballard is projected to grow by 158 students.

So in both of those cases we're we're telling neighborhood students like I'm sorry you you can't attend your neighborhood school because of a choice that we made.

And so that really I struggle with that one.

And if there's if I'm misinterpreting it please correct me because I don't want to be on the record as being wrong.

But that's how that's the interpretation I have in my mind.

You know I think also the we've we've heard from some communities that don't feel like they've been engaged completely around this plan.

You know the principals are like well we'll be part of the team but we wish we were engaged in it and that our communities were engaged in it.

And my personal concern as the director that's trying to start up Lincoln to be an awesome school and I think about Lincoln as a destination and we're saying well we're going to pair Lincoln with Garfield and so if you're an HC student in the Lincoln or Garfield area you will go to Garfield.

So it's going to be that much harder to bring Lincoln up in this manner when we're just at the outset pulling students away from it.

So that's that's sort of my concerns that that really give me pause and then the idea of if we're doing boundary shifts in 2019 when we're communicating to the family we should say here's your boundary shifts.

Here's your pathway changes.

This is 2019. And so that's just recognizing that our 2018 student assignment plan is rolling out in the in this coming year of open enrollment.

But the 2019 boundaries and pathways would be one year later.

That's the place where mentally it feels like we should be connecting those things in the outreach to the community.

Director Geary.

I I hear what you're saying and I too am very much concerned Director Burke about Lincoln High School.

But we know that we're rolling it up to begin with.

So we certainly can't.

I think it'd be very difficult to redirect our HCC families into a roll up school.

And at some point I guess my thought is between grandfathering this massive shifting the adding of AP classes and the recognition that many of our high schools are providing a more robust advanced learning options that to try If any of us ever think we're going to wrap our minds around all of those options when our parents at any you know we can't tell them where to go.

They can make their choices.

As you've said there are pathways and there's no there's no certainty in the choices that they're going to make whether they're going to grandfather or not.

whether they're going to continue in the HCC pathway whether or not this option to go to a new school they may take that or stay where they were.

And so while I do understand that we are a city that loves information and loves to see all the options in real time the reality is we will I don't think we can satisfy that level of public engagement with everybody.

And we've gone through an immense amount of public engagement and there is always going to be somebody who shows up and says I wish you had asked me directly when you'd come up with the plan.

So do you do the public engagement to come up with a holistic plan and then render that plan subject to being tweaked or pulled or shifted and then more public engagement.

which I think we have done to some degree.

But what I'm hearing is it comes now time where the rubber is meeting the road and we have to we have to make a decision about where these kids are going to go.

And we know and with roll up and with grandfathering whatever decision we make in terms of the planning if we're heading towards getting this all in our schools by 21 22 it may be for not because by the time all these things roll up there they're going to be.

in their schools.

So I do I'm very mindful of the idea that we can continue to push this down hoping to get the best picture that we just we will have impeded our ability to do the best job possible on the boundaries And we will still feel unsatisfied by the level of information and public engagement.

So I caution us in continuing to push this off.

Director Patu.

As I think about this program matter of fact it's a program I actually have really thought about it would be great if we had it in a lot of our South end schools.

But then I started thinking I said you know Franklin has done a wonderful job.

We don't have Franklin doesn't have any special programs and they're very successful and they wanted to keep it that way.

And then I look at Rainier Beach who actually has an IB program and what would actually do if we add a HCC program together with and then you look at Cleveland.

I just feel that the programs that we have right now are quite sufficient for the schools that I have.

I would love to have HCC in there but I also wanted to figure out how would that actually connect with the programs that are already existent.

Is that going to be an add on or is that going to be a program that actually is going to help motivate some of our students to be more advanced.

And I believe that a lot of our students that are actually attending those schools are already advanced.

But then you know thinking how would this program actually help our schools.

And it's a decision that I actually been really thinking about because I want the best for our kids.

But at the same time we have programs in all three of our high schools that I think that besides Franklin that actually are really raising the bar for all our students in the South End.

And then when I think about Franklin who doesn't want to have any special programs at their school because they believe that all students deserve to be raising the bar treating them all the same.

And that's the reason why for 14 years that principal does not want any special programs in her school because she feels that all her students deserve to be treated the same way.

And she's been very successful at it.

And that gives me pause when I think about you know if she's able to do that for 14 years and not having special programs I also look you know kind of figure out why couldn't we use that model that Franklin has to be able to push the rest of our schools so all our kids can benefit.

And but you know it may not work with all the schools but I think it's a lesson learned and an example for us as a district to look at programs like Franklin that has been working for 14 years and really see what is it that makes Franklin a school that it is today.

And they're very successful.

And so you know so I really take pause when I think about you know do we want HCC in some of the schools some of my high schools and how is that going to benefit or how is that going to advance the students in Southeast.

And like I said I was the one that really wanted to get those programs into our school because I felt that our kids really needed the benefit from it.

But as I talk to communities and also to the schools They actually their opinions a lot different than what I expected.

And so I'm kind of moving backward and just thinking how would that you know I just feel like I need more community meetings more talking to the schools and really decide together what is it that we want that's best for our kids.

And so I'm very undecided right now in terms of what direction I'm going to go because I really haven't had a chance to talk to all my principals.

But you know just from hearing from the ones I already heard from I feel like that's really a decision that I cannot make for myself.

But I need you know them to help me to make decision because we are a team and we all work together.

So I always feel that you know as a board director it's not my place to choose and pick what is best for our schools.

I believe that the principals and those who are actually working in individual schools with our kids should have a voice in terms of what is it that we choose for them to be able to implement into their school.

So right now I'm very undecided.

I think it's a program that you know that proven to be successful.

But is it for our kids that does that program fit our schools.

So that's where I am right now.

I'm actually I'm excited to see whether I would like to see HCC in any one of my high schools.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you Director Harris get those memorized.

So I'm trying to reconcile the fact that again I think something I'm grateful for is being a bit of a somebody that I think comes in with a different perspective in that I am not steeped in this work.

I don't have a kid and school district.

And so you know I start at board policy 0 0 3 0. So the thing that is sticking out to me is we call out multiple pathways to success.

The other thing I see is equitable access.

And so for me I'm really interested in how do we actually achieve that.

And part of my concern is how long are we going to wait.

In 2011 per this stranger article this.

I don't even know the parent but somebody said I see two school districts in Seattle.

One in the north end and one in the south end.

You know what kids in the community called Garfield.

They call it the slave ship because the white kids are on the top two floors and the black kids are on the bottom two floors.

I'm interested in moving this forward because I think we cannot afford to wait anymore.

We've spent so much time listening learning engaging and understanding what the community needs.

And if we are committed to board policy 0 0 3 0 I think it's important to move forward on increasing access particularly interested in the fact that option 4 for example will alleviate most of the pressure at Garfield and I would hope that that that feeling that this student has.

That this is a slave ship at Garfield that somehow that may be mitigated and it would feel less like that.

I'm really concerned that the some of the comments that came to the thought exchange were about equal access and availability availability of advanced education.

I think this does that.

And frankly we are Seattle.

I think we have a vision for equity particularly racial equity and we need to be very specific about calling it racial equity.

And I think for example for me I think we move forward today I think option 4 feels like really really aspirational and I think we move towards that because we can't afford to wait anymore.

How much longer are we going to have students families communities particularly communities of color and low income communities talking about equity.

And it just doesn't sound like we're listening.

I'm I know this is a very difficult decision but I want us to be really committed to our ensuring an educational racial equity and that for me feels like.

looking at option 4 and being really aspirational about this and I think the couple of amendments that Geary and Patu and I have proposed for example.

Oh sorry am I saying the wrong words?

umpiced in the amendment around ultimately having all assignment high schools by 21 22.

And I don't know if we can ask questions right now but one of the concerns that came up during the public comment was from it wasn't actually Kim Terenas but her daughter she's a ninth grader at Ballard High School and she said she plays soccer and she doesn't want to leave but she would be grandfathered Correct should be should be able to stay at Ballard High School finishing out school at Ballard for example.

You said she's in ninth grade?

Yes.

She was in ninth grade when she played soccer.

I do just want to clarify that right now the point you bring up is around the boundary changes which we'll be speaking about tomorrow at operations.

But although we don't have a scenario that we're moving forward at this time we've already indicated that we are recommending grandfathering.

for students who are in who would be in 11th and 12th grade in 1920 meaning students who are in 9th and 10th grade now.

I'm just I'm good.

Thank you.

Director Mack did you have further comments questions concerns.

Yeah my question is around the Amendment 2 because I just saw this came today.

And so in my understanding that Amendment 2 is essentially creating the vision of option 4 in 21 22 and not setting pathways for two years out not changing the pathways.

Director Geary did you wish to speak to that as an author of Amendment to.

Amendment to if that was all that ended up being passed.

No this would this is a guarantee to the community that we are moving in that direction.

that we're moving in the direction of being able to serve students in their assignment school high school.

And it's our commitment that whatever we're doing in terms of how we put off the HC pathways or how we distribute them that we will get here.

Does that answer the question?

It does.

So one of the one of the again going back to my policy wonkiness one of the policies we have in place that is potentially well I think there's I think it's confusing.

I think it's it's I think it's very confusing because 21 90 addresses highly capable services which is state mandated.

And so there has to be some kind of context and definition around what that is that's being offered to highly capable students now.

Yes we can debate whether or not all students are highly capable and what those students are and all of this conversation is I agree and with that part of the conversation.

And we have.

A state mandated population outliers something that still needs services.

So and we have a policy in place that actually says this is how we provide services in high school.

And that policy says that it is an adequate cohort size and it has a bunch of other services that are supposed to be in that now.

What is adequate cohort size mean A.

And do we want to take that out of our policy B.

I think that that could be on the table but that's in our policy.

So we actually have a policy that's in conflict with the recommendation.

To have.

For this vision.

I mean it's a conflict of the policy that exists on how we're serving highly capable students and this vision which.

May be the way we want to go in.

But we also need to go back to that policy and change that policy to reflect the vision.

So I don't know if that's a question for me around this amendment.

So it is my understanding that the sufficient cohort has been identified.

And I think Jesse can talk about what has been identified to him as the cohort that size that has been identified that is sufficient to plan around and that in coming up with this amendment my discussion with the districts is that that number is satisfied.

The question around that becomes difficult in meeting the policy is that this is we will have to meet the policy and we will have to put that plan up to the state for their approval in terms of what we are proposing.

So if we're unable to meet the policy then we will have to by 21 22 either redirect resources so that we do it or look at what we're doing overall.

There's so many different ways from my mind that we're going to be looking at highly capable anyway.

If it is actually occupying 10 percent of the population right now I think we'll be able to make.

I mean I think the cohort size will be met.

Now whether or not that cohort needs the very specific types of interventions that are being referenced in the law that may be different.

And so if we then obviously we have discussions going on with regard to HCC around who we're going to identify how we're going to identify.

If we broaden it without changing that then we hope to see even more kids because it should become racially proportionate.

And so that means racially proportionate against the current cohort is going to make that cohort even a larger percentage.

So meeting the numbers necessary to define sufficient cohort percentage wise is going to be no problem.

It's going to be a very significant percentage of our overall population and we should be able to find that in any assignment area because our high schools are very large.

So but.

this becomes critical if we decide ultimately to really ratchet back the identification to really hone in on the very specific interventions for a population that's only at the top one or two percentile of whatever measure you're using.

So again I think we're getting to we have so many moving parts around your concerns that continuing to put this off until we've satisfied it.

It just in terms of mapping or planning we could change the whole plan with a revision of our H.C.

policy that then just causes all of this to rework itself.

So that's the hard part for me because we over time we're going to continue to make changes.

What I'm hoping to do is get HCC pathways set by not moving not voting for Amendment 1 voting for Amendment 2 to get a vision to the future and voting for Amendment 3 so that Franklin does not end up as a pathway because they have asked and said that it would be culturally inappropriate for them but leaving access in West Seattle for the families who would like to have something much closer to home.

Clarification you're you're wanting to adopt five new pathways for next year for two years out in the amendment one or for voting.

I'm sorry.

I'm confused by what you just said.

Ultimately voting for four new pathways and eliminating Franklin as a pathway.

So Ballard Garfield Roosevelt West Seattle.

Because the Franklin population has asked very much that they do not want a labeling system within their school.

But that doesn't that does not negate our need to continue to support their ability to provide advanced learning.

Director Harris.

So the super uncomfortable part of this whole conversation has been what is our role in this in terms of armchair quarterbacking like yeah this school yes this school no this pathway yes this pathway no.

So I want to go back to what I heard from staff at the outset of this which is they would like to hear clarity from us on the long term vision.

I believe that Amendment 2 aligns with option 4. And so as people are thinking and considering that adopting a student assignment plan with or without Amendment 1 but with Amendment 2 is the board making a statement that we are in alignment with option 4. Would you concur?

Yes.

OK so that's that's the entry point to this discussion.

But the my concern with Amendment 3 is OK.

So if we pull Franklin out well I believe I would also like to pull Ballard and Roosevelt out because I believe those communities will be adversely impacted as well.

And then here we are making decisions by amendment which I think completely undermines the expertise the community engagement the all the data and analytics that our staff can be doing.

And so that's that was why what I'm hearing from my colleagues is a discomfort with option 3. And that's the whole basis of Amendment 1 is wow we don't quite feel comfortable with the five pathway model.

Can we have another two weeks to overlay that on some things and consider Franklin being removed consider Garfield Ballard and Roosevelt being removed.

Consider can we build out HC programs at beach and self through their existing IB structures.

I think there's.

There are there's an infinite universe of combinations but I think there really is a subset of things that are not necessarily these four options.

If we say option 4 is off the table because we know it's our aspirational goal but we're not going to pick it today.

Sorry I see why its eyes get big.

We would pick option 4 today via amendment 2 but it's not something that our action tonight would.

Where am I going with that?

Sorry.

That was that was super confusing.

Let me just back up from that.

Option one status quo is is a nonstarter.

It's part of the reason we're having this conversation.

Option four is an aspirational goal.

So clarify you are dealing with options not amendments kind sir.

Thank you so much.

These are our options that were presented to us at our last work session.

I believe last week is that do I get my.

So these have not seen extensive community engagement.

They've not been really well vetted but.

They provide us with options to help see you know what are some of the other permutations and so option 3 is the one that's before us for vote.

Option 2 add north and south locations.

I'm not convinced that that's viable in conjunction with you know the concerns around you know I believe that adds Ballard High School as a north pathway and West Seattle as a south pathway.

So we've had zero discussion around that but it would be interesting to have to see how that overlays with student demographics and That's the reason why I believe that Amendment 1 is is a value add for the district and the community is that it does provide a little bit of a little bit of space for us to have that conversation through ops committee through community engagement through district or director community meetings and also a recognition that we have to work it out in the next month month and a half.

Director Pinkham and then Director Patu.

Question if a student's designate is HCC and doesn't go to an HCC pathway are they no longer HCC?

So they still retain their eligibility.

That's how we would are still able to know how many students are eligible but not attending Garfield or Ingraham currently.

So that doesn't take away their HCC digitization kind of getting into what Director Geary was talking about earlier about us putting labels on these students and then OK now we got to provide services for them.

And it seems like if there is an HCC student that HCC my attendance area school doesn't offer an HCC pathway.

What if I can't go to Garfield because of some limitations then are we violating policy by not providing that student HCC services at their attendance area school.

And we're saying oh no we'll provide it over here.

But if that student can't go there where it seems like we're violating policy because hey we're not providing HCC at that school.

And I think what we're heard from responding you respond to us by saying we need more HCC pathways.

Our vision is yes eventually all attendance area schools would have HCC pathways and I believe all attendance area schools do have at least AP classes correct.

No.

There are some attendance area schools that do not have AP or IB courses.

So each each attendance area high school does have AP courses in terms of your question about HC services being provided for students.

So essentially actually from the moment a student is tested and eligible across all grade levels if they prefer to be in their attendance area school and they need they need to be served.

So again not even just talking about the high school level, talking about across all grade levels where we have students who are eligible.

So we know particularly at the high school level because when you think about at that point there are many other factors that play into a student's decision in terms of where they go to high school.

that are maybe related to other curricular activities things that don't necessarily relate just to certain services.

So we have families that are eligible remain at their high school still have access to that same rigor just they're not in a defined pathway.

OK and I appreciate all this discussion about HCC pathways but I had a conversation with Jesse.

I also asked about since yes we're obligated to provide some of these things but we're also obligated per federal mandate to provide services for native students.

And then we only have in a sense one native program that's really involved with their students down at Chief Sealth and Denny and then their other faculty or staff within the program have to run around the schools.

And I was wondering is there a way we can also then start thinking about incorporating tiebreakers for a native student that says hey I'm up here on the north end but I'm hearing what's going on at Chief Sealth and Denny is fantastic.

How can I get down there if they have their transportation because that was the issue with the American Heritage High School when I was here when I was up north the students down south it was difficult for them to get there.

So now we seem to kind of flipped it now provided more services down south.

Now it's hard for the students from the north to get there.

So again the student assignment plan and all that that we still I think we were missing another program and services that were federally mandated to provide when we kind of limited to one particular area of the city.

Director Patu.

I guess I'd like to ask does Ballard and Roosevelt have special programs in their schools?

So I'm glad you raised that again Director Patu.

So again highly capable as a service it's not a program.

So the thing is as Director Pinkham's pointing out is around If regardless it is a designation it's not a cohort.

That's why it will lose the last C in it.

Those students are identified as highly capable or highly capable eligible.

We are mandated to serve them wherever they go.

That's why you'll have in superintendent policy 21 90. We provide AP or IB courses at all our attendance area high schools and that they're accessible to every student.

It says it in there.

And so really that designation.

Making sure that we do follow state law make sure that we do have accelerated coursework for those students to meet their need.

We can do that.

And that's why again I want to make a plug for 20 year 21 22 school year by putting that out there and that that designation we can we can do that.

That also allows us to do that level of engagement education with their families which is one of the part of the feedback we got around the services so they can access them.

Those students again who are eligible probably capable will be right alongside those other students.

And so a lot of their coursework looks the same as they go through high school but they just might be in a different grade level.

So I guess my question is do those both of those schools have highly capable in their schools?

No not at Ballard and not I think you said Roosevelt.

Is that correct?

No no they don't.

They those those students in the north end of Seattle of the high school students who are highly highly capable eligible 50 or almost 50 percent of them stay at their at their attendance area high school.

So are they serve serving them as highly capable students?

They're matriculated in and they get their individual schedule just like any other student.

Their coursework may be a little different but they don't travel as a cohort.

But you do have honor classes or advanced learning in those two schools.

Yes and we do also in the south end as well.

So I guess my question is it's for Franklin.

You know Franklin doesn't want HCC in their school because they've been doing it for 14 years and they're very successful.

So my question is if Franklin doesn't want HCC is it a requirement for us to push that program into a school that don't want it?

So principal Wiley is not here but I did have a conversation with her.

So she does.

They do have students that are highly capable eligible there.

She does serve them when I talked to her she welcomes that.

I think what she didn't want to do was track.

She didn't want it.

That's where her term is.

She didn't want to have it.

to track those students through a schedule where they were going to travel on their own and they were not going to matriculate in with other students.

That was her fear.

I think if I could capture that in this conversation I think that's what I heard maybe you heard something similar to that as well.

They were mandated to serve them and that is their neighborhood high school.

I really want to stress that.

And that was what the family said.

Well I guess the part that I'm looking at is that every student at Franklin are treated the same way.

And you know and if if we can look at that school as an example because schools that actually has various program for needy kids or kids that are actually not you know even higher learning kids.

there's such a separation in those schools because of the various branding that we do with a lot of these programs.

And then when I look at Franklin and see how all these kids are treated the same you know every one of them can you know can excel even if it was a highly capable students or what.

And to me is that it's just a model that I actually that I like I like because you're serving kids all the same way.

And so when I look at that you know putting in another program highly capable into a school.

It's just another separations of students.

And that's what I'm afraid of.

Yep that's what we're that's what we're trying to reverse here and that's what we're and I know it was discussed we will have to revise policy number 21 90 just because it does it doesn't currently even reflect what we have.

It's it's it's dated from 2014. There's some things in there that we would need to do to revise this.

But it is about the integration because we do have to align this 0 0 3 0 and policy 21 90 do need to be aligned.

And that's been discussed I know with some of the board directors.

And I think if I could just finish that Director Patu I would say we want to integrate that to Seattle Public Schools is in the top quartile of all urban school districts for students with IEPs being in advanced course courses at the high school level.

But we're not for students of color.

Here's our opportunity.

Here's our opportunity.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham.

Director Mack.

Director Burke and then I'd like to step in after you Director Burke if I might please.

Yeah so my other point when I asked about is an HCC student student HCC student if they go to a non HCC pathway school.

Is that yes once they get that designation wherever they go they're going to be an HCC HC student.

I keep on getting you're saying that we dropped this second seat because there's no longer a cohort that is provided all the schools.

I would say we're satisfying that because we are there is a way for them to provide that with that services.

And my question is where did we ever come up with to say this will be the pathway for high school students when it's supposed to be offered at every school.

So then we're making Garfield do everyone wants to go there where hey you could have done the same thing if you would have stayed.

at you know go to Lincoln go to your other area school that how do we promote this these particular schools to be more attractive to other students when they could have gotten their same HC services at their area high school.

I just wonder how we got in this predicament in the first place.

I think that is one of the things that's very confusing because they At Garfield students that are there are able to accelerate a couple of years ahead.

They actually there's there's there is not the same offerings entirely at the other schools as there is at Garfield.

It is actually a couple of years accelerated and then there's other stuff.

So there is there is something different happening at Garfield that is not just advanced placement or IB.

The thing that that I want to touch on a little personally here is that the highly capable designation is from my understanding intended to be the outlier.

And we have a lot of these students that are also twice exceptional.

They're special ed and highly capable and their needs are not.

This is advanced learning and highly capable are not the same thing.

It's not the same population of kids.

There's it's there's there's needs that are there with a highly capable population that are different.

It's not just studious smart kids that are going to excel.

And I really don't want that to get lost in this conversation because the reason why the highly capable law exists is because these kids are a special population.

They have special needs.

How they can be served can they be adequately served in every high school.

I would hope so.

Do we want to continue the segregation that we have going on because our identification process and the programs we have set up have you know compounded segregation.

Absolutely not.

We need to increase access to advanced learning and opportunity for every child.

We also need to be very careful not to take away needed services from the highly capable children in this process.

So what I want to be hearing from all the directors is a commitment to increasing advanced learning at all of our high schools and ensuring that everyone has access to that.

And.

I'm not understanding exactly how five pathways as an interim does that effectively for all the high schools because what we need to do to create advanced learning or provide advanced learning at all high schools is provide advanced learning at high schools just by calling it an HC pathway is not going to.

not going to necessarily provide advanced learning at all of those schools.

So the concern I have around two of designating pathways then you have students that would be going to the neighborhood schools and potentially they're getting their needs met there.

going to one outside because it's designated as the pathway.

So this interim step of five pathways to all schools actually has me more concerned than a more modest step of we need to relieve Garfield.

So we need to we need to incentivize highly capable students to pick options that already exist as we build up our advanced learning programs and ensure that we have the services in the future what we're looking for.

So we have IB programs in Ingram and space at Ingram.

That's one place that we could increase without changing pathways we can try to increase and to alleviate the capacity concern at Garfield.

Director Burke and then Director Geary.

Director Mack thank you for that clarity.

I think that's the thing that I'm struggling with is I'm I'm really worried that the five pathways does not get us closer to option four but actually moves us sideways or backwards when as you described in the north end our schools already have a high concentration in a lot of our students that are identified choose their neighborhood schools.

And so overlaying an additional structure on top of it feels like we might actually disrupt that was whereas it feels like it's moving already towards the place we're looking to go.

And that's where with the five pathways I am I'm truly unable to support the student assignment plan which is why Amendment 1 allows us to.

refine that a little bit hopefully in the near term so that we can move forward.

But again in favor of option 1 recognizing that it frees up the 2018 student assignment plan to be worked on immediately so that staff can move forward with open enrollment work.

Director Geary then I believe I will jump in next.

I have not had an opportunity to speak and then Director DeWolf if you could bring up the rear.

We have now been speaking about this for over an hour.

Yep.

And we should have we should have done it sooner.

But I really appreciate us all having a chance.

I am in favor of good thoughtful conversation but at some point.

Yeah.

How do we regardless when we need to think about and perhaps we will do this but I don't.

My great fear in that we leave this going we're going to talk about it and then we don't talk about it.

And so if if we don't if we need more conversation we need to set that up.

Very soon not in January I hope but that's not it.

We have to keep in mind that we have been we've been doing there have been so many different moving pieces and they're all they're all moving.

So we Director Harris you and I have both spent a lot of time talking to staff about the CSIPs.

and making sure that the highly capable offerings are outlined and not just one year growth.

So that is something that the staff has been working on and we can continue to hone and refine and make sure every school is defining to its parents what it is that they're offering.

But I don't think while interim shifts may feel sideways I think they are sideways but we can protect families in terms of the pathway for one child through grandfathering so that they don't necessarily have to be disrupted.

But what we do know we need to do is we have to relieve Garfield because it would be very unfair not to do that work and then draw the boundary around Garfield to really disrupt its historical lines for its neighborhood kids because we haven't created relief.

So.

Yes we may be pushing pressure into Roosevelt and Ballard.

If you look at the heat maps those are two areas that probably already have real cultural safety for this population within their schools.

They have cohort.

You look at the maps around Franklin not so much cultural safety necessary.

In terms of either side about one defining highly capable in a way that maybe the kids it would impact how kids of color see themselves as smart or not smart should that track be pushed in.

It may redefine how kids view themselves in that school.

Not not so sure.

We've got to make some hard decisions to move provide relief on Garfield move this planning forward with an idea that we're going to get to we're going to find a way to build up the classes.

We're going to be reviewing it annually with our CSIPs.

We're going to be touching base with our principals to make sure they have what they need.

That's what I see.

It's interim.

But we've got to do something to relieve Garfield.

Those of you all that know me well know how hard it is for me to keep my mouth shut up here.

Might be one of the reasons I was elected president.

I.

I have real concern about this.

I have real concern about the polarization of this and the fact that we're dealing with redlining that is 30 years old which underlies a great deal of the racial and socioeconomic inequity.

Do I believe we should have all services at all schools?

Oh absolutely.

Do I believe we can afford it?

No I don't believe that.

And Chief Jessee I want you to hear the fact that I use the word services.

I think part of this is cultural and attitudinal.

The fact that we have set ourselves up to take away from somebody when we give something is immoral.

The fact that we don't keep our promises historically in this district is distressing and depressing.

I believe that setting up five pathways is too big a leap.

I believe we need to do it in a less sharp angle if you will.

I am a little distressed to get a amendment this afternoon that talks about West Seattle High School and not having gotten a heads up conversation really about about using that as HCC but be that as it may we all have a right to bring amendments and I understand that.

I would like to see us perhaps take a look at guaranteed admission to IVFs at Ingram Chief Sealth and Rainier Beach as quote unquote pathways.

I applaud Dr. Wiley.

for her candor to the board.

Day before yesterday.

It disturbs me that she was advised of these pathway changes late in the game.

So when we talk about engagement that doesn't feel good.

I applaud her and her teachers for pushing back.

I understand parents who are fearful that their children will not be at the top of the college arms race.

They won't have enough AP.

They won't have enough whatever it is where we're raising the bar for their children.

I understand that fear.

But but I also understand the three community meetings in a row that have had over 30 people in my district where you know that principal Vance fellow really Apparently did a great job at Roosevelt having a strong rigorous program.

Everything I hear about him is good but I'm not going to quote unquote sacrifice my child and that kind of language to borrow a page from Director Geary is distressing.

Sacrifice?

No.

I I. Co-sponsored Amendment 1 because I do believe this belongs in the boundary changes.

I think we need to reframe our conversation and whatever we do we've got to keep the pressure on to keep the momentum up because what we're doing now isn't working fairly for all kids and students.

And with that.

I'll be voting for Amendment 1. Mr. DeWolf Director DeWolf you're next up.

I disagree.

I think that this is going to alleviate pressure.

I want to make sure that I'm listening to my community.

And I also don't think it's a leap.

We need to make a move.

We cannot keep delaying this issue.

I'm tired of kicking these issues down the road.

We have to take action.

That's what we were elected to do.

We need to make tough decisions.

I want to get to our district vision.

Can we take an interim step to get there?

Yes.

I don't think it's sideways.

We need to make a move.

We are committed to ensuring educational racial equity.

This is in service of that.

I am.

We need to make action.

Last comments and wrap up and then I will ask for.

us to restart and start taking votes.

Move this along.

Burke motion for amendment.

Can I make one last comment please.

I just I just again I really appreciate all of you being able to have this conversation and provide us another opportunity to get in here a little bit more from you.

I do just want to take another opportunity to and you know as I think about the conversation around boundaries and the conversation around pathways and this is irrespective of actually defining a pathway but it is critical I really believe it's critical for staff to get guidance from the board on some direction to narrow down the pathways.

Definitively such that when we move into the boundary conversation which is beginning tomorrow it's actually ongoing and so I wouldn't look at it as if we are having them separate.

There's been overlap in that conversation and I am worried that By putting the HC pathway conversation with the boundary conversation, we may be pitting communities against each other because we will be looking at geographies that are influenced by HC populations and as a staff person working really closely with this there's a lot of data.

And I don't want you to feel overwhelmed.

I don't want our families to feel overwhelmed.

And so I just want us to be really really careful about what may come if we don't start to provide and whatever you all need whether it's time with us to sit down.

I want us to be able to do that so we can really hone in and make sure that we are really clear with families on where we are heading.

Director Burke you were getting ready to make an amendment but I believe Director Mack has indicated she had one last word.

Yeah in response to that the it is complicated and pathways and boundaries in terms of capacity and how many students are where and where the boundaries need to lay depending on whichever scenario is being selected or they're so intimately tied.

That's part of the reason why I don't feel comfortable saying yes to pathways first without what's the matching map and how much disruption is that costing across the whole system.

That's it.

And there's in you know if if H2 is the map that actually matches the five pathways you know 60 percent of the students in the north are getting disrupted from their existing school.

So that is of concern to me.

So when we talk about you guys want to know and we all want to know what are the options on the table so we can have meaningful discussion about scenario 1 scenario 2 what are we really talking about and have it narrowed enough that we can have meaningful conversation.

And I would like to suggest that the that one of the scenarios for pathways and boundaries that should be presented is the one that was provided by and again Don't know if it's going to be the one that's selected but it's one that at least we need to see a picture of that the HC advisory committee recommended.

And I don't remember exactly what it was but that was one of the recommendations on the table and that's not one that has had any scenarios developed around it.

This five way one is one that clearly is one that needs the scenario with the corresponding maps.

And I think another alternative if I pick three the other alternative would be status quo with increased increased and guaranteed assignment For those that select it to the IB programs and I'm making those plural because we have three IB programs and only one of them is an option for HC students which I think is interesting.

So.

That's my I'm giving my personal thought on three different scenarios that would be useful to see pathways and boundaries and what and how those play out for us to be able to have those conversations.

Director DeWolf.

Had a clarifying question.

The HCC advisory committee.

That's what it's called.

Is that district created or organized?

It is it's a superintendent committee.

It's it's been long getting a shaking head over here.

No I don't believe so.

Oh no it has.

It has a charter and it's been in this district.

Yes.

I just want to get it.

Can I get it.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

Director Nyland did you wish to answer that question sir.

We'll go and research it.

It's not been on my list of any thing that has come to me as being superintendent approved for an advisory or a task force.

I think the label is loose.

I think it's like our special ed PTA groups.

This was it was originally formed under Bob Boucher some like four superintendents ago.

So it has a long standing and whether or not it's been consistently maintained.

And I attended one of those meetings with you.

Could you speak to this please for us real quickly.

Folks are appointed by the different schools etc etc.

Minutes are capped.

So my understanding of the HC advisory is it was actually come under superintendent Kendrick and it is a group of community members who meet who are brought in as members.

As far as the connection to district superintendent advisory I am not sure of that charter I don't have that in front of me.

But in talking with our supervisor about this today it is a group or staff does some bring bringing of information community talks.

They bring forth some information back but I do not know it to be an official advisory to the superintendent.

I would have to research that.

Director DeWolf did that answer your question for you sir.

Yes thank you.

I just want to make I would just imagine that if it's an officially approved that it goes through some sort of approved.

I'm a newbie here so approved membership process maybe some sort of a training but it is not an official per what we know at this point.

Correct?

OK then.

Director Burke.

I would like to make a motion.

I move under Amendment 1 that the school board amend the student assignment transition plan as attached to this board action report and that the deleted content be incorporated in a briefing paper to be included as part of the 2019 20 high school boundaries adjustment bar.

I second the motion.

Would you speak to it quickly please because I believe that we have had quite the conversation this evening.

To be very clear about what this does there are three sections of text in the existing 2018 19 student assignment plan that reference 2019 20 actions and they are associated with the pathways we have discussed extensively.

This amendment takes those exact things out of the 2018 19 student assignment plan and puts them in a briefing paper where they can be discussed in much the conversation that we've had here.

Hopefully through the ops committee and whatever but allows the student assignment plan to move forward.

Because it's necessary and I want to absolutely back step up on this that it's necessary to move that forward so that we can go through our work which has a very specific timeline around the student enrollment planning.

Harris.

Superintendent Nyland.

Can somebody clarify?

So I think that I hear six options on the table at this point in time.

Option one is the status quo.

Option two is add north and south.

Somebody suggested is Ballard and West Seattle.

We've heard two variations on that.

Director Harris said what about making IB schools part of the pathway.

Director Mack asked for the highly capable parent groups recommendation which I believe was Garfield Ballard and Roosevelt.

And we have option 3 and we have option 3A which is amendment 3 I think which removes Franklin.

Is that 6 or 7?

So is that the intent?

That you want Ashley to try to figure out how to move the attendance boundaries for seven different options?

Again when I look at option 4 and I think of that as a destination and I think of you know do no harm minimize disruption and I see that under that option in the area that I'm most familiar with in the north end we're going to be creating pathways where there are none so that we can remove them.

And that feels wrong to me.

So.

Ultimately that was my entry point on this is trying to have conversations.

I believe that in the north end we have a well-developed IB IBX program because we've created a pathway there.

We have AP programs that have developed organically.

In the south we have an AP program which has developed deliberately because we have a pathway there and we have organically growing IB programs.

So it's exactly the same it's just mirrored.

And I think it makes sense for us to leverage off of that existing structure rather than saying all of a sudden five is the magic number.

So that's my concern.

I believe that we should look at three sites or three groupings instead of five.

and based it on our IB make sure that each region has an IB and one or more AP focused options with all of our high schools trying to build out within the AP structure.

So that's the one option that I would be interested in seeing.

In addition to what's been done here and to understand the ramifications of that on the boundary work.

Director Geary.

Director Burke and I have talked about the IB option but I think the problem with considering the IB schools in the south as pathways you run up against again the fact that those principles have not been asked.

about whether or not they want to create this new influx of students that may disrupt how their IB is currently functioning.

Because of a cultural shift that they could not organically grow but was imposed upon them through a pathway designation.

I think we all.

I think we all need to do a better job of making sure everybody knows that these great options are there and we have to find the ability to commit to supporting them so that they can be offered as great options.

But I don't think that within the next month we could do the community engagement necessary around designating it as much as I did enjoy the idea of that.

Director Mack.

I think those points are really well taken and part of the reason why I think Amendment 1 would be useful and having that scenario on the table so we could have those conversations.

It would at least provide the ability to ask those questions and it was brought up in the high school task force where the principals did kind of suggest this is as one of the options.

So it's you know it's it's an opportunity to have that conversation if we make a decision now to set something we don't have the opportunity to have that conversation.

I have a question or a point of clarification.

We this evening have been talking about options number 1 2 3 and 4. Is this on the Internet under the board meeting tonight so that our folks watching at Channel 26 if we haven't put them to sleep yet.

Actually know what we're talking about.

If they Google it they will find it.

That document in the briefing paper document can be found under the materials for last week's work session because they were not official attachments to the bar.

They wouldn't be found under the regular agenda page for tonight.

We did make copies for the public in the back for those who came today.

Appreciate that.

I.

I dream about the day that we.

can do more nimble uploading and when we're talking about it.

Thank you.

I bet you do more than anyone.

OK.

It would seem to me that Amendment 1 has been moved and seconded and needs to be voted.

Roll call please Ms Shek.

Director Pinkham.

No.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director DeWolf.

No.

Director Geary.

No.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

No.

Director Harris.

Yes.

This motion has not passed by a vote of 3 to 4.

We hear another amendment to the.

Resolution on the table.

OK.

I move that the school board amend the student assignment transition plan to add the following vision statement to page 15 high school highly capable pathways beginning in the.

Which amendment is this.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

Director Geary I'm having trouble following.

Amendment to.

Thank you ma'am.

Marked as amendment to.

Sorry.

Do you want me to start all over?

Please.

I move that the school board amend the student assignment transition plan to add the following vision statement to page 15 high school highly capable pathways.

Beginning in 2021 22 school year students entering ninth grade who were identified as highly capable in the eighth grade will be assigned to their attendance area high school.

This change shall be implemented in an inclusive manner that provides sufficient courses to meet the statutory requirements for highly capable learners and provides access to advanced coursework for all students.

Second.

Thank you.

Questions comments and concerns.

Director Burke.

No.

Ms. Shek the roll call please.

Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye Director DeWolf yes Director Geary yes Director Mack no.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

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

Do we have any further amendments to the student assignment transition plan?

I have what is marked as Amendment 3 to the student assignment transition plan.

I move that the school board amend the student assignment transition plan to remove Franklin High School from the list of high school highly capable pathways as shown in the attachment to this board action.

Report.

Do we have a second.

I second.

Questions comments concerns.

Director Burke.

I'm.

nervous about the ramifications of this as sort of a last minute thing.

And as I indicated before I believe that it could also apply to Ballard High School and Roosevelt High School with different or different reasons but similar ramifications.

Director Geary and Director Pinkham and Director Patu.

I appreciate those ramifications.

This is as we've been discussing these are transitions that are going to be they're going to they're going to move culture in our city and I'm also mindful having lived through a school that ended up with a program put into it a program that is called the service that the the school wasn't adequately prepared for it.

And it caused such cultural division that I am hoping that as we were going to have to do the work around Franklin to get it ready for 21 22 anyway.

And that as we do that work the culture can be.

Fostered.

So that the blending of.

Populations becomes much.

More thoughtfully done.

By the staff within the school.

That is my purpose and I have.

I believe that when a leader comes out a building leader comes out and makes a strong request.

But says that they are willing to do the work over time that that is something that I can honor.

Director Pinkham.

Yes.

Why Jesse had mentioned that he did speak with principal Wiley and about her concerns about having basically tracks for certain students.

And I went over her email as well and understand her concerns.

Were you cc'd on her email as well and so you.

You know I guess I was hoping to maybe you can provide maybe some insight between what she had in her email that she sent out to us as well as what your conversations were with her on this about Franklin being designated as a HC pathway versus her.

I'll still offer HC services but just don't call me a pathway I guess is probably what her big concern is.

So I guess more just since you didn't see that email so I guess I'll redraw my question.

Director Patu.

So.

Franklin has highly capable students and you know they have all those different students in their school.

It's just the fact that the principal decided to be able to have a culture where all students are treated equally in terms of how they implement their academics.

And so as I have been talking quite a bit with this particular principal.

I really believe that they've been very successful for 14 years and why would I want to change that?

You know when I look at the success they've had I really believe that that school should actually be able to stay the way they are because they're making quite a progress and changing the culture of a school and as I hear what Director Geary has been saying that it takes a while for a school to get used to something they have not been used to for years.

And if she's been doing this for 14 years and they're being very successful why would I want to change the culture of a school that's actually been successful for 14 years?

So that's that's my concern and my worry in terms of us trying to shove a program into a school that's not used to it.

But yet at the same time it's a very diverse school and she's serving that group of kids very successful.

And for anything you know that's a school I would look at to actually to be able to see what is she doing right for her to serve all those kids without any special programs.

So I would hate to actually to add any program in there that actually that's going to disrupt the learning climate of that school.

Harris other comments questions or concerns.

Director Pinkham.

So if again with this plan if we do remove Franklin are we then leaving a hole there for that region that there is no HCD pathway?

Then I would ask then how do we definitely emphasize there are still advanced learning opportunities within those two schools?

our students will know hey just because I didn't get into Garfield I can still take AP classes at Rainier Beach at Franklin.

We need to really emphasize that so students don't feel like I have to go to H.C.

pathway to be an H.C.

student.

Director Geary.

I think that.

We've seen great improvement at Rainier Beach IB.

I think that that is becoming a more powerful program.

We can't forget that they have what the north doesn't have which is STEM at Cleveland.

So they have that option if they can get into it.

The south also has the combo of aviation high so they can they can access that program as a highly you know as an advanced learning opportunity.

And I think the really great news is that Franklin is is becoming sort of a hot property for Seattle Public Schools.

I think it's being seen as the place where kids who don't want to go into the Garfield a dilemma let's call it.

To go into that they don't want to go there.

They want to go someplace that feels integrated.

And so I think we are seeing change of culture and how people are talking about those schools.

But anybody who asks they have IB they have STEM and Garfield will still be there.

Something that everybody is very comfortable with.

And then we have West Seattle which we've proposed and I think that that's important.

And might we please speak about West Seattle the heads up and what the knowledge is regarding West Seattle.

No that's a question to the drafters of the amendment.

This amendment I attempted to get in touch with the principal who I have a relationship at West Seattle.

But I left West Seattle because I couldn't get in touch with them and because it had already been designated through the process that had already happened.

I didn't affect that.

I left that be.

So I left alone what had already been designated through all the processes that we had gone through in terms of community engagement and designating the pathway.

OK.

Any other comments questions or concerns.

Ms. Shek the roll call please.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director DeWolf.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

Yes.

Director Harris.

Yes.

This amendment has passed unanimously.

Madam President.

Yes sir.

I would like to make an amendment.

I would like to move that the school board amend the student assignment transition plan to remove Lincoln High School from the attendance area high school list linked to Garfield.

Do we have a second?

Were you done?

So I'll speak to that and I hate the idea of armchair quarterbacking but with the recent amendment we just added two schools to Garfield.

My community in Lincoln that would love to go to their neighborhood school and have highly capable services there is being linked to Garfield which is an awesome school.

But it's completely contrary to what we're trying to do.

We're asking these families to travel to Garfield.

at the same time we're saying we want to serve you in your neighborhood school.

Oh and by the way we also want to open up an awesome school with a 910 roll up.

So I believe that keeping Lincoln in the list linked the way it is both overloads Garfield or doesn't relieve it in the way that we're trying to relieve it especially given the recent amendment.

and also is contrary to what we're trying to do with our our vision of getting to option 4. And I say that absolutely hating to do this process from the dais which was the whole reason for Amendment 1.

Harris.

Mr. Deputy General Counsel I have a question for you sir.

If we just passed.

Amendment 3 and the table on the back of Amendment 3 has Lincoln as an attendance area high school going to Garfield.

Wouldn't the appropriate time to have brought that up be when we were discussing and voting on attendance on Amendment number 3.

So you pass the motion as I'm looking at this the attendance area schools are Franklin Garfield Lincoln and Rainier Beach.

They'll feed into the HCC.

So is the new amendment out of order is my question.

I don't believe so.

I believe that he can make the motion and clarify.

I just want to make sure the records very clear as to what you're voting on and where Lincoln would go as a pathway.

If it's not Garfield where is it going.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

And Superintendent Nyland please sir.

Somebody can check my math at home.

So Lincoln opens in 2019. So they have 9th and 10th.

This is Jesse Wyeth.

So Lincoln will open in 19 and they will open only with 9th and 10th graders.

So we are talking about the highly capable part of the state law in terms of what they would be offering for incoming 9th and 10th graders.

There might be one year that I'm missing.

The following year they would have roll up 11th graders that I guess would have to have a designation.

But after that the earlier amendment that we passed saying 21 22 would mean that they everybody would have their own pathway.

So the answer is kind of in between and that they don't.

They sort of have one and they sort of need one but it's probably in the realm of being in the spirit of the amendment to get a pathway for every school in the district.

So when it says Lincoln here in this chart it means the attendance area not the 9th and 10th graders that are going to be there.

So we're talking about and especially with this pathway these pathways drawn this way it actually is going to draw it requires that Lincoln attendance area be a lot larger.

than it normally would be.

So that the question is the number of children in the Lincoln boundary area not the number of children that would be designated to Lincoln.

Because it's those students in that area that are going to be sent over to Garfield as their pathway unless it gets pulled off.

And if it gets pulled off then where do they go?

Do they stay in Lincoln and Lincoln is designated as an HCC site?

So that's the question back to Director Burke.

If you're suggesting an amendment to pull off Lincoln attendance area students as their pathway to Garfield then where is their pathway or do they not have one?

Director Burke and then Director Pinkham.

Yes.

OK.

I think I heard the math as it was by the time we get to 2000 or 2021 they have one and it's their neighborhood school.

So really we have about a year or two of sort of bridge where doing that in the neighborhood school might have a little bit more impact more mitigation impact.

But I don't believe it's as great a mitigation impact as moving a large number of those kids to Garfield and you know back and forth.

And when we think of siblings and we think of the relationships and what's built in these schools that doesn't feel like a shift that's aligned with our values.

So yes neighborhood.

So Lincoln would be its own pathway.

Unpathway.

I'm sorry we're going to need something with a little more clarity for the record kind sir.

I'm going to look to staff on the chair to advise in the situation that this got any traction what would be your recommendation for how to build this into the four pathway model now?

We flipped a coin over here.

I'll make it brief.

Thank you.

Yep.

Yeah.

For all of us is just around this.

Here's my the practitioner.

I mean I've said this before at the board work session is by having a brand new comprehensive high school and to think that we were going to be able to put down high quality AP classes and honors right off the bat.

I'm very very very nervous around that.

Also recognizing by sunsetting and having that vision for 21 22 we can get there.

I think there would be something around.

I did hear the impact reading all the cards.

Maybe Ingram would be a better match or something like that because we can't make it Ballard and Roosevelt for capacity purposes.

So I'm just trying to put that out there I'm just trying to put facts to use as best I can.

My my nervousness is is around that and that's why we could do it at Garfield.

That was why we had made that match.

Here's another thing.

We could do more research do more things and come back for next year because the school is not opening up until 1920. That is also something to consider.

That was.

Director Mack could you share your thoughts that I just overheard here if you might please.

I'm sorry it's going to sound a little.

Young but that just doesn't seem fair to actually say that now that it's OK to like delay on these kids but we just passed it on everyone else.

So basically just you know if it's still an issue I don't think it's fair to just say we can make a decision next year.

Director Geary.

I have a question.

How many kids are we anticipating in Lincoln that would be shifting or would be identified as being highly capable.

I know how many how many.

So in terms of that question it's going to be dependent on several other factors mainly the scenario that we end up with in that particular situation.

So we haven't done all of the scenarios that we came up with so far that we've shared with the community.

have been ones that were generated by the task force.

We've done a survey for families.

We've got a bunch of feedback.

We've got a few more iterations of maps based off all that feedback to make.

And then we've got still the student assignment transition plan.

with the amendment to get approved.

So what I'm essentially saying is I don't have that answer offhand because there's a bunch of factors that have still to be decided.

OK.

I have been handed.

A sticky that says that was three minutes ago that we have 12 minutes before we have to change the tape.

Point of personal privilege.

I would like to stop the discussion here.

Give folks an opportunity to bend stretch hit the restrooms.

And as soon as.

How long does it take Nate.

Five minutes.

Five minutes back here then at.