Here's what the motion says:
"I move that the Seattle School Board approve the method of review of C-SIPs outlined by the Chief Academic Officer, accept the Chief Academic Officer’s certification that each school in the District has complied with WAC 180-16-220, and approve the schools within the District."
You will notice that the motion is very careful to say that the Board does not, itself, attest to the fact that each school in the District has complied with the law. No. They only vote to approve the method used by Ms Santorno to confirm the fact and they then accept her certification of it. Based on this certification, they attest to the state that each school has a plan that complies with the state law.
There is, however, no reference anywhere in the motion or in the supporting materials about Ms Santorno's "method of review". What is this "method of review" that they are approving? We don't know.
Moreover, we do know that it is highly unlikely that even ONE of the nearly 100 school Continuous School Improvement Plans complies with the requirements of the state law.
I strongly encourage you all to read the law: WAC 180-16-220.
You will see that it requires every school to have a school improvement plan, that every plan must be based on a self-review, that students and families must have an active role in the self-review, and that every plan must contain specific elements including discussions of the use of technology, educational equity, non-academic student learning and growth, and family involvement.
Most of our Continuous School Improvement Plans are missing most of these elements. All of them are missing at least one of these elements. We are unquestionably out of compliance with this law.
Of course we have been out of compliance with this law for years without notable negative consequences. So what difference does it make? The State Board of Education is supposed to enforce this law and they pointedly refuse to do so. So if the cops won't bust you for it, then it must be legal, right? At least for all practical purposes, right?
Well that sort of pragmatism will only take you so far.
There is another state law, RCW 28A.645.010. This law allows any citizen to appeal any decision of a school board to superior court. If a citizen, pretty much any citizen, pays the $200 to file in superior court and serves the District with a notice of the filing, they can challenge the Board's approval of this motion.
I know that the District staff isn't concerned about compliance with the law, and the Board isn't concerned about compliance with the law, and the State Board of Education isn't concerned about compliance with the law, but I suspect that a superior court judge might actually have some respect for the law and expect it to be followed.
By failing to comply with this law, the schools, Ms Santorno, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson, and the Board create a risk that any citizen with an axe to grind could hold up 40% of the District's budget for several months - the time it would take for the District to comply.
I have warned them of this risk for three years and I warned them again this year, yet they refuse to comply with the law. I don't know why they roll these dice.