Seattle School Board Meeting on Wednesday

This meeting could be interesting for a number of reasons.

One, it is likely the last one where we will see Superintendent Banda up there on the dais with the Board.  (The Sacramento School Board is scheduled to vote July 17th and this Seattle School Board meeting is the last until August 20th.)  It may be awkward (to say the least) as the Superintendent is now the lamest of lame ducks.  Does the Board say farewell publicly or throw him a quick party after he makes the final announcement on his departure?

Two, as usual, the agenda has got some items that stand out. 

The Disciplinary Appeal Council item stands out precisely because it seems like a very low-key group given what it does (hears student discipline appeals).  It's 15 volunteers that serve 3-year terms and are appointed by the the Board.  Oddly, I don't recall ever hearing for requests for volunteers nor who is actually on this council.  It's made up of one-third principals, one-third community members (with the citation "including school board members") and one-third teachers. 

The staff reviewed this policy but it still seems rather vague.  How does this Council operate?  When does the Board solicit for volunteers?

The action item on Student Fees has been updated to reflect that Food Service Charges are to remain "constant." 

The item on the SIG grant for Rainier Beach High School shows the same amount in the grant - $4.3M - but it also now contains this language:

Upon review of the impact of an extended school day at Rainier Beach High School on our recently adopted transportation standards to be implemented in 2014–15, we anticipate the need for $224,000 from district funds for the 2014 – 2015 school year to cover an additional four (4) special education buses. By moving to a 7-hour, extended student day as part of the SIG grant, Rainier Beach High School will shift school departure into Transportation Tier 2, requiring the four additional buses. Each bus is budgeted at $56,000 for the school year. 

That $224K is coming from the General Fund.  Where will this money come from?  As well, "recently adopted transportation standards?"  Those were adopted months ago.

The item for Athletic Trainer Support Services should, in my opinion, be summarily rejected.  Why?  Because it is an Intro/Action item that is not an emergency.  I am baffled why it got to the Operations Ctm. so late and now needs this rush.  The Board should not be allowing this kind of action, particularly without explanation (and there is none in the BAR).

Then there is the Race to the Top BAR for the Seattle Teacher Residency.  I finally read thru the agreement and see some troubling language in there.

The training sites for STR are:

Hawthorne

John Muir

Leschi

Madrona

Olympic Hills

 

What I find troubling is that the district (and the UW College of Education) say that "traditional teacher training" "is not adequate to address the problem of low student achievement in Seattle's high need schools."  So if UW isn't doing it right now, how does the district know they will get it right thru this agreement?  The document praises UW but says:

 

“A need still exists to create district-specific and deeply embedded models of teacher preparation. "

Reading on:

As a result, many teachers enter the classroom unprepared to work with high-need students and may not have the knowledge of community and culturally relevant pedagogy that will enable them to teach effectively in these schools.  

There are concerns expressed over the low retention of teachers at high-need schools, teacher isolation and the demographics of the student population not reflected in the teaching corps.  But isn't that about the culture of a school and the numbers of people who go into teaching?  

What this agreement seems to be is development of a program only for our district and only for high-needs schools.  I had honestly thought this was a program to attract different kinds of candidates into teaching.  To be in the program, you have to commit to six years in high-need schools (and no others).  

The district will be comparing these STR teachers with other teachers in high-need schools to see who does better.  The STR teachers will be matched with a mentor teacher (all mentor teachers get $300 a month for this work).  Plus, the mentors will have one full day each month for professional learning. 

The candidates are 60% of color (15) -  four are Asian/Pacific Islander, six are African-American, one is Latino, four are multi-racial and 10 are white.  There are no Native American candidates.

There is this language which seems to imply a lot of work by many people:

Creating a new pipeline of teaching talent specifically trained and committed to improving student achievement requires numerous actions by a multitude of teams and individuals. 

Hires include a program director, recruiting and admissions coordinator, field director, curriculum coordinator.

They call what they want to do for students "personalized" learning but it sounds a lot like differentiation.  

So far most of SPS' financial commitment is HR "in-kind" services but we will see that explode up to $1M in about three years. 

 

Hey and look what made it to an action item - Bell Times Analysis.

 

I do like this part:

 

Revenue Source: TBD – The potential impact on other priorities may be mitigated if third party resources are acquired to support the analysis (see Staff Analysis section). If not, funds may need to be shifted from other priorities.

 

One last item of note: the action on submitting an application for the Federal Reserve building.

The U.S. Department of Education has established requirements for submittal of an application, which include that the school district adopt a resolution naming an individual who is authorized to negotiate and execute documents to acquire the property. They have advised that without a resolution to that effect, the District’s application will be rejected. Additionally, the city of Seattle was originally going to be the applicant for this building. However, after conversation with staff between the City of Seattle and Seattle Public Schools, it was determined that Seattle Public Schools should be the applicant, which was deemed acceptable by U.S. Department of Education. These changes did not lend themselves to meeting the typical timeline for Board agenda submission as a July 3, 2014 deadline for application submission was not allowed to be extended. 

The application also requires specific provisions that will mean the substantial long term commitments by the District: 

The District will promptly commence construction to convert the building to a school. To do so will require that funds be dedicated from either the BTA IV levy plan or legislative action, to pay the costs. While legislative action could happen sooner, the BTA levy is expected to be voted on by the voters in February 2016. 

The application also requires a commitment to continue use of the site for the intended purpose (a school) for 30 years, or it can be reacquired by the federal government. Funding for these activities will need to be included in the annual operating budgets for that period. 

Oddly, that last paragraph does NOT include the notation that after a 30-year use period that the district owns the building and the property outright.  Might have been a key fact to state.