Disqus

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Board Meeting Tonight

I didn't have much chance to review the entire agenda but it seems the district pays to rent space to house science materials that apparently are going to be reviewed. The district says the current space (1) changes the rental price every year and (2) is not efficient. Hello? Negotiate a multi-year contract - we are in a economy where this kind of leasing is on the buyer's side.

From the Agenda:

School Board Action Report

I move that the superintendent be authorized to execute a contract with GVA Kidder Mathews, Worldwide Real Estate Solutions/ING-Clarion Real Estate, to lease specified space for preparing instructional materials in the amount of $581,305 for five years.

ISSUE
The lease for the current space for the Science Materials Center changes annually and is currently $135,232 per year. Also, the floor plan there is not efficient. There is no space available on district property. Closed buildings are typically zoned as residential, and the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development has advised the activities
associated with a science refurbishment center are not permitted within that zoning.

(There's no space on district property? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we still own the property where the headquarters used to sit on Queen Anne? We have multiple closed buildings and they are zoned as residential? What? This is nuts. And we can afford this but not enrollment guides?)

BEST PRACTICES
At the Seattle Distribution Center site, 6795 E. Marginal Way South, there is a much more efficient space for a lower cost. We will have 1479 less square feet, and the offices are together in one place making communication more efficient. At the current site, one work station is about one-half block from the Supervisor, Xerox machine, and other needed materials.


RESEARCH AND DATA SOURCES
Sue Baugh at Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. has provided service to find a more efficient property with a better price, November 2009 to Present.


(How much did her services cost? You'll note that information is not provided.)

POLICY IMPLICATION FISCAL IMPACT/REVENUE SOURCE
Awarding the contract will Savings from reduced rental amount is allow the Instructional Services estimated at $37,800 (existing annual rent Department to continue to support $135,232 less first year annual rent teachers with instructional materials $97,432). Cost of moving the Science Materials Center to the new location is estimated at $36,840.


(So we lose the entire first year savings to moving. I think I may be missing something but this doesn't sound right to me.)

10 comments:

seattle citizen said...

I'm not positive, but the John Marshall building on Ravenna by Greenlake is not zoned residential. It has plenty of ground floor space.

Part of the problem might be loading facilities, tho', such as double doors and a loading dock, which marshall does not have. But for 500,000, maybe people could move science kits through regular doors....that money would buy a cert for five years, maybe 1.5 certs...

gavroche said...

Not sure where to post this, but Queen Anne Elementary is having its open house this Sat. March 6 at Lincoln HS (which will be its temporary location until it opens in Old Hay in 2011).

The news is that the school is going to have a tech focus (whatever exactly that means).

(Original plans to give the school an international or Montessori focus have been shelved, it appears.)

It will be an option school, which means an all-city draw, although the District will only provide transportation for kids in the QA/Mag neighborhoods.

From the school's brochure:

Queen Anne Elementary will be
home to highly qualified and
versatile staff that can meet the
demands of individual learning
styles while integrating the use
of technology. Best learning
practices and innovative
programs will be considered and
reviewed regularly to ensure that
our children are learning in a
way that will prepare them for
the future. This will be a school
where students, staff and
community work together to
explore, investigate, create and
share knowledge.
Queen Anne
Elementary
Queen Anne Elementary will be
temporarily located at the old Lincoln
High School site, 4400 Interlake Ave.
N. and will move to the permanent
location in Queen Anne in the fall of
2011.
Queen Anne Elementary is an Option
School. That means it does not have an
'attendance area' boundary. As with
any school, students from across the
City may apply during Open
Enrollment (March 1-31) to attend this
school. If there are more applicants
than spaces, tiebreakers will apply. For
2010-11, tiebreakers are sibling and
lottery. Beginning in 2011-12, a
"geographic zone" tiebreaker will be
applied. For 2011-12 the tiebreakers
will be sibling, geographic zone and
lottery.
While the school is open to students
from across the city, transportation will
only be provided for students living in
the McClure Middle School Service
area (Queen Anne and
Magnolia areas), provided
the student lives outside the
designated walk zone for the
school.
Permanent Location beginning Fall 2011:
411 Boston Street, Seattle, WA 98109
www.seattleschools.org/area/newschools/queen_anne

pjmanley said...

Anyone else grasp the irony of Board Members complaining about Judge Spector substituting her judgment for the Board?

Are they for real? Didn't they do exactly that by thwarting the overwhelming desires of the community when they adopted Discovery Math?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

dan dempsey said...

P.J.Manley nice point with: "Anyone else grasp the irony of Board Members complaining about Judge Spector substituting her judgment for the Board?"

Furthermore the Board excluded at least 300 pages of information submitted by the public. They made their decision with Zero pages of public input from letters to the board and Zero written public testimony submitted to the board.

They included a CD of testimony.

It appears that the SPS has no orderly system to collect and use public advice mailed to the board or submitted as written testimony.... So how does the board make decisions ?????

Judge Spector looked at all the evidence. The board did NOT, and the Board is appealing. Wow!!! I can hardly wait for the full information when the Board and MGJ file this appeal in Court.

Is the SPS appealing this because they feel they have a right to exclude information submitted by the public?

The judge said in her decision: "Based on a review of the entire administrative record ....."

Guess the board does not think they need to use the entire record....

WOW!!!! remanded back to the board ...
I think that means try it again but do it right.....

Does the appeal mean????? NO we the "SPS Board" do not wish to do it right!!!!

Have I missed something ???? or is this just Unbelievable !!!

Only in Seattle ... I hope.

SPS mom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dan dempsey said...

SPS Mom.... great point about "remove the Board Procedure C40.01 on testing? Language about tests needing to be valid or reliable is being removed."

Consider this ... in the transcript of the 1/26/10 Hearing before Judge Spector is the District's attorney Shannon McMinimee saying that the Math WASL is not a valid measure of a students math skills or something to that effect.

So what is all this testing about?

I mean other than Vendor Profits.

another mom said...

Melissa,
The old A&S Center at the foot of Q.A. is gone. The District sold the property years ago and it is now a retirement community--a huge complex.

SPS mom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dorothy Neville said...

SPSMom, if this is the policy discussed during the December C&I committee meeting, then yes, I believe that is the intent. I thought they were going to call the revision an assessment policy instead of its former title of Testing policy.

I was there. I think I was the only parent there. It was the meeting where I got PSAT scores. One of the other things discussed was updating an archaic testing policy. Removing procedural language, especially for procedures that were out of date. It was relatively routine except for two comments. One, by DeBell, said that by having something written a certain way would allow for assessments to be used to measure teacher performance. Another was Enfield said something about how the revised assessment policy would ensure fidelity of implementation.

I didn't exactly follow either piece of "logic" but there you are. DeBell, Carr and Martin-Morris were present at that point. (DeBell left when the meeting was scheduled to end. The other two stayed around to try to argue the BMI stuff, but I don't think they got anywhere. Staff was stubborn and clueless and obnoxious about it, imo.)

SPS mom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.