Seattle Schools This Week

Monday, November 26th
Superintendent Banda's meeting with the Latino community from 6-8 pm at El Centro de la Raza. Feedback, concerns and questions are welcome.

Tuesday, November 27th
Work Session: Strategic Plan Guiding Principles from 4:30-6:30 pm.  No agenda available.

Work Session: Ethics Training from 6:45-7:45 pm.  (I'm not sure who this is for - the Board or staff or both.) No agenda available.

Wednesday, November 28th
School Board meeting starting at 4:15 pm.  Sign up first thing Monday morning if you want to speak. Agenda.

Action items reflect the 2013 Legislative agenda, approval of "superintendent evaluation instrument: the CSIP approvals, voting in a new Policy 1400 about Board meetings.

To note about Policy 1400, it appears the start time is to remain at 4:15 p.m.  It also changes the policy that saying that any changes in the prepared agenda may be requested by the Superintendnetn or a Board member and is approved by majority vote (and redlined out is "of the Board members present."  As you may remember, earlier this year there was a tussle over whether a Board vote was correct because of what constituted a "majority".   So I read this as it has to be a majority of the seven members rather than the majority of who is sitting at any given meeting.

Also (green is new, red is what is out):

All votes on motions and resolutions shall be by oral roll call vote except for a vote on the consent agenda, which shall be by “voice” vote. No action shall be taken by secret ballot at any meeting required to be open to the public. Except as provided in the next paragraph, a majority vote shall determine the outcome of a motion. In that regard, if a Board member abstains, the Board member’s presence counts toward meeting the quorum requirement, but does not count as a vote for or against the motion. The outcome of the vote is determined by the majority of those who voted.

An oral roll call vote of all the members of the Board is required for the election of Board officers, filling a vacancy on the Board, or for the selection of the school district Superintendent, and a majority vote of all the members of the Board is required for any person to be elected or selected as a Board officer, filling a vacancy on the Board, or for the selection of the school district Superintendent for such positions.

Intro items include contracts with labor partners Local No. 79 and No. 117, paying for a new capital program and project management software contract for $649,988 (hope it's worth it), audience participation (allowing 5 more speakers if the list grows to 35+ requests, payment to the district of $275k for a claim relating to the Silas Potter scandal*, and capital payments for Ingraham and the creation of a new elementary at Genesee Hill.  

*The Release of Claim provides for payment of $275,000 (the amount of the losses recognized by SAO, less the $5,000 deductible under the agreement).  The coverage limits are $500,000. The  WSRMP has stated that the “questioned costs” are not covered under the insurance provisions. The Release of Claim provides that the District will retain the right to seek civil recovery from former employees and any third parties that may be responsible for the losses and questioned costs.  It also provides that if a court directs restitution as a result of any criminal proceeding, the District gets to recover its $5,000 deductible first and thereafter split any recovery, 50% to the District and 50% to WSRMP, up to the amount paid by WSRMP.

The King County Prosecutor has filed charges against three individuals arising from the first report.  Those charges are still pending.  At this time the District has not decided whether to pursue civil action against any of the individuals involved in the RSBDP activities.

Saturday, December 1st
Board Retreat from 10:30 am to 5:30 pm


seattle citizen said…
"In that regard..." ? Really? In a government policy?
Charlie Mas said…
Funny story in the Times about the possibility that City University would lend some space for a downtown elementary school.

Charlie Mas said…
Dreadful op-ed in support of the levy swap idea by Representative Hunter in the Times.

Charlie Mas said…
Dreadful effort by the Seattle Times to smear McAuliffe and Tomiko-Santos.

Anonymous said…
It figures the liars of the Seattle Times are going to paint the few Big Money donors of Stand On Children who funded the 250k anti-McAuliffe crap as victims of the 80,000 member WEA, which chipped in less!

As part of non-organized faction of WEA members who think our union is seriously pathetic, it figures the WEA leadership doesn't have attack dogs to go after these liars. (They're into the noblerer smarterer From-The-Mountain-Messaging - they issued some edict some months ago, so, they aren't going to lower themselves to these incessant smears ... smears which do work.)

I have a math problem - if you out spend your opponent 17 to 1, and you get appx. 506 votes to each of their 493 votes - and you're working for the most venal people in politics, should you declare your expensive marginal votes as a mandate?

Ummmm ... is that a math problem or a political problem? I definitely

mirmac1 said…
Which development are levy voters to enrich this time?
mirmac1 said…
I encourage special education families to fill out this survey of attributes needed in a new Exec Dir of SpecEd.

Note there are some unfortunate descriptors in there that have absolutely NOTHING to do with what we need in a visionary leader. Add your own thoughts in the comments box.
Charlie Mas said…
The superintendent evaluation tool is illuminating.

The Board is giving the superintendent until the end of the school year to hire an Assistant Superintendent for Teaching & Learning and until the end of the year to hire an Executive Director of Special Education. They are willing to wait until June for those.

At least they have deadlines for those items. A lot of them have no deadlines. The absence of deadlines precludes any accountability possible.

Here's a funny bit: they want the superintendent to "Narrow achievement gaps in reading and math" especially among student groups that have a gap.

They set a deadline of April 2013 for a framework (phase I) to provide equitable access to rigor and innovative practices. This after their previous deadline of September 2012. I guess if he misses this deadline they will simply set another. And what do they mean by "(Phase I)". Why can't we expect a fully developed plan by then?

In case you're wondering where in this tool you will find "Complies with School Board policies", it is included under "Accountability".

That paragraph says:
"Accountability: Holds self and others accountable for measurable high-quality, timely and cost-effective results; determines objectives, sets priorities and delegates work; accepts responsibility for mistakes; complies with established control systems and rules; develops and implements corrective action to address audit or other compliance findings. Leads by example and communicates expectations to staff that create a culture where ethical behavior is expected."

If he just did this, then it would cover everything else. Really, this paragraph alone could be the entire tool.
Jan said…
Thanks, mirmac. I filled it out (even though my kids have graduated). I agree with you. Some of the stuff on the list seems to be so far down on ANYONE's list of the attributes we should care about . . . . We need the functional equivalent of a fireman -- because the "SPED ediface" is going up in flames.

The word that proves me "not a robot" is "boilie" -- so maybe my overwrought metaphor is less extreme than I thought.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools