Seattle Preschool Agreement with Seattle Schools - No

I'll lead with this - I urge you to write to the Seattle School Board and tell them to say NO to the agreement witht he City's preschool plan at Wednesday night's Board meeting. 

SPSDirectors@seattleschools.org

I'll say right now that if this is approved, the district will rue the day they signed onto it.  It is NOT in the best interests of the district and gives the City much more power and control than is necessary.

It is a difficult thing to keep up with the machinations of the City and certain SPS staff over the agreement with the City to allow their program to be part of about 12 SPS preschools (both new to SPS facilities and ones currently operating under other providers). 

I will note that Director Peters wrote an amendment believing the Agreement had been ironed out by the time the Executive Committee met.  Indeed, if you look at the version presented at that meeting, you can see the strike-outs and rewrites.

But the current version on the Board meeting agenda for this Wednesday?  The Agreement has been altered in very substantial ways since the Executive Committee meeting last Thursday.

(As well, the exhibits are not yet available and it is just ridiculous.)

As well, this is what the head of Early Learning, Cashel Toner, told the members of the Executive Ctm last Thursday (partial but to my point):

You may feel frustrated that some things have been moving too fast, or that this process hasn’t been perfect, when you feel this way remember: This is new work for two large, complex organizations…and that this is the right work. This work aligns to our strategic plan, it is research based, and it is courageous work. 

Look, it IS the job of the Board to hold up the stop sign if things are "moving too fast" and/or if they believe all the concerns, both their own AND from the public, have not been addressed.  That's not asking for "perfect" from anyone; that's doing their duly-elected job.

But the big news is that SPS staff erred in how they presented the issue of an Agreement to the Board.  They have - all along - made it sound like the Board had to agree to the plan.  Here's what Toner told the Board:

When we shared the documents with you in June we said that we would share boiler plate information prior to your approval of the document. We learned that we spoke prematurely. The boiler plate language that we typically develop with the Families and Education Levy does not require approval. We will email you draft boiler plate language after this evening but your approval is not required to make a decision about the Seattle Preschool Program on 8/19 or to accept the terms and conditions in the document. I apologize for the confusion. We had lengthy conversations to understand the various documents and how they relate to one another. After our review of the documents and our past practice, this document does not go to the board for approval. 

What they DO want the Board to approve is accepting the City money for the program, not approving the agreement.  

So let's see what has changed in this Agreement from Thursday to yesterday.
1)   pages 4-5 - HUGE student privacy issue here.  They note that "student education" (I think they left off the word "files" because it was there in the last version) will be kept separately from student health records that the district created based on City requirements.  It's a "screen" of things like Early Screening Inventory.  However, the way it is worded - vaguely worded - it says the district will also maintain "current and confidential health files on all enrolled children."

The issue is - as it has been - is that FERPA and HIPAA do NOT overlap.  Those health files?  If they are created at school, they fall under FERPA and that means the district or City could decide who gets to see that information.

2) It appears that the district, unlike other providers, will NOT be eligible to apply for "City funding for facilities improvements, et. al."  So free rent AND the District isn't eligible for these funds?

3) The Termination section? Gone.  And this was something that President Carr went on and on about, both at the last Board meeting and the Executive Ctm meeting - that if it wasn't working, the district could get out.

The original language said that either party could terminate the agreement at the end of a quarter term with 60 days notice.  And,

In addition, the District may terminate this Agreement at any time if it determines that such action is necessary for the health, safety, or education of students or staff.

A very clear out.  But the new version? Gone, completely gone.

What is there is under Dispute Resolution:

Both parties agree that in instances that may arise due to unforeseen conflicts between District and City policies, procedures, and/or practices, the District and City will meet in good faith to resolve the conflict and come to a mutually agreeable resolution.

Sorry but for a pilot program in a cash-strapped, capacity-challenged district that should be a big NO. 

4) What they added was a section on "Quality of Performance:"

At any time during the term of the Agreement, if the Director determines the Agency is not performing the Work in a manner likely to achieve the outcomes and indicators established in the Agreement, the Director and District senior administration will meet to develop a plan for corrective action is necessary for the health, safety, or education of students or staff. with a timeline to address identified concerns in Work performance. Failure to follow the terms of the corrective action plan shall constitute a material breach of the Agreement and cause for termination in the City’s discretion as described in Section 550 of the General Terms and Conditions.

 The district is the "Agency" in this case and (Big Daddy) City is the one in control.  Of programs that DEEL's Holly Miller told the Board are "the district's programs."  Not by a long shot.

This is no partnership between two governing entities in a city.  This is a hard, cold business deal and one that the district is getting the raw end. 

This is not right.

It is not fair to the Board Directors (three of whom were NOT at the Executive Committee meeting, did NOT hear the discussion and may not even be aware of the changes.

It is not fair to parents or the public who may be trying to track this issue who deserve the right to have information in a judicious manner.  I should not be the public's last stand for timely information.

To the other issues:

1) K-12 is the district's state-required and state-funded mandate.  That our district struggles with mission should tell us all something.  Would having more students come into kindergarten better prepared help that mission?  Of course, but this is a pilot for a completely new (and longer day) preschool program. I do agree that it has to start somewhere but the district cannot allow the City's desires to take control over what the district does.

2) While having preschools on-site facilitates the flow to kindergarten, some truly disturbing things have been said about that.  From previous Executive Committee minutes at a meeting held in the spring (I had this in a previous thread):

Ms. Toner noted some of the project-based learning that is successful for 3-4 year old children, sometimes take a shift in practice, and can help students surface what their interests are, which is considered a “shifting practice” for some teachers. Mr. Knapp noted one of the techniques for dealing with that kind of phenomenon is to have the preschool teacher move up with kids therefore there is not an adjustment period, which is not necessarily required, but may be a best practice to look into. 

Wait,what?  It would appear that Ms. Toner is saying that kindergarten teachers will need some kind of professional development in "shifting" and that the City's way of teaching is somehow better than what SPS is currently doing?  And Knapp is saying that may preschool teachers should become kindergarten teachers? 

3) Facilities.  The City initially said this:

WHEREAS, the District has desirable facilities for preschool instruction and expertise in the education of Seattle’s youth and many convenient locations for families conducive for preschool instruction;  

Yes, those district locations are highly desirable AND convenient.  Especially when you don't have to pay rent.

I'll pause here to explain that there is Board policy on the use of buildings.  The policy is not news to me to how it has played out is.  Apparently, our district - our cash-strapped district - does not charge any of the preschool or before-and-after school groups/companies rent for district space. 

Not one single dollar.  The district does not charge rent so naturally, the City thinks it shouldn't be charged either.  It certainly does help their bottom line and you have to wonder who, at the district side, is worrying about the district's bottom line.  There was not one single word from senior staff at the Executive Committee meeting about thinking about charging rent to anyone.

Q: How will Seattle Schools prioritize space use?
A: Seattle Schools is developing a menu of options for prioritizing limited space for K-12 needs. We expect to have a draft of this document at the Executive Committee meeting next week.

Here's that menu and if you can tell me exactly what it means, I'd appreciate it. Because it says a lot of things but it really doesn't give much real understanding of "prioritization."

Seattle Public Schools has several challenges in trying to meet the needs of all students within our current buildings. However, the physical capacity of our buildings is not able to continue to house all current preschool providers, before and after care providers and meet our K-12 instructional needs. Future use of classroom space needs to be thoroughly vetted and prioritized before approving use that might otherwise be needed for K-12 instruction. To that end, the following is a draft list of prioritization based on policy, agreements and past practice(s) for leased spaces.

1) Seattle Public Schools P-12 programs – This applies to all Seattle Public School programs from Special Education Preschool to 18-21 year-old transition programs. The number one priority is for enrolled Seattle Public School Students.

2) Pre-School Providers – Because preschool requires dedicated space (and licensing); there are limited options for running a program within Seattle Public Schools buildings. Preschools have been allowed in several buildings and all preschools located within SPS buildings fall under the Community Alignment Initiative.

a. Seattle Pre-School Program (SPP).

b. Non-SPP
3) Before and After Care Providers – Before and After Care providers have a bit more flexibility in

where they may be able to have their program within a building. Before and after care also requires areas of use to be licensed as such, but they can and do occur in multi-use spaces throughout some of our buildings. The one caveat to this is that the current Joint Use Agreement with the Seattle Parks Department does have Parks prioritized after SPS programs in terms of hourly rental agreements. I believe the main concern would be around secondary gymnasium use, especially in the winter months.