Seattle School Board Meeting, December 6, 2017 - Part One

Here's what I wrote in the normal "Seattle Schools This Week" about the Board agenda for December 6th:

It's a relatively light agenda and that's probably good, given there are two new Board members.  

And yet, the Board took that "light" agenda and turned it into over six hours for the meeting.   

The meeting was notable for several reasons.
One, normally most Board members, unless laughing at something, have somewhat of a poker face.  There is generally not much in terms of body language.
  
But at this meeting there was sighing, hand signals, irritation in tone of voice, and at least one case of interrupting ( a fairly big faux pas for Board meetings - directors are generally courteous and wait for another director to finish speaking before talking).

Two, some real jockeying for executive board posts - president, vice-president and member-at-large.  Again, not something you see a lot.

Three, the number of times it was pointed out how long the meeting was going and yet a couple of members chose to go long on remarks.  Ditto (as per usual) for the Superintendent.  

Four, the number of directors who seemed to have done little homework on a topic before them, namely, HCC and other programs/services in high schools.  It was fascinating to listen to the debate when clearly some directors really don't know a lot of what's out there.

Five, on the other hand, we have some stellar Board members who did their homework and checked staff on a BEX issue.  I was clapping as I viewed the video on that one.  

In this Part One, I'll just do a brief highlight reel of issues and topics and then, in Part Two, get to the meat of the meeting.

The Board elections
Well, that was uncomfortable.  Director Geary ran against Director Harris, with Harris prevailing 4-3.  I have no problem with a contest but Director Geary set a tone for the evening with remarks about "what we do versus goals we agree on" and " staff may make choices to please us as individuals and we need to talk about it."  Do I know exactly what she was referencing?  I do not but clearly there's some kind of issue.

Director DeWolf nominated Director Geary and again, set the pace for his work that night, clearly aligning himself with her to the point of seeming to look to her for guidance on topics.  His nominating speech was a bit odd, given it was more about him than her.  It was unclear to me what qualities he saw in her that made him nominate her.

Director Pinkham stated that between the two of them, "there is no wrong vote."

Director Burke was then nominated for VP and got a unanimous vote.

But then, for member-at-large, Geary was again nominated and won, 6-1.  The single vote against her was Director Pinkham who pointed out that he had said he would run and no one else said they were running.  He said this was a second try at the office and he hadn't won yet.  Geary lamely tried to prop him up by saying she had thought it brave of him, in his first year, to have run for Board president and she was trying to emulate that.

Public testimony (which didn't start until an hour and half into the meeting - way too late)

There were two absolutely outstanding student speakers from Cleveland High School, representing their school's publication team, Jay Kent and Tina Dang.  Mr. Kent spoke from the speakers' mic and Ms. Dang was on the dais with the Board.  Given how polished and professional they were in their speaking, I am not surprised that their school publications are winning awards, both locally and nationally.  They spoke about the support they received from the teacher who supports their work, Teresa Scribner, who I note just won a Heroes in the Classroom award.  I predict big things for these two students.

In another stellar performance, there was Ballard High student, Avery Wagar, who was so calm and self-assured in his speaking that it was hard to believe he's only in high school. He spoke about the boundaries for Ballard High.

The speakers either spoke on:

• boundaries
• the BEX item for technology in school (all in favor of)
• HCC (and, for once, one speaker Cause Haun, actually spoke about ways to make the program better, not just about breaking it up).  Some of the speakers against HCC seemed to think they knew all the reasons parents had their students in HCC which is amazing given the district doesn't even know.  One speaker even said the nation's schools were more segregated than in the '70s (and that's HCC's fault)?  Hard to follow that reasoning. One parent suggested that HCC students in 8th grade and in current HCC pathways should be grandfathered.  I hadn't considered what new boundaries might mean for current students but if everyone isn't grandfathered at their current high school, then I would say no one should be.
• RBHS students speaking against Green Dot charter school and what its impacts would be on their school 

Board Comments (partial)

Patu said Rainier Beach High School is always the "last school to get anything."

Pinkham said that the continuing appearance of RBHS parents, staffs and students makes him believe that "they are focusing on community to create education" and he believes that is crucial and should be supported.

Geary decided - despite the fact that the topic was coming up - to speak about "the high school issue."  She said when she ran for the Board that she said she wanted to be " careful about labels and excluding and pushing to include HC Kids’ makes me so nervous that we have invested so much energy and identity in these labels.” If your kid gets the label, what does the kid who doesn’t, where do they belong and we are all responsible, we all use that language and it’s detrimential to both sides of the equation."

There are many things I could say to those statements but I'll defer it to Part Two.

She continued:

Are they bottom or the class or really HCC? Others who are bored and need more but couldn’t get the label?

She concluded:

“When you talk to me, be careful of your weddedness to labels around students."  

Just to note that one thing that Director Geary never says is that one of her own children was in HCC.  I'm not sure what their experience was but I believe it was longer than a year so I would suppose it worked for their family.  At the time.  But now it's against her belief system.

All of this took two and a half hours and the district had to (yes, really) change the videotape.

Agenda items (partial)

One item was the spending for "classroom technology" up to $1M.  This was one place where a line of questioning from a couple of directors really stood out.  (To note; we elect directors for different talents - no one director is great at all things so I don't mean this as a slam against other directors.)

Director Burke pointed out that the PO versus BAR amount with PO amount being smaller. Deputy Legal Council Cerqui explained that it gives John Krull’s Technology team “flexibility."  The PO amount is just under $600K while the BAR says "up to $1M".  Upon hearing Burke's question, my notes reflect that my immediate thought to that "up to $1M" was that it’s "a slush fund."

Burke continued to a larger concern with how SPS is implementing tech elements. He sees the "immediate benefit but we don’t have a systemic theory of action and I have asked about that."  He suggested an oversight committee like the one for BEX since tech is getting bigger.

Krull said he like that idea of oversight or taskforce and and that they do currently discuss that at BEX Oversight Committee meetings.  As someone who has attended these meetings, tech is NOT in the wheelhouse of the members of the Committee.  We need real experts for this oversight.

One key point here for directors is that teaching and learning come first, not just "let's buy some computers."  The BAR reflects that.

But Director Mack chimed in saying that she'd like to see the overall picture -
What do we have in schools now and what are gaps? I need a picture who doesn’t have carts. Where is the need greatest? 

Krull admitted that he had the same question (he has been here about a year).  But oddly, he said that staff has a map and chart of the needs.  And yet, oddly, it's not in the BAR nor was it sent to directors. 

Director Patu asked about how the choice gets made of who gets what?  Krull said there were two rollouts for blended learning and middle school science with an "application process with an equity lens based on need and readiness."    

New president Harris then said this:
Amplify science for middle school may be the best thing since sliced bread. However, given the way that this is being rolled out. Not a formal curriculum adoption.We need a thoughtful deep-dive discussion with Kinoshita. She said she was "Worried about mission creep and we can vote a million dollars and I can’t sleep at night. She said she knows there is good intent but we "don’t have technology plan with pedagogy." 

Kyle Kinoshita, head of Curriculum and Instruction, said other districts do have multi-year plans for use of technology in the classroom, noting Denver SD as an example.  He said SPS needs more "parallel planning."  

I find it interesting that the heads of these departments agree with directors and yet make no firm statements on progress in that direction or timeline.  Indeed, Burke stated that a timeline would help.

Director Mack she did not like the "squish room" in the BAR.  She said the PO was clear.

Director DeWolf then went thru a couple of clarifying question and said in terms of Mack's comment, that he "presumed staff was using best judgment" and continued, "I feel comfortable that you are doing this in the best interest of the district."

I like that vote of confidence from him for staff but frankly, in this case, I find it weird.  There's an obvious written disconnect in the BAR with dollars, it's pointed out and he just gives staff a pass?  He must be new; oh right, he is.

Then Cerqui and Krull debated numbers and said $650K would be fine.  DeWolf chimed in about "the limitation we are setting" but Krull said it was fine.  Pinkham pointed out that they are not limiting what voters voted on in BEX IV for technology.

Patu worried that the new amount "would not cover it" but Krull said it would for the pilot. Harris again worried outloud that Amplify science was NOT adopted as curriculum and that this seemed like the cart before the horse.

At this point, a man came up and spoke off mic with Krull.  I didn't recognize him and I found it off-putting that he didn't introduce himself because I'd bet some of the directors didn't know either.  (He did this twice during the meeting.)

The BAR then passed unanimously with the noted change.

The next BAR was on new technology for staff and Krull noted that "this amount is more correct than the last."  Except that again, the BAR had one figure - $5.1M - and the PO had another - $3.4M.

Krull said that they are working on giving each SEA employee a computer bag with the SPS logo on it so "some little costs might go above." Computer bags are that expensive?

But the directors let that one go and the BAR passed.

Next was the Student Transition Plan and that will be in Part Two of this thread.